Sports are generally not designed for spectators either. Spectator friendliness is pretty irrelevant. IMHO gross number of participants and spectators multiplies by the dollars extracted per person is key. Therefore many combinations are successful:
Large # participants work, e.g. football (soccer), running, fishing... High revenue participation, e.g. Golf, Snowboarding... High revenue from spectators (often TV revenue), e.g. NFL, Cricket, NBA, NHL, football (soccer)...
Can eSports find a combination of participants and dollars? I think it can. High end PCs, console SW, elite level mice, pads, etc compare well with golf and snowboarding in terms of participation revenue.
If the money is there than spectator problems will be solved so more kit can be sold. Because the sport in inherently digitized it is likely that production techniques will emerge that present it very nicely (obviously it has a way to go). I think making CS spectator friendly is a smaller challenge than making NHL or AFL (Australian football) spectator friendly because those sports struggle when presented on a TV.
Now that the NHL and AFL fans are angered I'll annoy the Tennis fans too. Tennis is a terribly boring game to watch, but it translates to TV so well (2 camera is pretty much enough to capture the game) that has been very successful. There are multiples paths to success: high value or low cost. Video games could end have tiny production costs (if the production is automated) which is very attractive for non-mainstream content.
If poker can be a spectator "sport" than Video Games will make it too!
I hope that pretty soon the whole IP facade comes crashing down.
Most IP is the world is owned by American companies - hence all the American political pressure to globally 'harmonise' IP. However with all the rewards going to a small number of recipients an inversely proportional amount of coercion is required to keep the sham going. Eventually groups will give IP/America the finger and ignore IP rules. Very marginalised groups (nothing to loose) first, but all non IP holders (the vast majority) will follow (ssssh don't tell the Chinese).
As momentum to ignore IP increases the force of the American response will become more disproportional to the crime encouraging more disobedience, "The harder you squeeze the more slip through your fingers".
It will be interesting in 50,100,200 years time to look back and try and work out why Billy G ended up being the richest person on the planet (is he? go pedants!). Sure he owned a large chunk of a company which wrote a couple of OS'es, a window manager or 2, a word processor, a spreadsheet, and a few other odds and sods - But the richest? Huh? Where was the competitive value created to justify this? He was in the right place at the right time to benefit from the one of the biggest scams in history - called IP.
Stupid impractical rules are not sustainable, or "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time", or "you can fool some people for a while, but you cannot fool people for ever."
Maybe my hope is wrong and IP (in its current virulent form) will live forever, but with so few benefiting (sharing the rewards) I doubt it.
Does it strike anyone else that this is all madness?
I mean think about a few historical events, and consider how innovation would have suffered at the hands of our inovation protection laws.
Try explaining to a six year old why we need to lock up knowledge in order to make more of it - it's damn hard. Makes me suspect that irony is the foundation of existence.
Stupid me. I'm a tech-savvy fan and I bought the Moby album. Next time I know what to do - thanks for the advice Moby.
Re:Just read the Constitution, fer chrissakes.
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
I think we need to take a step back for a second. What are the underpinning principles behind IP protection? I think IP discussions spend a lot of time describing parts of the elephant, but not seeing "it".
IP is meant to be all about fostering innovation.
IP is not meant to be an automatic right in any way. No one has any automatic right to be paid for IP. As a society we may choose to protect the creator in order to fostering innovation, but that is all. (see plenty of well known good philosophical discussion on why this is so)
If IP is not fostering innovation than no protection is justified. If people lose a lot of money, or "artists" go unrewarded, than "tough shit" as they say in the classics. IP is just plain and simple, not an automatic right.
The onus of proof needs to be the swapped. When seeking IP protection than proof must be provided on why it is necessary for more innovation.
Pharmaceutical companies should probably be successful in arguing that the research investment can only be made if IP protection is available. Fair enough.
Software producing companies should have a much harder time arguing for IP protection. The research investment is significantly different to pharmaceutical. If IP protection was granted to software producers the conditions should be vastly different to the pharmaceutical industry - shorter protection periods, etc.
Artists / Record companies would have an even harder time justifying IP protection. How exactly does it foster innovation? Please describe the music that would not be made if IP protection is not granted? Perhaps they need to consider alternative ways to make money, but that's their problem. No innovation justification = no protection.
The bottom line is "Justify the protection in terms of fostering innovation." This may be required on an industry by industry basis because the ROI conditions will vary, so the protection required will vary. Unfortunately this is not on the "average" persons radar of concerning issues. By the time people "get it" wacky laws may be in place that slow progress and generally screw the consumers for decades to come.
However given time sanity will prevail because it is more efficient to innovate. Kind of like how countries that do not let women work and participate as equals are beaten by the efficiencies of letting 100% of the population full contribute. So maybe countries who do not fully comply to international copyright agreements have a competitive advantage?
"but I have to wonder how much more damage has been caused by the chilling effect on independent developers by this legal morass we call intellectual property"
Good point.
IP is meant to be all about fostering innovation.
IP is not an automatic right in any way. No one has any automatic right to be paid for IP. As a society we may choose to protect the creator in order to fostering innovation, but that is all.
So the $64 dollar question is, "Is IP doing a good job at fostering innovation?" If the answer is "No", than IP protection should not be granted.
If people loose a lot of money, or "artists" go unrewarded, than "tough shit" as they say in the classics. IP is just plain and simple, not an automatic right.
I suppose I trying to say the onus of proof is the opposite of what a lot of people perceive. I should be born without IP rights. Only if IP rights lead to innovation should they be granted.
Trying to ignore the fact that this is a total troll...
The good thing about playing games at work is that it is obviously not work. Why is this good? The most dangerous people spend a lot of time at work not being productive, while they self delude themself into thinking they are making contribution. At least when someone is playing a game they cannot avoid knowing they are slacking off.
As an employer I much prefer someone who gives me 7 hours solid work, and takes 1 hour for gaming. The shits I hate are the ones who "go slow" for 8 hours, giving me only 4 hours of value. Work hard, play hard, it's the intensity I want.
The first time I "catch" someone gaming I tell them: a) don't hide it b) don't charge me for it (i.e. don't count it as time worked) c) never ever ever let it risk a deadline
Of course if someone is slack when the heat is on than they are out the door. But I'm yet to have to do this.
In my experience the guys who game are the same guys who can be relied on to work weekends and mega weeks when the pressure is highest. They appreciate a no bullshit rule environment, and respect the fact that when I ask for extra effort it really is important.
Thanks. Here is the email I sent (I don't expect it to have any impact, but it made me feel better):
I have been a loyal customer of Blizzard since Warcraft II. I've bought:
Warcraft II (twice! once as single title, once as the battle chest) Diablo I (and once again as a gift) Starcraft (ditto) Starcraft expansion (ditto) Diablo II Diablo II expansion
Total of *10* purchases. Having been repeatably impressed by the quality of your titles I have been looking forward to Warcraft III. However I will *not* be purchasing Warcraft III, either for my use or as a gift, due to your behavior towards bnetd. You have lost what could have easily been a "life-long customer".
I hope someone in your organisation is measuring the real cost of your *ideological* stance because it does cost you real revenue. Please keep this in mind when you justify you actions as "protecting shareholder wealth". This form of heavy handed protection has a direct cost in terms pissing off your loyal customers who provide your revenue stream.
Sincerely and goodbye,
nodrama
PS: I've never used, or am likely to use, bnetd but that is not the point.
Unique process of combining two (or more) distinct but generally similar large data sets. Data common to all sets is automatically selected into the output set. Where conflicts exist, data is randomly selected from any originating set. The result of the combination is a data set that matches all the common elements of the originals and a random composition of differences between the originals. I reserve the right to apply this method to automated computation, biological science, intellectual process, and any fields that benefit from the technique.
That right, this is a patent on sexual reproduction and thinking (where thinking is the process of combining ideas to form new ideas). Don't worry, the royalty fee will not be too pernicious.
Courts often have to judge both the action and the intent. Judging actions usually revolves around determining facts. Judging intent is inherently subjective, I.e. at the whim of the judge.
I suspect the judge will suggest the action (linking) is legal, but the intent (to contravene a court order) is illegal.
My bet is that the judge will order the links removed, but it will not be a precedent for any other circumstance.
Everyone is demanding that Spielberg stays faithful to Kubrick's wishes. But no one has defined which set of Kubrick's wishes. Are we talking about the early Kubrick or the later-day Kubrick that was most interested in Nicole Kidman's bum? And lots of perky young ladies lounging around with wrinkly old men!
Does Spielberg have a yen for gratuitous arse shots?
Businesspeople (I include myself here) generally pride themselves on being pragmatic. Business models are born, live (make money), and inevitably die. A bad businessperson will fail to detect when a business model becomes outdated. Bad businesspeople will eventually stop making money.
IP is only relevant in the context of a business model, I.e. how do I add value and make money from this? Most of the industries struggling with the free IP distribution over the net New World had a very similar business model. The mode was to add value by placing the IP into the hands of the consumer.
The business model of IP distribution is dead. The value has evaporated because essentially free distribution is now available to consumers. Why pay for something you can have for free? (free in a big way - free from a monetary sense - free from a punishment sense, 0.0 chance of being punished so who cares if it's illegal).
A good businessperson will move on when a business model is dead. WRT to the industries being threatened there are many alternative ways to make money apart from distributions. Some examples:
Music industry: Apart from the very top tier of musicians most of their income is derived from live performances. Free distribution is essentially free advertising for the primary revenue stream. BTW ever wondered why live performances cost more than a CD, odd considering a CD lasts forever, but a concert is over is an hour or two? There is more value add with a concert - emotional connection between the artist and the audience, social interaction with people who share a similar interest, etc. With free distribution the artist can still win. Only the outmoded distribution company looses, which is only natural when their business model no longer adds value.
Movie industry: Consider the often-uttered reviewer phrase "Wait for it to come out on video." This sums up the concept of a particular movie not taking advantage of the value add a big screen, big sound, theater experience provides. For movies existing in a new world of free distribution they better take advantage of the movie theater value add. Perhaps we loose the straight to video class of movie - so be it.
Words/Books: Technology has yet to improve on the paper page interface provided by a book. The distribution value add proposition still holds for now.
Software: The OS movement is killing the old proprietary software business model. New models are currently being invented and tested. Most famously business models based on service, not license - see ESR's writing for other obvious OS business models.
Long post - my apologies. Summary: Business models based on IP distribution are dying. Businesses wanting to survive long-term need to reinvent themselves or die too.
I don't believe you 'got' what I was trying to say. Let me spin it around.
In the future some people will be left behind. They not have minimally sufficient computer skills, and will be marginalised by society, I.e. no access to 'basic' services (see the illiterate bank account example).
Not a utopian vision, but IMHO a likely outcome. It is not an issue of OS (op-sys) or OS (o-source).
The point is that catering for low skill users (grandma) will become a moot point. Low skill users will become a marginalised group and left behind.
You are absolutely correct when you ridicule the "merged harmoniously" concept. There will be more divergence from a user POV that will leave low skilled users on the outer.
Currently a entry level user must develop some basic windows and win apps skills. In the future everyone will be expected to operate divergent interfaces on their phones, car, PDA, stove, fridge,...
To sum another way: In the future you won't let your dvd blink 12:00, because that would indicate your probably not capable of setting up your on-line PDA or operating your car.
So who cares if grandma can't use Linux, her ilk wont matter 10+yrs down the line. Of course grandma can choose to learn.
Why so obsessed with grandma/mother/other generic computer illiterate?
In the short term they may be a market, but in the longer term (10yr+) everyone with any real stake in society will have some level of computer fluency. Most new jobs are computer based, the educational systems will follow. In the long term the 3Rs will become the 1C. Today if you cannot read or write than you will be precluded from using many modern "tools" (try opening a bank account). In the future if you can't operate a computer you will be similarly deprived, regarless of whether it is right, wrong, or fair.
On the topic of differences between men & women, is it just my experience that women produce better UI (graphical or not) than men?
In the systems I've worked on UI's *designed* by women have been better received by users than UI designed by men. This is especially apparent when some forms have been done by women and some by men, on the same project. The female designed ones seem easy to use.
Slashdot Mirror
This will do a dd(1) copy across the network if you don't want to drag the HD out and plug it in locally. Of course it takes a while :)
dd if=/dev/hda bs=64M | rsh ip_or_name dd of=/dev/hda bs=64M
Change the /dev/* as required.
apols if I got the syntax wrong, but you get the idea (dd might need to explicitly ref stdout/stdin; cant rem)
Oh, and it helps if the new drive is the same size (or bigger).
Sports are generally not designed for spectators either. Spectator friendliness is pretty irrelevant. IMHO gross number of participants and spectators multiplies by the dollars extracted per person is key. Therefore many combinations are successful:
Large # participants work, e.g. football (soccer), running, fishing...
High revenue participation, e.g. Golf, Snowboarding...
High revenue from spectators (often TV revenue), e.g. NFL, Cricket, NBA, NHL, football (soccer)...
Can eSports find a combination of participants and dollars? I think it can. High end PCs, console SW, elite level mice, pads, etc compare well with golf and snowboarding in terms of participation revenue.
If the money is there than spectator problems will be solved so more kit can be sold. Because the sport in inherently digitized it is likely that production techniques will emerge that present it very nicely (obviously it has a way to go). I think making CS spectator friendly is a smaller challenge than making NHL or AFL (Australian football) spectator friendly because those sports struggle when presented on a TV.
Now that the NHL and AFL fans are angered I'll annoy the Tennis fans too. Tennis is a terribly boring game to watch, but it translates to TV so well (2 camera is pretty much enough to capture the game) that has been very successful. There are multiples paths to success: high value or low cost. Video games could end have tiny production costs (if the production is automated) which is very attractive for non-mainstream content.
If poker can be a spectator "sport" than Video Games will make it too!
Did you read the article (or just the 1st sentence)? Thought not.
"Under heavy lobbying from the US entertainment and software industries"
"The US Trade Representative warned parallel importation had led to increasing piracy of DVDs and VCDs."
"The report also highlighted the "relatively low priority" assigned by Australian state and federal police to the enforcement of copyright law"
"He said getting an immediate agreement in place on intellectual property "might be a bridge too far". "
Last sentence: "The Australian Government is reviewing the 2001 Digital Agenda legislation."
It's all a scam
I hope that pretty soon the whole IP facade comes crashing down.
Most IP is the world is owned by American companies - hence all the American political pressure to globally 'harmonise' IP. However with all the rewards going to a small number of recipients an inversely proportional amount of coercion is required to keep the sham going. Eventually groups will give IP/America the finger and ignore IP rules. Very marginalised groups (nothing to loose) first, but all non IP holders (the vast majority) will follow (ssssh don't tell the Chinese).
As momentum to ignore IP increases the force of the American response will become more disproportional to the crime encouraging more disobedience, "The harder you squeeze the more slip through your fingers".
It will be interesting in 50,100,200 years time to look back and try and work out why Billy G ended up being the richest person on the planet (is he? go pedants!). Sure he owned a large chunk of a company which wrote a couple of OS'es, a window manager or 2, a word processor, a spreadsheet, and a few other odds and sods - But the richest? Huh? Where was the competitive value created to justify this? He was in the right place at the right time to benefit from the one of the biggest scams in history - called IP.
Stupid impractical rules are not sustainable, or "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time", or "you can fool some people for a while, but you cannot fool people for ever."
Maybe my hope is wrong and IP (in its current virulent form) will live forever, but with so few benefiting (sharing the rewards) I doubt it.
Does it strike anyone else that this is all madness?
I mean think about a few historical events, and consider how innovation would have suffered at the hands of our inovation protection laws.
Try explaining to a six year old why we need to lock up knowledge in order to make more of it - it's damn hard. Makes me suspect that irony is the foundation of existence.
Stupid me. I'm a tech-savvy fan and I bought the Moby album. Next time I know what to do
- thanks for the advice Moby.
I think we need to take a step back for a second. What are the underpinning principles behind IP protection? I think IP discussions spend a lot of time describing parts of the elephant, but not seeing "it".
IP is meant to be all about fostering innovation.
IP is not meant to be an automatic right in any way. No one has any automatic right to be paid for IP. As a society we may choose to protect the creator in order to fostering innovation, but that is all. (see plenty of well known good philosophical discussion on why this is so)
If IP is not fostering innovation than no protection is justified. If people lose a lot of money, or "artists" go unrewarded, than "tough shit" as they say in the classics. IP is just plain and simple, not an automatic right.
The onus of proof needs to be the swapped. When seeking IP protection than proof must be provided on why it is necessary for more innovation.
Pharmaceutical companies should probably be successful in arguing that the research investment can only be made if IP protection is available. Fair enough.
Software producing companies should have a much harder time arguing for IP protection. The research investment is significantly different to pharmaceutical. If IP protection was granted to software producers the conditions should be vastly different to the pharmaceutical industry - shorter protection periods, etc.
Artists / Record companies would have an even harder time justifying IP protection. How exactly does it foster innovation? Please describe the music that would not be made if IP protection is not granted? Perhaps they need to consider alternative ways to make money, but that's their problem. No innovation justification = no protection.
The bottom line is "Justify the protection in terms of fostering innovation." This may be required on an industry by industry basis because the ROI conditions will vary, so the protection required will vary. Unfortunately this is not on the "average" persons radar of concerning issues. By the time people "get it" wacky laws may be in place that slow progress and generally screw the consumers for decades to come.
However given time sanity will prevail because it is more efficient to innovate. Kind of like how countries that do not let women work and participate as equals are beaten by the efficiencies of letting 100% of the population full contribute. So maybe countries who do not fully comply to international copyright agreements have a competitive advantage?
"but I have to wonder how much more damage has been caused by the chilling effect on independent developers by this legal morass we call intellectual property"
Good point.
IP is meant to be all about fostering innovation.
IP is not an automatic right in any way. No one has any automatic right to be paid for IP. As a society we may choose to protect the creator in order to fostering innovation, but that is all.
So the $64 dollar question is, "Is IP doing a good job at fostering innovation?" If the answer is "No", than IP protection should not be granted.
If people loose a lot of money, or "artists" go unrewarded, than "tough shit" as they say in the classics. IP is just plain and simple, not an automatic right.
I suppose I trying to say the onus of proof is the opposite of what a lot of people perceive. I should be born without IP rights. Only if IP rights lead to innovation should they be granted.
Come on, be fair.
This blatant ad is the best thing Katz has ever written. To the point, logical, even engaging. Certainly the first Katz speel I've read to the end.
Trying to ignore the fact that this is a total troll...
The good thing about playing games at work is that it is obviously not work. Why is this good? The most dangerous people spend a lot of time at work not being productive, while they self delude themself into thinking they are making contribution. At least when someone is playing a game they cannot avoid knowing they are slacking off.
As an employer I much prefer someone who gives me 7 hours solid work, and takes 1 hour for gaming. The shits I hate are the ones who "go slow" for 8 hours, giving me only 4 hours of value. Work hard, play hard, it's the intensity I want.
The first time I "catch" someone gaming I tell them:
a) don't hide it
b) don't charge me for it (i.e. don't count it as time worked)
c) never ever ever let it risk a deadline
Of course if someone is slack when the heat is on than they are out the door. But I'm yet to have to do this.
In my experience the guys who game are the same guys who can be relied on to work weekends and mega weeks when the pressure is highest. They appreciate a no bullshit rule environment, and respect the fact that when I ask for extra effort it really is important.
Thanks. Here is the email I sent (I don't expect it to have any impact, but it made me feel better):
I have been a loyal customer of Blizzard since Warcraft II. I've bought:
Warcraft II (twice! once as single title, once as the battle chest)
Diablo I (and once again as a gift)
Starcraft (ditto)
Starcraft expansion (ditto)
Diablo II
Diablo II expansion
Total of *10* purchases. Having been repeatably impressed by the quality of your titles I have been looking forward to Warcraft III. However I will *not* be purchasing Warcraft III, either for my use or as a gift, due to your behavior towards bnetd. You have lost what could have easily been a "life-long customer".
I hope someone in your organisation is measuring the real cost of your *ideological* stance because it does cost you real revenue. Please keep this in mind when you justify you actions as "protecting shareholder wealth". This form of heavy handed protection has a direct cost in terms pissing off your loyal customers who provide your revenue stream.
Sincerely and goodbye,
nodrama
PS: I've never used, or am likely to use, bnetd but that is not the point.
Can't wait to run AOL on an S/390 (zSeries).
Now consider the AOL help desk dealing with that!
Unique process of combining two (or more) distinct but generally similar large data sets. Data common to all sets is automatically selected into the output set. Where conflicts exist, data is randomly selected from any originating set. The result of the combination is a data set that matches all the common elements of the originals and a random composition of differences between the originals. I reserve the right to apply this method to automated computation, biological science, intellectual process, and any fields that benefit from the technique.
That right, this is a patent on sexual reproduction and thinking (where thinking is the process of combining ideas to form new ideas). Don't worry, the royalty fee will not be too pernicious.
Courts often have to judge both the action and the intent. Judging actions usually revolves around determining facts. Judging intent is inherently subjective, I.e. at the whim of the judge.
I suspect the judge will suggest the action (linking) is legal, but the intent (to contravene a court order) is illegal.
My bet is that the judge will order the links removed, but it will not be a precedent for any other circumstance.
Expectations result in disappointment :-)
Question: Is assembler code binary or source?
I assume I do not have to defend assembler code as source. I have seen extremely beautiful assemble: OO assembler layered assembler - sweet stuff.
But I can reverse binary into assembler, so have I magically created 'expression' from 'machine'?
Trying to separate binary as distinct from code is a very arbitrary exercise. It's more a continuum - shades of gray.
Everyone is demanding that Spielberg stays faithful to Kubrick's wishes. But no one has defined which set of Kubrick's wishes. Are we talking about the early Kubrick or the later-day Kubrick that was most interested in Nicole Kidman's bum? And lots of perky young ladies lounging around with wrinkly old men!
Does Spielberg have a yen for gratuitous arse shots?
"Mummy look! A troll."
Businesspeople (I include myself here) generally pride themselves on being pragmatic. Business models are born, live (make money), and inevitably die. A bad businessperson will fail to detect when a business model becomes outdated. Bad businesspeople will eventually stop making money.
IP is only relevant in the context of a business model, I.e. how do I add value and make money from this? Most of the industries struggling with the free IP distribution over the net New World had a very similar business model. The mode was to add value by placing the IP into the hands of the consumer.
The business model of IP distribution is dead. The value has evaporated because essentially free distribution is now available to consumers. Why pay for something you can have for free? (free in a big way - free from a monetary sense - free from a punishment sense, 0.0 chance of being punished so who cares if it's illegal).
A good businessperson will move on when a business model is dead. WRT to the industries being threatened there are many alternative ways to make money apart from distributions. Some examples:
Music industry: Apart from the very top tier of musicians most of their income is derived from live performances. Free distribution is essentially free advertising for the primary revenue stream. BTW ever wondered why live performances cost more than a CD, odd considering a CD lasts forever, but a concert is over is an hour or two? There is more value add with a concert - emotional connection between the artist and the audience, social interaction with people who share a similar interest, etc. With free distribution the artist can still win. Only the outmoded distribution company looses, which is only natural when their business model no longer adds value.
Movie industry: Consider the often-uttered reviewer phrase "Wait for it to come out on video." This sums up the concept of a particular movie not taking advantage of the value add a big screen, big sound, theater experience provides. For movies existing in a new world of free distribution they better take advantage of the movie theater value add. Perhaps we loose the straight to video class of movie - so be it.
Words/Books: Technology has yet to improve on the paper page interface provided by a book. The distribution value add proposition still holds for now.
Software: The OS movement is killing the old proprietary software business model. New models are currently being invented and tested. Most famously business models based on service, not license - see ESR's writing for other obvious OS business models.
Long post - my apologies. Summary: Business models based on IP distribution are dying. Businesses wanting to survive long-term need to reinvent themselves or die too.
I don't believe you 'got' what I was trying to say. Let me spin it around.
...
In the future some people will be left behind. They not have minimally sufficient computer skills, and will be marginalised by society, I.e. no access to 'basic' services (see the illiterate bank account example).
Not a utopian vision, but IMHO a likely outcome. It is not an issue of OS (op-sys) or OS (o-source).
The point is that catering for low skill users (grandma) will become a moot point. Low skill users will become a marginalised group and left behind.
You are absolutely correct when you ridicule the "merged harmoniously" concept. There will be more divergence from a user POV that will leave low skilled users on the outer.
Currently a entry level user must develop some basic windows and win apps skills. In the future everyone will be expected to operate divergent interfaces on their phones, car, PDA, stove, fridge,
To sum another way: In the future you won't let your dvd blink 12:00, because that would indicate your probably not capable of setting up your on-line PDA or operating your car.
So who cares if grandma can't use Linux, her ilk wont matter 10+yrs down the line. Of course grandma can choose to learn.
Why so obsessed with grandma/mother/other generic computer illiterate?
In the short term they may be a market, but in the longer term (10yr+) everyone with any real stake in society will have some level of computer fluency. Most new jobs are computer based, the educational systems will follow. In the long term the 3Rs will become the 1C. Today if you cannot read or write than you will be precluded from using many modern "tools" (try opening a bank account). In the future if you can't operate a computer you will be similarly deprived, regarless of whether it is right, wrong, or fair.
On the topic of differences between men & women, is it just my experience that women produce better UI (graphical or not) than men?
In the systems I've worked on UI's *designed* by women have been better received by users than UI designed by men. This is especially apparent when some forms have been done by women and some by men, on the same project. The female designed ones seem easy to use.
Just me - or have others experienced this?