Re:Magazines and the Web
on
The eBook, Mark 2
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The Web has certainly replaced magazines for the most part
This is true only if by "replace" you mean "infringe somewhat upon the use of". While web sites have begun to take on some of the uses to which people put magazines, and while many people now forego printed magazines in favor of the Web, magazine sales are still strong enough to keep the industry going. I've worked in public libraries for nearly 20 years now, and the magazine reading room is always full of people browsing the shelves or using the magazines for school research. The usage is declining, but far too slowly to say that the Web has "replaced magazines".
New technology rarely completely replaces old. There is a period of adjustment during which a new technology will show rapid adoption, and then a new equilibrium is reached, in which users have expanded technological options, which they select on costs, relative merits and individual tastes. Radio exists happily alongside hardcopy recorded music and online music and live music. The arrival of cars did not "replace" the use of bicycles, horses, trains, or shank's mare. Chlorinated swimming pools have not replaced recreational swimming in oceans, lakes, rivers, and ponds. People still pay vast amounts of money for actual, as opposed to virtual, chessboards. Mass production of candles, soap, paper, and even vegetables have not replaced the older means of producing such goods; strong markets still exist for the handmade (or hand-raised) versions of these.
We've heard this before...
on
The eBook, Mark 2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The paper book will be obsolete at around the same time as existing technology succeeds in supplanting other more-or-less longstanding mainstays like the pocket knife, the pencil, the match, the internal combustion engine, corrective lenses, transparent glass windows, tumbler locks, zippers, analog clocks, shoes with laces, the wheel -- well, I think you get the idea.
... who think that computers are anywhere near ready to do realistic translation are people who have no concept whatsoever how complex human language really is. We will never have a working, reliable computer translation while we are still unable to fully explain or describe the rules of our own languages. Language is remarkably fluid and idiosyncratic, and the rules change not only from language to language, and from dialect to dialect within each language, but from individual to individual, and from utterance to utterance with each individual. So far, we have yet to invent a computer complex enough for the pattern-recognition skills necessary even to parse a majority of sentences correctly, much less decode them and then reconstruct them in a different language altogether.
None of this is to say that we can't ever do it, or that we shouldn't attempt. But the people who think it's possible with today's computer technology really don't understand the complexity of the problem.
I wonder how much of the confusion arises because in a Web world, "linking to" something has become a transitive, rather than a commutative, relationship. But in standard English, when two things are linked, the order is immaterial; no cause-and-effect relationship is implied by either order.
I work in a library, and one day I heard a coworker calling a patron about a book the patron had requested. We'd tried to get it from another library through interlibrary loan, and we had gone through the list of possible lenders in the online service we use ("OCLC"). On the phone with this patron who knows nothing of libraryspeak, my coworker said, "We tried to ILL it, but we've exhausted the OCLC string."
I winced as I imagined the poor little old lady on the other end trying to make English out of what my coworker was saying.
Now see, speaking as a non-techie (I'm geekish in a score of other ways), I don't confuse the terms myself, but I can easily see how the term "memory" can get confused. In your head, memory is where you store things to retrieve later -- much like the way you use a hard drive in a computer. RAM doesn't work the way most people think of their own "memory" as working -- it's more like "brainpower".
That said, I teach a computer class at the library where I work, and often have to explain the difference to our students. I like your analogy a lot, and will probably steal it the next time I teach.
A 70,000-employee company is quietly changing its ways by thinking of software as deliverable services that perhaps could be rented on a monthly subscription basis.
MS has been making it increasingly plain, at a very high volume and in no uncertain terms, that this model is precisely what they are aiming toward.
Actually, in a lot of places, companies turn to billboard trucks because the local zoning laws in some way prevent them from advertising their business. One community near me had a controversy recently: a store owner wanted a bigger sign than the (unusually restrictive) zoning laws there allowed, and so he bought a billboard truck and parked it (legally) on the street in front of his business. They wanted to pass an ordinance forbidding billboard trucks from the municipality altogether. I never did hear whether the ordinance passed.
I work part-time as a contractor for a virtual reference service (like working the reference desk in a public library, except via online chat). In order to qualify for the contract, I have to use the proprietary software that the reference service licenses. This is Windows XP software; what's worse, it requires IE 6.x to work at all -- and it requires that popups be allowed and cookies be enabled, and (worst of all) is extremely touchy to use with a firewall installed. (I do it, but it ain't pretty.)
I haven't tried to run this on WINE; to the best of my knowledge, this is exactly the type of picky software that WINE still has significant trouble accommodating. If I didn't enjoy the work and need the money, I would most likely drop the VR job and switch my laptop over to Linux, and very probably never look back. But as long as this service employs me, and continues to insist on crappy proprietary software, I'm pretty much stuck with XP.
Son't be silly. Once the Democrats win, they will find some other justification for keeping this act intact. No politician of any party would willingly relinquish power handed to them, no matter how bitterly they protested seeing that power handed to the OTHER guy.
While I agree with 90% of what you have said, I do have a quibble with one statement:
Further, even small companies have vast resources, far beyond that of all but the super rich. These resources include money, of course, but also huge amounts of mainpower and expertise that the company can use for anything it needs to do to reach its goals.
How small are these "small companies" that "have vast resources"?
I used to be half owner of a "small company". Our "vast resources" consisted of myself, my partner, and our store inventory. Hardly what I'd call "vast". There are many, many businesses like that, small-time operators who are operating on a very thin profit margin, whose resources are tied up entirely in the exigencies of keeping the business afloat. Many of them hire employees (we never had a particular need to do so).
It's a minor quibble, yes, but I thought it bore mention.
Excellent point. I'm curious how we know that the ozone hole wasn't there before humans came along, at least periodically. Perhaps an intact ozone layer is itself not natural, and resulted from human activity in the first place? Is there any way to verify that the ozone hole wasn't there 100 years ago? A thousand? A million? A billion?
I'm not arguing that it was. I'm asking if there is any way to verify whether it was. Anybody?
You must be young. Let me add some other predictions I've heard in my lifetime:
Global cooling, resulting in a new Ice Age (never mind that we haven't yet finished leaving the last one)
Coastal cities flooded by 2000
Ozone layer destroyed by 1990
Stopping forest fires is the most important way to protect our forests
Starting forest fires is the most important way to protect our forests
No edible fish by 1985
No potable water by 2000
World War III (global thermonuclear war, of course) by 2000
Can't wait to see what the next doomsday scenario will be. More fun than riding a rollercoaster.
Slashdot Mirror
The Web has certainly replaced magazines for the most part
This is true only if by "replace" you mean "infringe somewhat upon the use of". While web sites have begun to take on some of the uses to which people put magazines, and while many people now forego printed magazines in favor of the Web, magazine sales are still strong enough to keep the industry going. I've worked in public libraries for nearly 20 years now, and the magazine reading room is always full of people browsing the shelves or using the magazines for school research. The usage is declining, but far too slowly to say that the Web has "replaced magazines".
New technology rarely completely replaces old. There is a period of adjustment during which a new technology will show rapid adoption, and then a new equilibrium is reached, in which users have expanded technological options, which they select on costs, relative merits and individual tastes. Radio exists happily alongside hardcopy recorded music and online music and live music. The arrival of cars did not "replace" the use of bicycles, horses, trains, or shank's mare. Chlorinated swimming pools have not replaced recreational swimming in oceans, lakes, rivers, and ponds. People still pay vast amounts of money for actual, as opposed to virtual, chessboards. Mass production of candles, soap, paper, and even vegetables have not replaced the older means of producing such goods; strong markets still exist for the handmade (or hand-raised) versions of these.
The paper book will be obsolete at around the same time as existing technology succeeds in supplanting other more-or-less longstanding mainstays like the pocket knife, the pencil, the match, the internal combustion engine, corrective lenses, transparent glass windows, tumbler locks, zippers, analog clocks, shoes with laces, the wheel -- well, I think you get the idea.
From TFA: "One charge is good for 7,500 page turns. That's enough power to get you through "The Da Vinci Code" 16 times (electrical power, anyway)."
So my question is: Why would you want to?
... who think that computers are anywhere near ready to do realistic translation are people who have no concept whatsoever how complex human language really is. We will never have a working, reliable computer translation while we are still unable to fully explain or describe the rules of our own languages. Language is remarkably fluid and idiosyncratic, and the rules change not only from language to language, and from dialect to dialect within each language, but from individual to individual, and from utterance to utterance with each individual. So far, we have yet to invent a computer complex enough for the pattern-recognition skills necessary even to parse a majority of sentences correctly, much less decode them and then reconstruct them in a different language altogether.
None of this is to say that we can't ever do it, or that we shouldn't attempt. But the people who think it's possible with today's computer technology really don't understand the complexity of the problem.
I wonder how much of the confusion arises because in a Web world, "linking to" something has become a transitive, rather than a commutative, relationship. But in standard English, when two things are linked, the order is immaterial; no cause-and-effect relationship is implied by either order.
Why? "linked to" != "cause of", it simply indicates that there is a link between the two. "Linked" is a commutative relationship.
Amen. This problem is not specific to geekdom.
I work in a library, and one day I heard a coworker calling a patron about a book the patron had requested. We'd tried to get it from another library through interlibrary loan, and we had gone through the list of possible lenders in the online service we use ("OCLC"). On the phone with this patron who knows nothing of libraryspeak, my coworker said, "We tried to ILL it, but we've exhausted the OCLC string."
I winced as I imagined the poor little old lady on the other end trying to make English out of what my coworker was saying.
Now see, speaking as a non-techie (I'm geekish in a score of other ways), I don't confuse the terms myself, but I can easily see how the term "memory" can get confused. In your head, memory is where you store things to retrieve later -- much like the way you use a hard drive in a computer. RAM doesn't work the way most people think of their own "memory" as working -- it's more like "brainpower".
That said, I teach a computer class at the library where I work, and often have to explain the difference to our students. I like your analogy a lot, and will probably steal it the next time I teach.
A 70,000-employee company is quietly changing its ways by thinking of software as deliverable services that perhaps could be rented on a monthly subscription basis.
MS has been making it increasingly plain, at a very high volume and in no uncertain terms, that this model is precisely what they are aiming toward.
Well, I'm inclined to touch the planets too - just to make sure. But alas, my arms aren't that long. :-)
Hey! Stop plagiarizing! I wrote that slashfic!
How about "Shadowfaxing"? You can use your Shadowfax to move things rapidly across great distances.
Getting off topic, of course, but:
Actually, in a lot of places, companies turn to billboard trucks because the local zoning laws in some way prevent them from advertising their business. One community near me had a controversy recently: a store owner wanted a bigger sign than the (unusually restrictive) zoning laws there allowed, and so he bought a billboard truck and parked it (legally) on the street in front of his business. They wanted to pass an ordinance forbidding billboard trucks from the municipality altogether. I never did hear whether the ordinance passed.
I work part-time as a contractor for a virtual reference service (like working the reference desk in a public library, except via online chat). In order to qualify for the contract, I have to use the proprietary software that the reference service licenses. This is Windows XP software; what's worse, it requires IE 6.x to work at all -- and it requires that popups be allowed and cookies be enabled, and (worst of all) is extremely touchy to use with a firewall installed. (I do it, but it ain't pretty.)
I haven't tried to run this on WINE; to the best of my knowledge, this is exactly the type of picky software that WINE still has significant trouble accommodating. If I didn't enjoy the work and need the money, I would most likely drop the VR job and switch my laptop over to Linux, and very probably never look back. But as long as this service employs me, and continues to insist on crappy proprietary software, I'm pretty much stuck with XP.
"You're all individuals!"
"We're all individuals!"
"Excuse me, I'm not!"
Consider most of Emily Dickinson's work for another superb (collective) example.
Son't be silly. Once the Democrats win, they will find some other justification for keeping this act intact. No politician of any party would willingly relinquish power handed to them, no matter how bitterly they protested seeing that power handed to the OTHER guy.
While I agree with 90% of what you have said, I do have a quibble with one statement:
Further, even small companies have vast resources, far beyond that of all but the super rich. These resources include money, of course, but also huge amounts of mainpower and expertise that the company can use for anything it needs to do to reach its goals.
How small are these "small companies" that "have vast resources"?
I used to be half owner of a "small company". Our "vast resources" consisted of myself, my partner, and our store inventory. Hardly what I'd call "vast". There are many, many businesses like that, small-time operators who are operating on a very thin profit margin, whose resources are tied up entirely in the exigencies of keeping the business afloat. Many of them hire employees (we never had a particular need to do so).
It's a minor quibble, yes, but I thought it bore mention.
Clearly you've never been stalked.
You mean it hasn't?!?
Well, adding extra dimensions would explain what happens to all the left socks ...
Er ... no. One can (and I do) believe and still be curious as to whether that belief is correct, and still act on that curiosity.
But how do you prove (or know) that you have examined all cats?
Excellent point. I'm curious how we know that the ozone hole wasn't there before humans came along, at least periodically. Perhaps an intact ozone layer is itself not natural, and resulted from human activity in the first place? Is there any way to verify that the ozone hole wasn't there 100 years ago? A thousand? A million? A billion?
I'm not arguing that it was. I'm asking if there is any way to verify whether it was. Anybody?
You must be young. Let me add some other predictions I've heard in my lifetime:
Global cooling, resulting in a new Ice Age (never mind that we haven't yet finished leaving the last one)
Coastal cities flooded by 2000
Ozone layer destroyed by 1990
Stopping forest fires is the most important way to protect our forests
Starting forest fires is the most important way to protect our forests
No edible fish by 1985
No potable water by 2000
World War III (global thermonuclear war, of course) by 2000
Can't wait to see what the next doomsday scenario will be. More fun than riding a rollercoaster.