I'm coming late to this debate, but what the hey I may as well weigh in. First off, how many of you read the article? This is not, repeat not a rehash of the same type of criticism leveled against email (as opposed to manuscript, hardcopy) on the basis of accessibility or archival integrity. Yes, there are similarities and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that this was the inspiration for this thesis.
When I first approached this I was a bit confused to find the focus resting so heavily on journalistic photography. After all, this is an era where historians cast a pretty wide net, looking to private family or local archives for their research. Also, the individual recorder is much much more likely to shank the data backup portion of the scenario.
The problem slides nicely into focus (sorry about that) once you notice that this is the series of pics preceding and following the selected shot that the author is interested in. It is, again, not even a matter as some have suggested of "missing" a shot that at the time seems unimportant but takes on a different coloration in light of later events (i.e. the Lewinsky pic objection).
What this thesis is about is maintaing the context surrounding the utilized record (here, photo) presumably with a motor drive or whatnot, I'll leave that those of you who are professionally interested to address. The goal behind this is not to come back later and say, 'Aha a new and interesting picture, in its own right, unrelated to that other one over here!' But rather to say, I can draw some observations about the events and the objectivity of this perspective in the famous relevant photo on the front page on the basis of the unused shots taken more or less in the same sequence. Breaking it down a bit, this is to keep the photographer "honest," not to imply necessarily bias in the traditional sense, though it could be that, but generally in the overall sense of looking for the balanced picture.
Well, enough rambling discourse for one day...
er...defenestrate offices? I don't mean to be a grammar bastard here, but could you clarify that? I presume you're thinking of the people reflexively defenestrating themselves, not -taking the office as d.o.- tossing the office?
If so, that would best be phrased autodefenestrate. However, since the MS "administrative structures" are most likely pretty inconsequential at this stage.. I think things have gone too far down the line toward integration for that mass suicide you advise to have any effect on company policy.
On the replicating of windows front..
I really haven't been tracking KDE at all in a year or so, but this strikes me as reminiscent of the old holy war between kde and gnomers. Kde for a while there at least sort of had the look and feel of trying to ape windows-- at least some people felt it was more windows user compatible. Not sure if this still holds.
This also drops us into the other big ol' minefield of gui design. Ought it to look like win, what can be ripped off from the aqua interface, etc? All comes down to the division between the people who want to just build from the ground up and play with new elements experimentally and those who want to dump in whatever concepts seem to have already gotten some mass acceptance.
None of this should detract from the good stuff kde has done. Just everyone keep on plugging, and congrats on the anniversary.
Well, some of you have been juggling around the basic issue of delivery as a criterion for judging how freaked out to be about this. Someone has hit already on the point that its pretty easily available and has a nice aerosol factor. Another guy counters with the old, "but it's not infectious."
Okey, so here we have a nice little bugger suitable for dropping into an area and tagging a fair proportion of people there, good stuff if you get it into the air for a while. Long lasting, reasonably resilient we add to the plus column.
Well, damn, if only there were a way to combine our requirements by tacking on a viral quality.
Guess what, can be done and has been done. Not in this case, requires a little bit of cluefulness and resources. Anthrax makes a spiffy container for those with the resources to roll their own bioweaps.
But here's the thing... I think the fact that we have seen a limited deployment can indicate one of three things. 1. This is mostly for show and is some form of scare tactic possibly related to all this recent terrorist action. 2. This has nothing to do with current events and is a person or series of persons separately or in coordination seizing the opportunity of this all as cover to try to carry out a selective vendetta against isolated institutions or enemies. 3. Here's the unsettling one. This could really be something of a trial phase, anthrax beta, not yet gone gold. It's not as if most people have a whole lot of experience with this stuff in recent years, could be some kinks to work out.
So, longish way to basically say. Yep, no need to run screaming for that cabin in the woods quite yet. Otoh, just because what we've been seeing in the news isn't all that frightening a picture in current configuration doesn't at all mean that Anthrax is "not really a good weapon."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm coming late to this debate, but what the hey I may as well weigh in. First off, how many of you read the article? This is not, repeat not a rehash of the same type of criticism leveled against email (as opposed to manuscript, hardcopy) on the basis of accessibility or archival integrity. Yes, there are similarities and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that this was the inspiration for this thesis. When I first approached this I was a bit confused to find the focus resting so heavily on journalistic photography. After all, this is an era where historians cast a pretty wide net, looking to private family or local archives for their research. Also, the individual recorder is much much more likely to shank the data backup portion of the scenario. The problem slides nicely into focus (sorry about that) once you notice that this is the series of pics preceding and following the selected shot that the author is interested in. It is, again, not even a matter as some have suggested of "missing" a shot that at the time seems unimportant but takes on a different coloration in light of later events (i.e. the Lewinsky pic objection). What this thesis is about is maintaing the context surrounding the utilized record (here, photo) presumably with a motor drive or whatnot, I'll leave that those of you who are professionally interested to address. The goal behind this is not to come back later and say, 'Aha a new and interesting picture, in its own right, unrelated to that other one over here!' But rather to say, I can draw some observations about the events and the objectivity of this perspective in the famous relevant photo on the front page on the basis of the unused shots taken more or less in the same sequence. Breaking it down a bit, this is to keep the photographer "honest," not to imply necessarily bias in the traditional sense, though it could be that, but generally in the overall sense of looking for the balanced picture. Well, enough rambling discourse for one day...
er...defenestrate offices? I don't mean to be a grammar bastard here, but could you clarify that? I presume you're thinking of the people reflexively defenestrating themselves, not -taking the office as d.o.- tossing the office?
If so, that would best be phrased autodefenestrate. However, since the MS "administrative structures" are most likely pretty inconsequential at this stage.. I think things have gone too far down the line toward integration for that mass suicide you advise to have any effect on company policy.
On the replicating of windows front.. I really haven't been tracking KDE at all in a year or so, but this strikes me as reminiscent of the old holy war between kde and gnomers. Kde for a while there at least sort of had the look and feel of trying to ape windows-- at least some people felt it was more windows user compatible. Not sure if this still holds. This also drops us into the other big ol' minefield of gui design. Ought it to look like win, what can be ripped off from the aqua interface, etc? All comes down to the division between the people who want to just build from the ground up and play with new elements experimentally and those who want to dump in whatever concepts seem to have already gotten some mass acceptance. None of this should detract from the good stuff kde has done. Just everyone keep on plugging, and congrats on the anniversary.
Well, some of you have been juggling around the basic issue of delivery as a criterion for judging how freaked out to be about this. Someone has hit already on the point that its pretty easily available and has a nice aerosol factor. Another guy counters with the old, "but it's not infectious." Okey, so here we have a nice little bugger suitable for dropping into an area and tagging a fair proportion of people there, good stuff if you get it into the air for a while. Long lasting, reasonably resilient we add to the plus column. Well, damn, if only there were a way to combine our requirements by tacking on a viral quality. Guess what, can be done and has been done. Not in this case, requires a little bit of cluefulness and resources. Anthrax makes a spiffy container for those with the resources to roll their own bioweaps. But here's the thing... I think the fact that we have seen a limited deployment can indicate one of three things. 1. This is mostly for show and is some form of scare tactic possibly related to all this recent terrorist action. 2. This has nothing to do with current events and is a person or series of persons separately or in coordination seizing the opportunity of this all as cover to try to carry out a selective vendetta against isolated institutions or enemies. 3. Here's the unsettling one. This could really be something of a trial phase, anthrax beta, not yet gone gold. It's not as if most people have a whole lot of experience with this stuff in recent years, could be some kinks to work out. So, longish way to basically say. Yep, no need to run screaming for that cabin in the woods quite yet. Otoh, just because what we've been seeing in the news isn't all that frightening a picture in current configuration doesn't at all mean that Anthrax is "not really a good weapon."