------- THE DMCA -- INTENDED TO CREATE what he called ''a stable, predictable legal environment'' that would boost the availability of intellectual property on the Internet -- had ''sadly'' failed for music, Hatch said. Instead of licensing their music to new e-businesses, the senator explained, the labels had kept it locked up in their vaults, cutting deals only to entities they control. Then, dropping the first of several warnings to the industry, Hatch argued that ''a policy of merely cross-licensing among major-label related entities might raise some competition concerns that this committee would have to consider'' -- in other words, an antitrust inquiry. -------
basically, I think that Orrin thought he was helping an industry and giving them twhat they wanted and needed. Now they are clearly abusing his good will and making him look like a fool.
THe way that the recording industry is acting is extremely childish, amoral, and probably illegal. The tactics they are using could very well be considered "Racketeering", and Orrin probably doesnt want to contribute to that.
I also dont think that Orrin is a dumb man. He has some views and ideas that I strongly disagree with, but I think that he can see when an industry is acting a bunch of toddlers.
He can also see when they are abusing they're positions.
right... evil has no form, no essence.. thats pretty well agreed upon...
So I agree with you when you say that there is nothing inherently evil by its nature, because evil has no nature.
THe way that evil has to be defined in this context is that it is the absence of a good that should be there.
The reason that I would say that Interfering with someones self-autonomy is that this is removing one of the essences of humanity.
From a philosophical standpoint, humanity is defined as possessing free-will and intellect. Both of these are "Good"
If you use your free will to interfere with my free will, you are doing an evil thing, because you are removing a good that should be there.
Of course, this interference has to be looked at in its own context. If you are interfering with me climbing up into a bell tower and shooting people, then the interference is probably a good thing (tm)
anyway... gotta love when the Jesuit schooling comes out to play...
I'm pretty sure that I'm feeding a troll here, but anyway...
The comparison is not to the genetic characteristic, it is the comaprison to the "moral crusade" against any group of people that is perceived to be different.
That includes Homosexuality, Drug Use, Violent Video Games, whatever... Society as a whole has decided to brand these people as "EVIL" because they do not fit in to the norm of society.
There is NOTHING inherently evil about any of the activities that there are insane movements against. Nothing. Drugs are Drugs.. they arent good or evil, they just are. Video games are just games.
But once you start persecuting a subculture because they are not normal, or doing things that you simply do no agree with, you are falling into fascism.
It could be easily said that being "Jewish" isnt hereditary, and that you could consider this a "changeable human property", but that didnt stop 7 million people from being slaughtered.
Damnit... I've brought up a Nazi comparison... according to Usenet rules, that makes this thread pretty much dead, doesnt it?
Hmmm... replace "Mutant" with "Drug User", and you pretty much have the drug war.
Or Replace "Mutant" with "Homosexual"
Or for "Violent Video Gamer"
This movie is shaping up to be a large socio-political statement. I hope that people can see the insanity in the movie and apply it to real life.
Look at this list of warning signs that your child may be a mutant. They seem to mirror the warning signs that your child may be using drugs, depressed, violent, whatever...
I am always amazed at the deep social commentary that is intentionally placed into art that most people overlook. What better way to raise awareness on how we treat our kids than in a comic-book styled movie? Seems harmless enough, but the messages are there, just slightly hidden.
you really advocate limiting voting and decision making power into the hands of/fewer/ people?
How few?
Limited by education? Limited by taking a test? Limited by what?
Some places have very limited democracies. They're called/dictatorships/. We dont like those.
Whats going on is a recurrence of what has happened when a new "class" has been empowered to vote in this country - the status quo is being challenge and is scared.
Online voting now better enables the people that were too lazy to go out and vote, but cared enough to compose rants on the internet.
It gives bite to our bark.
Arizona had its largest voter turnout in recent state history with internet voting. This scares the hell out of the politicians and those in control - they have an entirely new set of issues to deal with, because there are an entirely new demographic voting.
A very good example of increasing voter turnout causing unexpected results - Jesse Ventura - this is a state that had motor-voter registration, and Jesse managed to mobilize a large amount of disenchanted voters with common sense and straight talk.
/That/ is what this is about - losing control and predictability.
its a commonly held fact that you need to capture only 10-15% of the total populations votes in order to be elected president.
Think about it. Not everyone is registered to vote. I think that its something like 50% right there.
Voter turn-out of registered voters is less than 50%.
That means that 25% of eligible voters are voting in presidential elections. So what do you need to win? 12.5% of eligible voters need to vote for you.
This is the principle that the "Christian Coalition" and the "Christian Right" are founded on. Yes, they are a very small minority, but they will all vote, and since they will all vote, they have power.
Ever notice that a lot of the pandering goes to older people? Wonder why? The senior citizens know the importance of voting, and vote.
If "we" are unhappy about the way things are going, "we" need to get all of "us" out to vote. There are enough of us to make a difference, and to be heard. If elected officials start fearing for their job security, our itches will be scratched.
We can change this country and its laws using the existing system, but the key is - we have to USE it.
So - if you are over 18, and an american citizen, I suggest that you go vote this year.
come on... computers do not work wonderfully at all...
And until we put together an additional abstraction layer on top of the current filesystem (hide the ickiness of files from the end user).
Seriously, users dont care about file systems, or file system structure, they just want their work to be where they put it when they last worked on it.
We, as programmers and tech-people, have grown accustomed to the ways that computers act and expect us to act. Currently computers force humans to act less like people and more like machines.
And computers are rude.
I'm sure that you have filled out an application for a video store. When you are done with it, does the piece of paper jump up and scream out "You need to put a credit card number here, or I wont let you give me to the clerk"
Nor does it ask - what would you like to name me?
Thats the lunacy of our current "filesystem" we've got to name EVERYTHING. We dont name everything in real life.
If I am drinking a can of soda, and I set it down, I dont need to save it as "mysoda7-7-00.pop" and then neatly place it in a file cabinet, or risk it disappearing and all traces of me drinking it removed from my body - thats the contradiction that faces users and current file systems. They must save all the time, because the comuter is not like the real world, the computer will forget what you have done.
I set the damn thing down, and it stays there, nicely maintaining its state (ok, it may get warm and flat, but suspend disbelief with me here).
But the important thing here is, it didnt ask for a name. The can will be where I put it (ignore outside forces) and will stay there, in its current state until I drink more of it, throw it out, or spill it on the ground.
Soda Cans dont need names. Neither do term papers (I am writing a paper on gravitational mechanics, I shall call it "Newton").
The point here, is that computer systems force people to think in ways that are completely un-natural and non-logical. The words "AND/OR" mean exactly opposite between real life and computers.
The excuses that we as developers, designers and implementers use to perpetuate these anomalies are poor. "The user isnt computer literate" "That a training issue" "You arent supposed to do it like THAT"
computer literacy is a joke, normal people dont want to be "computer literate", no more than we want to be "Accounting Literate".
Yes, it may interest some people, but most people only care that the accounting department gets their paycheks right. They dont demand that everyone is "Accounting Literate" in order to get a correct paycheck.
Likewise, we should not force users to become "computer Literate" if all they want to do is produce a Term Paper. Writing a term paper should not involve fiddling with operating systems, playing with the file system, launching applications, saving and storing copies of the "document".
These are all things that should be transparent to the user. All they want to do is do their term paper, and not muck about in computer hell for hours.
we really have to stop forcing user's to bend their actions and thought patterns around our implementations.
The very real problem with current user interfaces is that they still force people to become "computer Literate" which really means that they have to learn nuances and terminology and procedures that the inner workings of a computer use.
Its not "natural". File systems, databases, MP3 catalogs, are all differently organized IRL than on a computer.
Lets look at music. Where is your "Britney Spears" CD? Me? Mine's in my car, in the elbow rest in the front seat.
My mp3 files are on portman@grits:/home/ender/music/mp3s/annoyingmusic /britney/oopsididitagain
The mp3 files are "organized" in a manner that only an incredibly anal person would organize their CD's. How many people do you know have all of their CD's labelled, catagorized, alphabetized, and all in the same spot.
The point here, is that the computer gives you all sorts of information pertaining directly to the MP3's, but none of it is really helpful to someone not computer literate.
If I were to tell you to go into my car, on the front seat, look for the jewel case with the sexpot on the front, and bring it to me, how many "normal" people would be able to find it as compared to telling someone to find it on my computer.
Currently, computers are great at storing data, but not at describing the data in real terms. Most of the time we categorize items in terms of things that have nothing to do with the data contained, but we limit ourselves with storing data on a computer only by the actual data items - part number, ISBN, whatever, and not things that are inately helpful.
Until a better file/data system is divised, the UI will not improve.
As a matter of fact, the typical user should not need to know what a "file" is or a "database". They just want to listen to music, write a term paper for Biology class, email Aunt Helga, look at pr0n on the web, play a game, whatever.
But notice, these things were not "create a file in MS Word format that will contain my biology report". We may think in terms of files and data, but they think in terms of actions and events.
In St. Thomas Aqunias' Summa Theologica, he outlines one of the "proofs" that god exists as a principle called "Order and Design".
He says that the order and design behind nature points to a sentient force creating it with a structure in mind.
This structure can be expressed in mathematics. (Mathematics is the language of nature... nature... 1.. 1.. 2... 3.... 5... 8...)
Viewed in this context, "unexplainable" things detract from the "proof" of existence of god. Unless of course you believe that the abnormalities are either
1) actually part of the pattern created, and we just cant see how yet.
2) Intervention by god (miracles)
However, if the chaotic events are just random, with no order or meaning, and you use this to dispell the notion of God, then you have fallen into Descarte's world, and cant prove anything outside of your own mind, because there is no certainty of anything.
Moral imperatives never really seemed correct to me... I prefered more of the Nichomachaen Ethics as a general rule for morality, and St Thomas Aquinas for a basis of philosophy and Theology...
Yes... it figures i went to a Jesuit university first, followed by a Franciscan one...
And let me tell you that I dont particularly like the Franciscan theory on everything... Once he gets into time being a figment of our imagination, i had to start heavily questioning him...
And I agree that Utilitarianism is a pretty crappy moral standard... Yet is the "official" morality of the US government... go figure...
However, I also have faith in people as a whole, and rely on historical evidence that no matter how much control and authority is exerted, by whatever group, that the change brought about by technology and advancement will overpower any group that stands in its way.
Look at "A modest Proposal" by Paine. Without the "technological revolution" of the printing press, this would have never been distributed. Even though the birtish powers that be were the most powerful of its day.
The Industrial revolution changed society as we know it, and displaced the old status quo, replacing it with a new. Even though there was much fighting and reluctance to accept the changes.
The true answer to any industry is to accept the changes that are occuring in the market, or political environment, and change your ways to utilize these new mechansims.
Not fight them. By fighting them, they will only become stronger, and more widespread, and more people will know whats going on.
ANd then the companies will have to fight harder... Its an negative-feedback loop, and the ones fighting it will end up losing...
look... the future of the web is going to be just fine...
the RIAA and such (MPAA, Mothers against anything Fun, whatever) represent the mainstreaming of the web.
They want to remain relevant. Right now, the only way to distribute CD's and whatnot is to go through them. Very few record stores have the buying power and independence to buy anything outside of the major record labels. Tower and Border's are notable exceptions.
All of a sudden, this whole internet thing removes the need for their insane distribution. All of a sudden a scarce commodity (CD's, shelf space) has turned into a product where there is NO scarcity, and 0 marginal cost, that is, it costs nothing to produce another MP3.
Being made completely irrelevant is not somethign that people take kindly too... so they are going to fight this every single inch of the way...
ANd they will still lose. Why? Because they are attacking and accusing and criminalising the very people that they wish to have as their customers. This isnt about "protection" or "artists" its about maintaining the status quo.
When industries, countries, whatever, have more interest in maintaining something that is old, just because it used to be that way, they begin to decline, because they are busy fighting progress instead of making progress.
So what heppens is the world moves on to newer and better ways of distibuting music and media, while the record companies are left holding their traditional, outmoded forms, that people will cease to use.
Dont worry, these people will self destruct in the end... its just a matter of time...
It used to be that Big Blue and their mainframes ruled the land of computers.
ONE of their computers fulfilled the needs of your business. They provided hardware and software support, and all you had to do was pay a monthly (exorbinant) fee to have IBM take care of all your data in this one central location.
What stopped this? The PC revolution. Microsoft took over computing because they offered greater flexibility, personalization and control?
Now they're going to try IBM's model?
Why on earth would you attempt that again?
We'll see. I dont think that I'd be happy if all of my data - my resume, budget, expenses, etc. - were sitting on a hard drive other than the one on my desk.
And I dont think that a whole lot of people will be, either...
THe problem with specifications, is exactly its benefits.
When WYSYWYG interfaces, someone point out that not only is What You See Is What You Get, but also that What you see is ALL you get. This means that while you can see on the surface what document or page or whatever that your creating, and how its looking, but thats all your going to get, nothing else, no more, no less.
Take example a standard graphics program like the GIMP, and compare it to POVRay. The GIMP's WYSYWIG interface is really slick, but with POVRay, you can create ray traced images that would be next to impossible in a WYSYWYG environment, but you dont get to see the exact creation before its done.
With programming, a formalized, structured process ensures that the program will give you what you want, but it will never provide more than that.
True "Innovation" will never occur. No one may spot the flaw in the security model, no one may realize that 40-bit encryption is a bad way to protect DVD's from being copied, no one may predict that a Record-Industry defined "secure" file will only be effective for a couple of.. minutes?
But by setting Goals, but allowing for large amounts of flexibility of the Programmers allows for products to be delivered that are not only Programs that meet their requirements, to Products that truly meet their needs.
And trust me, clients requirements and their needs are almost always two completely separate things.
Use Gnumeric as an example - the author did what? Copied Excel. What did excel do? Copied Lotus? Lotus? They copied VisiCalc.
But the question remains, these products are meeting requirments, but are they really meeting the NEEDS of the people that use them. Couldnt someone have thought of a better way of setting up a spreadsheet? Making the formulas? Hell, why are there formulas at all?
But I'm sure you get the point.
Linux may not have the strict methodology that modern business management and Quality Testing require, and that, is exactly why it ends up with higher quality products in a shorter amount of time.
ever go to the supermarket and use your "shoppers club" card?
Every single instance of a club that saves you a nominal amount of money does so in order for them to better market their products to YOU. You save some money so you will spend much more later.
ever use a Credit Card? Yep, they track purchasesd, too.
Buy with a check and they use a check scanner? same thing.
Free email service? you have to provide your info.
Free Registration on any site? Yep, same thing... You are getting "valuable" content just for giving up your information. It may not be cash, but you are selling it anyway.
it was called "The cartoonist Guide to Computers" - i cant rememeber the author right off....
My cousin that went to lehigh gave it to me when i was 12. apparently, the book was being used by lib. arts students to get a grasp of the technical courses.
It was presented in a humorous, light, yet incredibly informative way... It traced the history of computing, from abacuses to differential engines, and made the whole thing very interesting.
And, it had a good level of detail in it. It wasnt a gloss over the topic and pretend they've covered it. It went into boolean and gating fairly extensively.
as per the court order. So this means that the applications group will have to use the same API's and tools that the rest of us use. Proprietary extensions will be hard to do, because the application group will not be able to leverage them. Of course, with MS's trustworthiness, there probably will be all sorts of behind the doors collusion going on.
b. After Implementation of the Plan and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business shall be prohibited from:
i. merging or otherwise recombining, or entering into any joint venture with one another;
ii. entering into any Agreement with one another under which one of the Businesses develops, sells, licenses for sale or distribution, or distributes products or services (other than the technologies referred to in the following sentence) developed, sold, licensed, or distributed by the other Business;
iii. providing to the other any APIs, Technical Information, Communications Interfaces, or technical information that is not simultaneously published, disclosed, or made readily available to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs; and
iv. licensing, selling or otherwise providing to the other Business any product or service on terms more favorable than those available to any similarly situated third party.
Section 2.b.ii shall not prohibit the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business from licensing technologies (other than Middleware Products) to each other for use in each others' products or services provided that such technology (i) is not and has not been separately sold, licensed, or offered as a product, and (ii) is licensed on terms that are otherwise consistent with this Final Judgment.
Feudalism, eh? Do you lease your computer? Is your clothing rented? Just because you have the choice to borrow your stuff from companies for small monthly fees doesn't mean that you _have_ to.
Yes, feudalism... While it is true that you can purchase any of the mentioned items for cash, the computer can be leased, the clothes can be purchased on a credit card - which if the only the minimum payment is made, you will pay multiples of the original price. So, it is very easy so you dont actually "own" anything"
For example: You can lease a car. At the end of the lease, you have no equity in it at all (unless you choose to buy the car, which I'll ignore for this part of the example), but because you leased it, you were able to drive a nicer car than you could afford if you bought it outright, which is the point. You are offered the choice of driving a Lexus ES300 on Toyota Camry payments. And if you choose to buy, you have made another choice.
At what point does Toyota own you? Does a three year lease mean "forever"?
It becomes "forever" because you do not own anything at the end of the three years, and, probably will go to lease another car for another three years, ad nausaeum.
The point here is that if you owe money to someone, anyone, you are not "free" to do as you see fit, and must sacrifice your time in the form of working in order to pay off this debt.
People who borrow, lease or owe people money will never be able to be completely free. By limiting our options to outright purchase items, large corporations are enslaving us for our lifetimes.
Slashdot Mirror
wheeelahhhh...
well... if i started making references to pouring grits down natalie portman's pants while smoking $3 crack rocks...
could we continue this thread?
Here's a good quote -
-------
THE DMCA -- INTENDED TO CREATE what he called ''a stable, predictable legal environment'' that would boost the availability of intellectual property on the Internet -- had ''sadly'' failed for music, Hatch said. Instead of licensing their music to new e-businesses, the senator explained, the labels had kept it locked up in their vaults, cutting deals only to entities they control. Then, dropping the first of several warnings to the industry, Hatch argued that ''a policy of merely cross-licensing among major-label related entities might raise some competition concerns that this committee would have to consider'' -- in other words, an antitrust inquiry.
-------
basically, I think that Orrin thought he was helping an industry and giving them twhat they wanted and needed. Now they are clearly abusing his good will and making him look like a fool.
THe way that the recording industry is acting is extremely childish, amoral, and probably illegal. The tactics they are using could very well be considered "Racketeering", and Orrin probably doesnt want to contribute to that.
I also dont think that Orrin is a dumb man. He has some views and ideas that I strongly disagree with, but I think that he can see when an industry is acting a bunch of toddlers.
He can also see when they are abusing they're positions.
right... evil has no form, no essence.. thats pretty well agreed upon...
So I agree with you when you say that there is nothing inherently evil by its nature, because evil has no nature.
THe way that evil has to be defined in this context is that it is the absence of a good that should be there.
The reason that I would say that Interfering with someones self-autonomy is that this is removing one of the essences of humanity.
From a philosophical standpoint, humanity is defined as possessing free-will and intellect. Both of these are "Good"
If you use your free will to interfere with my free will, you are doing an evil thing, because you are removing a good that should be there.
Of course, this interference has to be looked at in its own context. If you are interfering with me climbing up into a bell tower and shooting people, then the interference is probably a good thing (tm)
anyway... gotta love when the Jesuit schooling comes out to play...
Ok... I think that the only thing that could truly be considered evil is when you take actions taht interfere with other's self-autonomy.
That is, if you take away their freedom, life, liberty, pursuit of natalie portman, whatever.
This is an interesting philosophy that most major religions are founded on, but none of them follow.
I'm pretty sure that I'm feeding a troll here, but anyway...
The comparison is not to the genetic characteristic, it is the comaprison to the "moral crusade" against any group of people that is perceived to be different.
That includes Homosexuality, Drug Use, Violent Video Games, whatever... Society as a whole has decided to brand these people as "EVIL" because they do not fit in to the norm of society.
There is NOTHING inherently evil about any of the activities that there are insane movements against. Nothing. Drugs are Drugs.. they arent good or evil, they just are. Video games are just games.
But once you start persecuting a subculture because they are not normal, or doing things that you simply do no agree with, you are falling into fascism.
It could be easily said that being "Jewish" isnt hereditary, and that you could consider this a "changeable human property", but that didnt stop 7 million people from being slaughtered.
Damnit... I've brought up a Nazi comparison... according to Usenet rules, that makes this thread pretty much dead, doesnt it?
XYZZY-Men
maybe after that the ZZGO-Men
... i guess i'm showing my gaming age here...
Hmmm... replace "Mutant" with "Drug User", and you pretty much have the drug war.
Or Replace "Mutant" with "Homosexual"
Or for "Violent Video Gamer"
This movie is shaping up to be a large socio-political statement. I hope that people can see the insanity in the movie and apply it to real life.
Look at this list of warning signs that your child may be a mutant. They seem to mirror the warning signs that your child may be using drugs, depressed, violent, whatever...
I am always amazed at the deep social commentary that is intentionally placed into art that most people overlook. What better way to raise awareness on how we treat our kids than in a comic-book styled movie? Seems harmless enough, but the messages are there, just slightly hidden.
you really advocate limiting voting and decision making power into the hands of /fewer/ people?
/dictatorships/. We dont like those.
How few?
Limited by education? Limited by taking a test? Limited by what?
Some places have very limited democracies. They're called
Whats going on is a recurrence of what has happened when a new "class" has been empowered to vote in this country - the status quo is being challenge and is scared.
Online voting now better enables the people that were too lazy to go out and vote, but cared enough to compose rants on the internet.
It gives bite to our bark.
Arizona had its largest voter turnout in recent state history with internet voting. This scares the hell out of the politicians and those in control - they have an entirely new set of issues to deal with, because there are an entirely new demographic voting.
A very good example of increasing voter turnout causing unexpected results - Jesse Ventura - this is a state that had motor-voter registration, and Jesse managed to mobilize a large amount of disenchanted voters with common sense and straight talk.
/That/ is what this is about - losing control and predictability.
its a commonly held fact that you need to capture only 10-15% of the total populations votes in order to be elected president.
Think about it. Not everyone is registered to vote. I think that its something like 50% right there.
Voter turn-out of registered voters is less than 50%.
That means that 25% of eligible voters are voting in presidential elections. So what do you need to win? 12.5% of eligible voters need to vote for you.
This is the principle that the "Christian Coalition" and the "Christian Right" are founded on. Yes, they are a very small minority, but they will all vote, and since they will all vote, they have power.
Ever notice that a lot of the pandering goes to older people? Wonder why? The senior citizens know the importance of voting, and vote.
If "we" are unhappy about the way things are going, "we" need to get all of "us" out to vote. There are enough of us to make a difference, and to be heard. If elected officials start fearing for their job security, our itches will be scratched.
We can change this country and its laws using the existing system, but the key is - we have to USE it.
So - if you are over 18, and an american citizen, I suggest that you go vote this year.
Thank you
come on... computers do not work wonderfully at all...
And until we put together an additional abstraction layer on top of the current filesystem (hide the ickiness of files from the end user).
Seriously, users dont care about file systems, or file system structure, they just want their work to be where they put it when they last worked on it.
We, as programmers and tech-people, have grown accustomed to the ways that computers act and expect us to act. Currently computers force humans to act less like people and more like machines.
And computers are rude.
I'm sure that you have filled out an application for a video store. When you are done with it, does the piece of paper jump up and scream out "You need to put a credit card number here, or I wont let you give me to the clerk"
Nor does it ask - what would you like to name me?
Thats the lunacy of our current "filesystem" we've got to name EVERYTHING. We dont name everything in real life.
If I am drinking a can of soda, and I set it down, I dont need to save it as "mysoda7-7-00.pop" and then neatly place it in a file cabinet, or risk it disappearing and all traces of me drinking it removed from my body - thats the contradiction that faces users and current file systems. They must save all the time, because the comuter is not like the real world, the computer will forget what you have done.
I set the damn thing down, and it stays there, nicely maintaining its state (ok, it may get warm and flat, but suspend disbelief with me here).
But the important thing here is, it didnt ask for a name. The can will be where I put it (ignore outside forces) and will stay there, in its current state until I drink more of it, throw it out, or spill it on the ground.
Soda Cans dont need names. Neither do term papers (I am writing a paper on gravitational mechanics, I shall call it "Newton").
The point here, is that computer systems force people to think in ways that are completely un-natural and non-logical. The words "AND/OR" mean exactly opposite between real life and computers.
The excuses that we as developers, designers and implementers use to perpetuate these anomalies are poor.
"The user isnt computer literate"
"That a training issue"
"You arent supposed to do it like THAT"
computer literacy is a joke, normal people dont want to be "computer literate", no more than we want to be "Accounting Literate".
Yes, it may interest some people, but most people only care that the accounting department gets their paycheks right. They dont demand that everyone is "Accounting Literate" in order to get a correct paycheck.
Likewise, we should not force users to become "computer Literate" if all they want to do is produce a Term Paper. Writing a term paper should not involve fiddling with operating systems, playing with the file system, launching applications, saving and storing copies of the "document".
These are all things that should be transparent to the user. All they want to do is do their term paper, and not muck about in computer hell for hours.
i like the ideas that you've outlined here...
I've been trying to come up with a model to insulate users from the whole filesystem fiasco...
email me, maybe we can bounce ideas...
we really have to stop forcing user's to bend their actions and thought patterns around our implementations.
c /britney/oopsididitagain
The very real problem with current user interfaces is that they still force people to become "computer Literate" which really means that they have to learn nuances and terminology and procedures that the inner workings of a computer use.
Its not "natural". File systems, databases, MP3 catalogs, are all differently organized IRL than on a computer.
Lets look at music. Where is your "Britney Spears" CD? Me? Mine's in my car, in the elbow rest in the front seat.
My mp3 files are on portman@grits:/home/ender/music/mp3s/annoyingmusi
The mp3 files are "organized" in a manner that only an incredibly anal person would organize their CD's. How many people do you know have all of their CD's labelled, catagorized, alphabetized, and all in the same spot.
The point here, is that the computer gives you all sorts of information pertaining directly to the MP3's, but none of it is really helpful to someone not computer literate.
If I were to tell you to go into my car, on the front seat, look for the jewel case with the sexpot on the front, and bring it to me, how many "normal" people would be able to find it as compared to telling someone to find it on my computer.
Currently, computers are great at storing data, but not at describing the data in real terms. Most of the time we categorize items in terms of things that have nothing to do with the data contained, but we limit ourselves with storing data on a computer only by the actual data items - part number, ISBN, whatever, and not things that are inately helpful.
Until a better file/data system is divised, the UI will not improve.
As a matter of fact, the typical user should not need to know what a "file" is or a "database". They just want to listen to music, write a term paper for Biology class, email Aunt Helga, look at pr0n on the web, play a game, whatever.
But notice, these things were not "create a file in MS Word format that will contain my biology report". We may think in terms of files and data, but they think in terms of actions and events.
We shouldnt force people to think like computers.
In St. Thomas Aqunias' Summa Theologica, he outlines one of the "proofs" that god exists as a principle called "Order and Design".
He says that the order and design behind nature points to a sentient force creating it with a structure in mind.
This structure can be expressed in mathematics. (Mathematics is the language of nature... nature... 1.. 1.. 2... 3.... 5... 8...)
Viewed in this context, "unexplainable" things detract from the "proof" of existence of god. Unless of course you believe that the abnormalities are either
1) actually part of the pattern created, and we just cant see how yet.
2) Intervention by god (miracles)
However, if the chaotic events are just random, with no order or meaning, and you use this to dispell the notion of God, then you have fallen into Descarte's world, and cant prove anything outside of your own mind, because there is no certainty of anything.
Moral imperatives never really seemed correct to me... I prefered more of the Nichomachaen Ethics as a general rule for morality, and St Thomas Aquinas for a basis of philosophy and Theology...
Yes... it figures i went to a Jesuit university first, followed by a Franciscan one...
And let me tell you that I dont particularly like the Franciscan theory on everything... Once he gets into time being a figment of our imagination, i had to start heavily questioning him...
And I agree that Utilitarianism is a pretty crappy moral standard... Yet is the "official" morality of the US government... go figure...
sorry... I screwed that up nicely...
Paine was the "Maximize good, Minimize harm" guy, that Mills based his philosophy on, right?
sigh... all that fricking Jesuit education, and you'd think that I could keep these guys straight...
At long last Mr. Jack Valenti, have you no sense of decency, at long last sir, have you no sense no decency...
(ok... how long before the mistakes in this parody/quote are pointed out? I give it 3.2 seconds...)
i understand your concerns, and they are valid.
However, I also have faith in people as a whole, and rely on historical evidence that no matter how much control and authority is exerted, by whatever group, that the change brought about by technology and advancement will overpower any group that stands in its way.
Look at "A modest Proposal" by Paine. Without the "technological revolution" of the printing press, this would have never been distributed. Even though the birtish powers that be were the most powerful of its day.
The Industrial revolution changed society as we know it, and displaced the old status quo, replacing it with a new. Even though there was much fighting and reluctance to accept the changes.
The true answer to any industry is to accept the changes that are occuring in the market, or political environment, and change your ways to utilize these new mechansims.
Not fight them. By fighting them, they will only become stronger, and more widespread, and more people will know whats going on.
ANd then the companies will have to fight harder... Its an negative-feedback loop, and the ones fighting it will end up losing...
look... the future of the web is going to be just fine...
the RIAA and such (MPAA, Mothers against anything Fun, whatever) represent the mainstreaming of the web.
They want to remain relevant. Right now, the only way to distribute CD's and whatnot is to go through them. Very few record stores have the buying power and independence to buy anything outside of the major record labels. Tower and Border's are notable exceptions.
All of a sudden, this whole internet thing removes the need for their insane distribution. All of a sudden a scarce commodity (CD's, shelf space) has turned into a product where there is NO scarcity, and 0 marginal cost, that is, it costs nothing to produce another MP3.
Being made completely irrelevant is not somethign that people take kindly too... so they are going to fight this every single inch of the way...
ANd they will still lose. Why?
Because they are attacking and accusing and criminalising the very people that they wish to have as their customers. This isnt about "protection" or "artists" its about maintaining the status quo.
When industries, countries, whatever, have more interest in maintaining something that is old, just because it used to be that way, they begin to decline, because they are busy fighting progress instead of making progress.
So what heppens is the world moves on to newer and better ways of distibuting music and media, while the record companies are left holding their traditional, outmoded forms, that people will cease to use.
Dont worry, these people will self destruct in the end... its just a matter of time...
It used to be that Big Blue and their mainframes ruled the land of computers.
ONE of their computers fulfilled the needs of your business. They provided hardware and software support, and all you had to do was pay a monthly (exorbinant) fee to have IBM take care of all your data in this one central location.
What stopped this? The PC revolution. Microsoft took over computing because they offered greater flexibility, personalization and control?
Now they're going to try IBM's model?
Why on earth would you attempt that again?
We'll see. I dont think that I'd be happy if all of my data - my resume, budget, expenses, etc. - were sitting on a hard drive other than the one on my desk.
And I dont think that a whole lot of people will be, either...
THe problem with specifications, is exactly its benefits.
.. minutes?
When WYSYWYG interfaces, someone point out that not only is What You See Is What You Get, but also that What you see is ALL you get. This means that while you can see on the surface what document or page or whatever that your creating, and how its looking, but thats all your going to get, nothing else, no more, no less.
Take example a standard graphics program like the GIMP, and compare it to POVRay. The GIMP's WYSYWIG interface is really slick, but with POVRay, you can create ray traced images that would be next to impossible in a WYSYWYG environment, but you dont get to see the exact creation before its done.
With programming, a formalized, structured process ensures that the program will give you what you want, but it will never provide more than that.
True "Innovation" will never occur. No one may spot the flaw in the security model, no one may realize that 40-bit encryption is a bad way to protect DVD's from being copied, no one may predict that a Record-Industry defined "secure" file will only be effective for a couple of
But by setting Goals, but allowing for large amounts of flexibility of the Programmers allows for products to be delivered that are not only Programs that meet their requirements, to Products that truly meet their needs.
And trust me, clients requirements and their needs are almost always two completely separate things.
Use Gnumeric as an example - the author did what? Copied Excel. What did excel do? Copied Lotus? Lotus? They copied VisiCalc.
But the question remains, these products are meeting requirments, but are they really meeting the NEEDS of the people that use them. Couldnt someone have thought of a better way of setting up a spreadsheet? Making the formulas? Hell, why are there formulas at all?
But I'm sure you get the point.
Linux may not have the strict methodology that modern business management and Quality Testing require, and that, is exactly why it ends up with higher quality products in a shorter amount of time.
ever go to the supermarket and use your "shoppers club" card?
Every single instance of a club that saves you a nominal amount of money does so in order for them to better market their products to YOU. You save some money so you will spend much more later.
ever use a Credit Card? Yep, they track purchasesd, too.
Buy with a check and they use a check scanner? same thing.
Free email service? you have to provide your info.
Free Registration on any site? Yep, same thing... You are getting "valuable" content just for giving up your information. It may not be cash, but you are selling it anyway.
not verbatim mind you, but the lawyers from the MPAA accused Garbus of going on a "fishing expedition" during questioning of Valenti...
To which the judge responded...
"The whole things a big bass tournament"
Maybe the judge is seeing the Truth of the matter...
it was called "The cartoonist Guide to Computers" - i cant rememeber the author right off....
My cousin that went to lehigh gave it to me when i was 12. apparently, the book was being used by lib. arts students to get a grasp of the technical courses.
It was presented in a humorous, light, yet incredibly informative way... It traced the history of computing, from abacuses to differential engines, and made the whole thing very interesting.
And, it had a good level of detail in it. It wasnt a gloss over the topic and pretend they've covered it. It went into boolean and gating fairly extensively.
Not bad for a cartoon book.
as per the court order. So this means that the applications group will have to use the same API's and tools that the rest of us use. Proprietary extensions will be hard to do, because the application group will not be able to leverage them. Of course, with MS's trustworthiness, there probably will be all sorts of behind the doors collusion going on.
b. After Implementation of the Plan and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business shall be prohibited from:
i. merging or otherwise recombining, or entering into any joint venture with one another;
ii. entering into any Agreement with one another under which one of the Businesses develops, sells, licenses for sale or distribution, or distributes products or services (other than the technologies referred to in the following sentence) developed, sold, licensed, or distributed by the other Business;
iii. providing to the other any APIs, Technical Information, Communications Interfaces, or technical information that is not simultaneously published, disclosed, or made readily available to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs; and
iv. licensing, selling or otherwise providing to the other Business any product or service on terms more favorable than those available to any similarly situated third party.
Section 2.b.ii shall not prohibit the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business from licensing technologies (other than Middleware Products) to each other for use in each others' products or services provided that such technology (i) is not and has not been separately sold, licensed, or offered as a product, and (ii) is licensed on terms that are otherwise consistent with this Final Judgment.
Feudalism, eh? Do you lease your computer? Is your clothing rented? Just because you have the choice to borrow your stuff from companies for small monthly fees doesn't mean that you _have_ to.
Yes, feudalism... While it is true that you can purchase any of the mentioned items for cash, the computer can be leased, the clothes can be purchased on a credit card - which if the only the minimum payment is made, you will pay multiples of the original price. So, it is very easy so you dont actually "own" anything"
For example: You can lease a car. At the end of the lease, you have no equity in it at all (unless you choose to buy the car, which I'll ignore for this part of the example), but because you leased it, you were able to drive a nicer car than you could afford if you bought it outright, which is the point. You are offered the choice of driving a Lexus ES300 on Toyota Camry payments. And if you choose to buy, you have made another choice.
At what point does Toyota own you? Does a three year lease mean "forever"?
It becomes "forever" because you do not own anything at the end of the three years, and, probably will go to lease another car for another three years, ad nausaeum.
The point here is that if you owe money to someone, anyone, you are not "free" to do as you see fit, and must sacrifice your time in the form of working in order to pay off this debt.
People who borrow, lease or owe people money will never be able to be completely free. By limiting our options to outright purchase items, large corporations are enslaving us for our lifetimes.
I think that i'll get off my soap box now...