I'm not a fan of M$ by any means; however, it seems to me that any time M$ engages in "business," it is summarily accused of exercising monopolistic control. This is a pretty foolish accusation: it'll turn into - if it already hasn't - the "boy crying wolf" scenario. When monopolistic patterns of behavior re-emerge, nobody will believe the whistle-blowers.
The difference goes back a few thousand years. It's generally accepted that the American viewpoint stems from Greek philosophy - individual enlightenment and achievement through egalitarianism. Eastern philosophy focuses on individual enlightenment as well; however, instead of each individual being equal yet responsible for himself, the individual in Confucianism is responsible for the collective good. The two philosophies evolved separately because of eastern isolationism: the first non-Asians in Japan were Dutch traders in 1640-something.
This is oversimplification, I admit, but the subject's pretty involved. It really boils down to individualism vs. collectivism: the Japanese morality tale teaches that as long as we remain focused on the good of the group (village, what have you), we will eventually succeed. It's also got something to do with reincarnation: Westerners don't believe in earthly reincarnation (generally), so each individual has to make of the world what he can... hence another facet of the Adamic myth: "undefiled by the usual inheritances of family or ancestry" (Emerson).
In lit studies - only research, publication and education.
This is reason 2 for my departure to Rhetoric & Digital Media [Ph.D. program site]. The program was actually created with help from grants from a bunch of Research Triangle Park companies (as well as SAS, not in RTP). There's more at the site, but our options are MUCH greater than "English majors." We're encouraged to take Computer Science courses, Design courses, etc.
But created for an American audience - Henry James used British characters frequently; but he was American, writing to an American audience, and the female protagonist in The Turn of the Screw is classified as an "American Adam" - but she's a British governess... SEE?!?! Everyone can be right! [FULL DISCLOSURE: I wrote my thesis on the evolving American Adam, so this is a touchy area for me. I don't mean to grouse.]
You know, I have an MA in Literary and Rhetorical theory, and this kind of crap is why I left Literary study for Rhetoric and Digital Media when I went for the old Ph.D. The worst part is, I can probably cite most of the papers and books that this woman read, without even finding her references. It gets predictable. Want an alternate reading/viewing? Lara Croft is a modern female version of the "American Adam" archetype, as laid out by R.W.B. Lewis in 1955 in a book by the same name. She's "an individual standing alone, self-reliant and self-propelling, ready to confront whatever [awaits her] with the aid of [her] own unique and inherent resources" (p.5).
The point - and I do have one - is simple: the beauty of cultural criticism is that everyone can debate it endlessly, and everyone who's got the right sources can be right! Yay!
"Free speech" doesn't figure in at all. Free speech is not free access. Tell your cable company that you refuse to pay for access to content - see how far it gets you. FREE SPEECH means that you cannot be punished by a governing body for speaking against it. The protection is from the government, not from corporate entities. If a corporate entity advocates something with which you disagree, you have every right to speak against it and take your dollars elsewhere. If the government advocates something with which you disagree, you can speak against it (politics), but you can't stop paying your taxes, and moving elsewhere can be a pain in the ass.
Why do we continually assume that we can pour affordances from container to container without affecting the ways in which they must be used? A half keyboard would have worked fairly well - the machine is obviously not meant to substitute for the computer.
Let's pause for a moment and consider a few things: first, Anglo-American copyright law since the Statute of Anne (circa 1700) has been built on print. It arose from print, meant to protect publishers. Since subsequent recodification of copyright law under Queen Victoria in 1842, the law has also protected the idea of "originality" and "authorial substance"; however, its primary purpose has always been the protection of the entity responsible for publishing and distributing the information.
Over ensuing decades, little has changed but the fines - the wording of copyright law hasn't changed much at all. The problem is that under its original framing, copyright law was designed to maintain the integrity of original content; however, with digital content, the integrity does not deteriorate. Our model of law coincided with the age of print - based on physical, concrete substance and actual space. Digital space is foreign to our current body of law - an entity such as the RIAA obtaining your IP address without probable cause violates rights to due process as well as protection from unwarranted search and seizure, especially when one considers that the RIAA is not a recognized law enforcement body, and therefore could never obtain a warrant - thus having no right to search. Would you say that your neighbors could walk into your house without your presence or permission, look around for something illegal, and then call the police?
Before flaming Spitzer with our vast knowledge of the Constitution, we should be sure that we understand the document. It's Amendment 4 that states
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Next: what about the rights of computer owners? Spyware is installed, without consent, on personal computers (mostly Windoze boxes), which are recognized spaces of personal property. In one sense, it is quite similar to breaking and entering - our legal system is still rooted in the 17th century, and hasn't yet caught up to the idea that a computer is a space: it contains personal artifacts (messages, documents, calendars, etc.) - much as a room or a drawer in a home. Shouldn't that be just as protected as a home?
I will agree, people who don't/can't protect their computers are just as foolish as people who leave their doors unlocked while on vacation; however, if someone enters without permission, even if the door is unlocked, the intruder is still criminally liable.
I was in the state farmer's market last fall, and I saw THOUSANDS of apples. TONS of different kinds, all of which were for sale. I happened to be listening to the Beatles on my iPod at the time, thinking about Isacc Newton and gravity. Anyway, in one stall, this farmer had six different kinds of apples, some really tasty apple cider, and his wife and daughter were selling apple butter. His son - obviously a college student at the local agriculture school - was keeping track of money with an iBook.
I wonder if, in our present litigious clime, they, too, are liable for suit?
LIKE LOL! U guys write just like some of the Freshman English students we teach! Did u see how CUTE those kittenz were?!?! hahaha. NE1 who doesn't get this is a WAY EVIL H8R!
/vay'pr-weir/ Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place). The term came from Atari users and was later applied by Infoworld to Microsoft's continuous lying about Microsoft Windows.
Well, this will obviously be replacing my copies of The Oxford English Dictionary: OED never uses accusatory rumors as the basis for definitive examples. This is why people don't consider ___(Insert free Internet Reference Source Here)__ a valid reference. Even at my university - among the better tech & engineering schools in the country (Red Hat is here) - we don't accept them.
I'm in usability testing, and I'll provide an adage for everyone to live by: "There is no such thing as an intuitive interface.". Intuitive interfaces are a pipe dream: they would require access to thought patterns by the computer which nobody would allow because they'd be screaming about privacy before the product hit the market. Interface is interface, it is a means of interaction, and even improved interface is going to cause a hell of a lot of difficulty in transition.
The reason that spyware targets MSWN is that it's where the market is. Vista may help for a while, but once enough people use it, spyware will target it, and eventually the problems will build to the current level. I have no pity for Microsoft: the advantages of being Microsoft far outweigh the negatives; when they start throwing money at something, they know there will always be more.
For now, anyway. If, someday down the line, MS is replaced by another corporate monster, said monster will become the newest target. In any field dominated by code, there will always be people who are willing and able to develop code that exploits some loophole, and every development that closes a loophole will open another.
Actually, I work in usability testing & human factors. The primary rule? The more crap in separate menus, the more automated functions, the more difficult it is to learn, i.e., BE PRODUCTIVE. The basic end user only uses seven functions in his word processor (well, the average is 6.785, but we round to seven). Automated functions remove control from the users. If you ask anyone who has tested Microsoft products for research labs, you'll find that they have among the worst track records in the business. Why? Because they know people will buy whatever they shrinkwrap and stick on a shelf.
Did he use M$ Office and "productivity" in the same sentence? I thought being productive meant "producing output", not struggling with ninety thousand features that nobody uses. Autocomplete, autoformat, auto-this, and undoing, stopping auto-whatever, takes bloody forever. I stopped using Office years ago, and don't regret it a bit. Since when did building on top of old, crappy code count as "innovation?"
I'm not sure I'm the biggest fan of OpenOffice.org - sometimes it's a bit too big; however, there are enough open source apps that run independently (AbiWord for wp, etc.) that I'm confident that I'll never have to give Bill Gates another dollar.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a fan of M$ by any means; however, it seems to me that any time M$ engages in "business," it is summarily accused of exercising monopolistic control. This is a pretty foolish accusation: it'll turn into - if it already hasn't - the "boy crying wolf" scenario. When monopolistic patterns of behavior re-emerge, nobody will believe the whistle-blowers.
The difference goes back a few thousand years. It's generally accepted that the American viewpoint stems from Greek philosophy - individual enlightenment and achievement through egalitarianism. Eastern philosophy focuses on individual enlightenment as well; however, instead of each individual being equal yet responsible for himself, the individual in Confucianism is responsible for the collective good. The two philosophies evolved separately because of eastern isolationism: the first non-Asians in Japan were Dutch traders in 1640-something.
This is oversimplification, I admit, but the subject's pretty involved. It really boils down to individualism vs. collectivism: the Japanese morality tale teaches that as long as we remain focused on the good of the group (village, what have you), we will eventually succeed. It's also got something to do with reincarnation: Westerners don't believe in earthly reincarnation (generally), so each individual has to make of the world what he can... hence another facet of the Adamic myth: "undefiled by the usual inheritances of family or ancestry" (Emerson).
In lit studies - only research, publication and education. This is reason 2 for my departure to Rhetoric & Digital Media [Ph.D. program site]. The program was actually created with help from grants from a bunch of Research Triangle Park companies (as well as SAS, not in RTP). There's more at the site, but our options are MUCH greater than "English majors." We're encouraged to take Computer Science courses, Design courses, etc.
But created for an American audience - Henry James used British characters frequently; but he was American, writing to an American audience, and the female protagonist in The Turn of the Screw is classified as an "American Adam" - but she's a British governess... SEE?!?! Everyone can be right! [FULL DISCLOSURE: I wrote my thesis on the evolving American Adam, so this is a touchy area for me. I don't mean to grouse.]
You know, I have an MA in Literary and Rhetorical theory, and this kind of crap is why I left Literary study for Rhetoric and Digital Media when I went for the old Ph.D. The worst part is, I can probably cite most of the papers and books that this woman read, without even finding her references. It gets predictable. Want an alternate reading/viewing? Lara Croft is a modern female version of the "American Adam" archetype, as laid out by R.W.B. Lewis in 1955 in a book by the same name. She's "an individual standing alone, self-reliant and self-propelling, ready to confront whatever [awaits her] with the aid of [her] own unique and inherent resources" (p.5).
The point - and I do have one - is simple: the beauty of cultural criticism is that everyone can debate it endlessly, and everyone who's got the right sources can be right! Yay!
"Free speech" doesn't figure in at all. Free speech is not free access. Tell your cable company that you refuse to pay for access to content - see how far it gets you. FREE SPEECH means that you cannot be punished by a governing body for speaking against it. The protection is from the government, not from corporate entities. If a corporate entity advocates something with which you disagree, you have every right to speak against it and take your dollars elsewhere. If the government advocates something with which you disagree, you can speak against it (politics), but you can't stop paying your taxes, and moving elsewhere can be a pain in the ass.
The university at which I teach (NC State) is moving to an open source policy in the labs, slowly working away from the MS jungle.
You actually have to do work when you have ... no connection? [Cringes and hides from constantly wired /.ers]
Why do we continually assume that we can pour affordances from container to container without affecting the ways in which they must be used? A half keyboard would have worked fairly well - the machine is obviously not meant to substitute for the computer.
To paraphrase Stanley Fish, there ain't no such thing as free speech, and it's a good thing. Take a look.
When private actors do it, it's called "illegal entry," or "breaking and entering."
Let's pause for a moment and consider a few things: first, Anglo-American copyright law since the Statute of Anne (circa 1700) has been built on print. It arose from print, meant to protect publishers. Since subsequent recodification of copyright law under Queen Victoria in 1842, the law has also protected the idea of "originality" and "authorial substance"; however, its primary purpose has always been the protection of the entity responsible for publishing and distributing the information.
Over ensuing decades, little has changed but the fines - the wording of copyright law hasn't changed much at all. The problem is that under its original framing, copyright law was designed to maintain the integrity of original content; however, with digital content, the integrity does not deteriorate. Our model of law coincided with the age of print - based on physical, concrete substance and actual space. Digital space is foreign to our current body of law - an entity such as the RIAA obtaining your IP address without probable cause violates rights to due process as well as protection from unwarranted search and seizure, especially when one considers that the RIAA is not a recognized law enforcement body, and therefore could never obtain a warrant - thus having no right to search. Would you say that your neighbors could walk into your house without your presence or permission, look around for something illegal, and then call the police?
Corporate entities were created and identified to simplify the legal system, as stupid as it sounds. In a legal sense, the corporation is a person.
Before flaming Spitzer with our vast knowledge of the Constitution, we should be sure that we understand the document. It's Amendment 4 that states
Next: what about the rights of computer owners? Spyware is installed, without consent, on personal computers (mostly Windoze boxes), which are recognized spaces of personal property. In one sense, it is quite similar to breaking and entering - our legal system is still rooted in the 17th century, and hasn't yet caught up to the idea that a computer is a space: it contains personal artifacts (messages, documents, calendars, etc.) - much as a room or a drawer in a home. Shouldn't that be just as protected as a home?I will agree, people who don't/can't protect their computers are just as foolish as people who leave their doors unlocked while on vacation; however, if someone enters without permission, even if the door is unlocked, the intruder is still criminally liable.
Thomas Jefferson would say that it was #2 - he once said that God, if He exists as the Bible says He does, is a selfish and spoiled child.
I was in the state farmer's market last fall, and I saw THOUSANDS of apples. TONS of different kinds, all of which were for sale. I happened to be listening to the Beatles on my iPod at the time, thinking about Isacc Newton and gravity. Anyway, in one stall, this farmer had six different kinds of apples, some really tasty apple cider, and his wife and daughter were selling apple butter. His son - obviously a college student at the local agriculture school - was keeping track of money with an iBook.
I wonder if, in our present litigious clime, they, too, are liable for suit?
You know, if it weren't April 1, I could actually believe this story.
LIKE LOL! U guys write just like some of the Freshman English students we teach! Did u see how CUTE those kittenz were?!?! hahaha. NE1 who doesn't get this is a WAY EVIL H8R!
Nah, I agree with him in principle. I don't let my kids use Microsoft. They have enough problems already, looking like me and all.
But...but...but... Blog-reading is the only use to which I put my RSS newsreaders :) - You don't expect me to read ACTUAL news, do you?
Well, this will obviously be replacing my copies of The Oxford English Dictionary: OED never uses accusatory rumors as the basis for definitive examples. This is why people don't consider ___(Insert free Internet Reference Source Here)__ a valid reference. Even at my university - among the better tech & engineering schools in the country (Red Hat is here) - we don't accept them.
I'm in usability testing, and I'll provide an adage for everyone to live by: "There is no such thing as an intuitive interface.". Intuitive interfaces are a pipe dream: they would require access to thought patterns by the computer which nobody would allow because they'd be screaming about privacy before the product hit the market. Interface is interface, it is a means of interaction, and even improved interface is going to cause a hell of a lot of difficulty in transition.
The reason that spyware targets MSWN is that it's where the market is. Vista may help for a while, but once enough people use it, spyware will target it, and eventually the problems will build to the current level. I have no pity for Microsoft: the advantages of being Microsoft far outweigh the negatives; when they start throwing money at something, they know there will always be more.
For now, anyway. If, someday down the line, MS is replaced by another corporate monster, said monster will become the newest target. In any field dominated by code, there will always be people who are willing and able to develop code that exploits some loophole, and every development that closes a loophole will open another.
Actually, I work in usability testing & human factors. The primary rule? The more crap in separate menus, the more automated functions, the more difficult it is to learn, i.e., BE PRODUCTIVE. The basic end user only uses seven functions in his word processor (well, the average is 6.785, but we round to seven). Automated functions remove control from the users. If you ask anyone who has tested Microsoft products for research labs, you'll find that they have among the worst track records in the business. Why? Because they know people will buy whatever they shrinkwrap and stick on a shelf.
Did he use M$ Office and "productivity" in the same sentence? I thought being productive meant "producing output", not struggling with ninety thousand features that nobody uses. Autocomplete, autoformat, auto-this, and undoing, stopping auto-whatever, takes bloody forever. I stopped using Office years ago, and don't regret it a bit. Since when did building on top of old, crappy code count as "innovation?"
I'm not sure I'm the biggest fan of OpenOffice.org - sometimes it's a bit too big; however, there are enough open source apps that run independently (AbiWord for wp, etc.) that I'm confident that I'll never have to give Bill Gates another dollar.