The comment that "it's a clumsy and dangerous attempt at 'making things right'" ignores the fact that Justice Department attacks on Microsoft were brought on by Microsoft's own predatory business practices
Many companies, consisting of people with bright ideas, sound business strategies, and clever products, were buried by Microsoft in such a rutheless fashion that Justice was forced, against their will seemingly, to take action.
It's not just about M$ being a monopoly, it's about blatant abuse of the rules of fair business. You can be as cynical as you want and say that every big company operates this way, but there's a huge difference between competing vigorously and taking out your competitors in a dark alleyway.
Microsoft has been hit hard by the Justice Department activity. It has taken their top people's attention away from important tasks, it has changed the public's opinion of them (which makes them less likely to blithely believe all claims of M$ technical superiority), and perhaps more importantly, it has sent the signal that illegal business practices will get you in serious hot water.
Come on, do you really think that Microsoft is just some company that makes software? They're a huge force in the business world, and for better or for worse, many many smaller businesses emulate their practices. We need to show all those other businesses that acting as Microsoft has is not something to be admired and repeated.
Let's just consider for a moment ONE of the many contributions the space program has made to our everyday lives: Satellites.
They're being used to conduct tremendously important research on global weather patterns and global warming. Without satellites, we'd have no real method of gathering information about these things on a global scale. The amount of information that can be packed into a series of geosat shots of, say, Africa, is staggering.
Without satellites we would never have found out about depletion of the ozone layer, nor would we have been able to successfully monitor progress toward restoring the ozone layer.
The war against Iraq would have been FAR more costly in lives without the use of satellite-assisted targeting. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the necessity of the war, in pure human terms, satellites probably saved lives by allowing the Coalition to decapitate Hussein's command and control rapidly.
Satellites are being used to identify viable areas of oil exploration. Again, regardless of whether you agree that oil is the future, it certainly is the present, and modern techniques depend to a great degree on satellites. Without satellite technology, we may well have actually run out of crude oil a decade ago.
Telecommunications. Our world would be profoundly different without the ability to transmit packets via satellite.
Weather reports. This may seem like a minor convenience, but if you're a farmer, it means the difference between a good crop and a great crop, or perhaps even a viable crop and one that forces you to go under. Farming is a sophisticated endeavor these days, and the people who provide the food we all eat depend on satellites to get us that food.
Treaty monitoring. How much more difficult is it for a nation to violate treaties on weapons of mass destruction, or to conduct troop buildups, now that we can monitor these things from above? The more visible things are, the tougher it is for anyone to mount the kinds of surprise attacks that have triggered world wars.
I could go on and on about this ONE technology made available to us all due to the space program. Now think of all of the other contributions, extrapolate each of them, and you'll realize how much better off we are because of our exploration of space.
I've used Red Hat 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2. I've used SuSE 6.1 and 7.0. I've used MkLinux and Caldera 2.2. And I've used the OS X beta.
The question of whether OS X is a "threat" on the desktop has already been amply answered. Of course it's not a threat, but if you think of OS X as somehow thwarting Linux's growth on the desktop, let's put aside religion and think about the Average User. Linux's potential to succeed on the desktop has always been limited.
Why do most people buy personal computersr these days? To play games, get on the Internet, run Microsoft Office at home (because they have it at work), and maybe get crazy with some digital photo software and/or CD burning equipment. Now folks are even using tools like iMovie to create their own movies.
Linux simply doesn't have the software that will turn the average home user's head. There aren't many games (though that is changing). There is no Microsoft Office (the Mac's continued existence has in some ways been reliant on the presence of a Mac version of Office). There are no widely-known sound or video editing tools (no flames - I said "widely known"). Basically, Linux has been marketed to those of us who use it for hard-core geek uses like web services and LAN management.
Now, if the process of refining Linux installations continues (kudos to Caldera for their incredibly straightforward installation process), and Nautilus takes hold (let's be honest here - XWindows is a real pain in the butt sometimes), and more software becomes available, Linux will make further inroads onto desktops.
In the mean time, OS X will be there, keeping its guts hidden so that Mac users won't be too intimidated. Maybe a few would-be Linux users will choose OS X instead, but in the long run, it's probably good for everyone. As others have mentioned, the *NIX juggernaut can handle many different flavors. It's not about one OS ruling all, it's about many OSes being able to coexist peacefully.
World Domination is for those with limited imaginations.;-)
While the GIMP is good, and it might give Photoshop some competition, Adobe's real strength is in the cohesion of their graphics/publishing software suites. Photoshop, Illustrator, and now InDesign all use a very similar interface, and graphic designers are used to using Adobe tools.
Like most of us, graphic designers are creatures of habit, and unless something tremendously easier to use and more powerful comes along, they'll stick with what they've got.
There have already been several inexpensive and relatively powerful graphic design tools that have been steamrolled by the Adobe juggernaut, and my guess is that the GIMP will make only minor inroads into Adobe territory.
It would be great if the GIMP forced Adobe to rethink their pricing, and perhaps get off their butts and make truly scriptable actions. I think that the GIMP's biggest contribution will be just that - to kick Adobe in the pants and make them realize that competition can spring up from anywhere these days.
They may be very involved and addictive, but they're just games. I guarantee you that there are people who are gamers who also brag about their sexual exploits, and having been in a combat zone myself, I can tell you I'd much rather tell war stories than describe cheats I came up with for Myth II.
Why is it that because they're so technology-intensive, computer/console games are suddenly some new form of amazing expression to you?
I know people who watch movies continuously. I know people who play pencil and paper role playing games for hours on end. Are they also taking part in some kind of hitherto never witnessed revolution in creativity?
Maybe.. just maybe.. they're simply engaged in diversions. And maybe, just maybe, that's all there is to it.
>>
Other generations told war stories or bragged about their sexual exploits. Gamers trade techniques and other lore -- early experiences, confrontations, conflicts, great exploits, cheats, tricks, myths, and legends.
I thought the whole point of the Open Source movement was that people working outside the boundaries of normal corporate business could create innovative, powerful products.
If interface developers dislike Apple for making Aqua proprietary, shouldn't they build their own interfaces rather than copying Apple's? Seems like imitation is the most sincere form of flattery in this case.
I spent 18 months as the webmaster/web designer for the Corporation for National Service, a relatively small (about 500 employees) agency. I created the structure of the site, and although there have been some cosmetic changes since my departure two years ago, the structure remains essentially intact for better or for worse.
The biggest difficulties I found were usually not as much technical as they were administrative. Though nobody answered to me, I had to obtain cooperation for content management from the people running the various departments of the agency. Each department, of course, wanted to promote and present their content in a different manner, suited to their own internal operating methods and/or politics.
Essentially I had to become a user advocate, filtering every request to post content through the lens of the user. One constant was that internal clients could only see the website from their perspective within the organization. They wanted the structure of the site to mirror the structure of the organization.
Stay away from this at all costs - it's poison! As a user, I don't care whether annual reports are the responsibility of the Office of External Affairs or the Office of Transnational Affairs. All I care about is that I can find the annual report and get out of the site. Government sites are not entertaining - they can be easy to use, but people looking for entertainment on the web are going to The Onion, not to government sites.
In summary, think of yourself as a person on the street who needs information from your organization. You just want the info. Provide everything you possibly can in printable formats. PDF forms with fill-in boxes, while a pain to prepare, result in forms that users can fill in well regardless of their horrible penmanship. Give people direct communication when they ask you questions, and have the reply be from an actual person, not an autoresponder. This alone really impacted users' view of the organization. I received many emails from users thanking me for giving a face to the faceless agency
My guess is that you're understaffed and are being given contradicting mandates - that seems to be the way things work in government, and your site will doubtless reflect some of those tradeoffs. I wish you the best of luck!
Linux was created by geeks, and despite the immense brainpower of said geeks, it's been difficult to get large numbers of non-geeks to use Linux as their primary home or buisiness desktop computer.
Think about it - how many friends/family do you know who use Linux as their primary desktop machines to use the Internet, file their recepies, write memos, do their taxes, etc.?
Apple is and always has been the most well-known innovator on the consumer computer hardware side of the market. When they lead, others follow. Cast aside arguments about the merits of their technology, but think about how many times their lead has been followed by other OEMs.
Now imagine the leader in consumer computer hardware using a BSD variant as their OS. Now imagine other hardware vendors thinking to themselves - hmm.. we could take a cue here, cast off the M$ shackles, and use a BSD variant on OUR machines.
Until BSD and Linux can get past the stigma of being seen as useful only to geeks, neither OS will take a significant bit out of M$ in the consumer market. Right now the only hardware vendor capable of spearheading that charge is Apple.
Can anyone corroborate the article's statement that 90% of nonprofit organizations in the U.S. cannot afford to maintain more than 15 networked computers?
Maybe this is why for so long schools have been such strong Mac advocates. I say this from the experience of having administered networks on a pro bono basis for three separate K-12 networks. They all used Macs and in every case but one had only volunteer sysads.
I use Linux at work, and I believe that Open Source tools could take over at nonprofits and other low-operating budget environments, but in those organizations the person running the network is usually a novice who has ten times more demands than he has time or resources.
If someone could package a distro aimed squarely at novice users who simply want to create a network that will allow file sharing, Net access, and printing, with very limited options, it would spread like wildfire.
A clear, non-technical step-by-step set of instructions as a PDF (take a look at the instructions that come with an iMac - the illustrations make setup idiot-proof) is essential to success. We may be used to man files, but admins of small nonprofit networks need clear, easy to understand guides.
This is the biggest single failing of Open Source tools right now - despite many efforts, the amount of learning - "Thinking Linux" that people have to do in order to use the tools is prohibitive.
The tools are supposed to work for human beings, not the other way around. When the Open Source movement can get out of the elitist mentality, we'll really see it take off like a rocket.
True. Who cares who is elected to the US presidency?
I mean, it's not like who we elect has any bearing on reality. They're all the same.
Uhhh...
Theodore Roosevelt starts the acquisition of huge tracts of wilderness for the American people to enjoy as national parks.
Abraham Lincoln wages war against the South to maintain the integrity of the Union.
John F. Kennedy puts the nation on course to the moon.
Harry Truman initiates the Marshall Plan, to rebuild Europe after World War II.
Woodrow Wilson throws the US into World War I, a war that most Americans thought had nothing to do with them.
George Bush embarks on a crusade against Saddam Hussein, creating the largest multinational force since World War II, and committing tremendous resources to throwing Hussein out of Kuwait.
Do you mean to tell me that all of those instances were fated to happen, regardless of who was president? Take off your Cycnical Bored Smarter-Than-You Glasses and look at the world as it is. Individuals, be they politicians or voters, are too complex to be reduced to means and averages.
If you think there's nothing gained by voting, then by all means, don't vote. It makes my vote that much more powerful.
It's not for Bush or Gore to decide by a coin toss or a game of cards or whatever.
It's up to the voters of the United States to decide, and the voters have spoken. Just because Florida had problems counting the ballots doesn't mean that voters in Florida abdicated responsibility for the election to the candidates themselves.
I disagree with the view that nobody *wants* either of the candidates. The vigorousness of the campaign and the intensity of emotion, particularly from Republicans who have an axe to grind with Gore because of his part in the Clinton administration, indicates to me that there was a clear choice to many people.
The fact that the nation was divided down the middle about it doesn't mean that there weren't strong feelings on both sides, it means that there is a cultural schism in this country that is widening rather than narrowing.
bonzo, I was indeed being sarcastic. I like the method of your reply, and agree with everything you said.;-)
The big thing I was trying to get at is that to program an interface may be easy, but the thinking behind how an interface should work and why is actually extremely involved and difficult.
That's why Microsoft, in spite of having zillions of dollars, is still having a hard time getting their UIs to match those of (pick one) Apple, Be, Gnome, KDE....
In fact, there's an entire discipline devoted to interface development, and the people who developed the graphical user interface over the years may have a little something to do with the personal computer revolution and the rise of the Internet.
But perhaps we should go back to the good old days, when there were no "pretty fountains" and it was just the command line. No pesky web sites with all those pesky maps, movies, and other nuisances!
is the backbone of economics. In fact, economics is the study of how humans have unlimited desires and only limited means.
Darwin is a case in point. Apple is clearly feeling the Open Source waters. If you were Steve Jobs, would you say, "Hmm, we've spent literally thousands of man-years on developing the technology behind the MacOS and our NeXT tools. I think we should just give this stuff away for free and make *that* the main thrust of our OS effort!"
Uhh.. not likely. Apple has finite resources. One thing that continually amazes me is that people seem to think that a large computer company has infinite resources to throw at any given technical challenge. The reality is that even an Open Source effort like Darwin requires time and money. Even more important, and scarce, is human capital.
The fact is, Apple can't trust an Open Source effort with their flagship software at this point. The entire future of Apple is at stake. It may be feasible to pull Darwin and OS X onto the same track at some point, but to expect that in the midst of a make or break project, Apple is going to siphon off extra effort for Darwin is just not realistic.
Actually, I hear the Chinese are building nukes with stolen American plans. Now, if M$ had anything to do with the software in the guidance systems, China will have someone really dangerous to deal with...
Uh, Jon, I hate to tell you this, but the whole "progress" thing has been going on for a while, and it ain't predictable.
In the early stages of the automobile, there were hundreds of manufacturers in the US, and lots of unsafe cars. Now there are the Big Three and cars are much safer, but do you think that during the early stages of the industry anyone could possibly have predicted what the automobile would become? In the early stages of any new technology, it's really rather impossible to predict future uses or outcomes.
Dynamite was supposed to render wars a thing of the past, due to its vast destructive power. I'll bet if you polled leading "experts" and concerned citizens at the time of its creation, most would have agreed with that prognosis.
My point is that it would be wonderful if we could truly understand the impact of new technologies before their introduction into society, but there are so many variables (human behavior, economic trends, interaction with other technologies, invaders from Mars...) that it's just not feasible to come to any real conclusions about the impact of a technology, other than the really obvious, immediate effects.
You seem to be saying that we should innovate in accordance within the framework of a vast plan, which is contrary to how innovation works best.
Yeah, I was a college student punk too, back in the day. Then I realized that while protest is fun and cool, and allows for a certain emotional distance from things, it's much harder to actually DO something as opposed to bitching about things.
I checked out your rather vague and intellectually slack site, and my question is:
Other than simply protesting the current system, what would you do to create a better method that would allow Americans to govern themselves?
Seriously, I'd like to see what this better system would entail. You've got an open forum here, go for it.
It is a pain. You have to sort through all the election materials. You have to go out and *find* nonpartisan information. Then you have to go to the polling booth! The humanity!
When you figure that the US President is essentially the most powerful person on the planet (don't give me palaver about Gates - he can't send in the Marines or lob Cruise missiles at anyone), it's very important, not only for us here in the US, but for people all over the world who gets elected.
Then think about what people before you had to do *just to get the right to vote*! The Revolutionary War was about taxation without representation, among other things. The Women's Sufferage Movement, the Civil Rights Movement - essentially all these tremendous efforts were about giving people the right to vote and thereby influence the direction of the nation.
If you think that voting is too difficult, think about why all those people fought for the right to vote.
Finally, if you think that the system is flawed, get active in the political process. Find someone who would be a good candidate at the local, state, or federal level, and commit yourself to working your ass off to get them elected.
Sharpshooting from the sidelines is easy, but making democracy work takes work. It really is a responsibility as well as a gift. Pining for a more perfect form of democracy without using the tools you've already been given makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
Ok, there's this bizarre ritual in U.S. high schools. According to some, it was thought up as a means of mollifying those pro-Britain loyalists who who couldn't stand it when the colonies broke free of Britain.
"We *need* royalty, dammit!" these loyalists demanded. "We need a means of fixing our place in the social ladder. How will we know where we stand if we don't have someone at the top?"
So the tradition of the high school homecoming was instituted. Essentially it's a weird ritual that revolves around the most important football game of the year for a given high school. For this football game, the former Homecoming Kings and Queens, former runners-up, and former wannabe Kings and Queens who all graduated from said high school years ago, return to revisit the glamour and pageantry of their high school years.
The entire school is encouraged through relentless banners, announcements, flyers, cheerleading shenanegans, and other inducements, to attend this marvellous football game, so that they might be one with the pathetic alumni who are also attending the game.
Somewhere in the midst of this pageant (sometimes during the halftime, sometimes before, sometimes after the game), the Homecoming King and Queen are announced. These young royals have undergone a grueling competition that stretches for weeks. The competition consists of being as cheerful and friendly as possible. Bonus points are given for aristocratic precidents (sons and daughters of influential families often do well), good looks (let's be serious, this is America), lack of intellectual rigor (this isn't student goverment, you know), and involvement in as many sports and extracurricular clubs as possible.
The King and Queen are crowned, the losers are downcast, the alumni laugh and clap, and everyone gets a thorough dose of training for what awaits them in college, when they'll all go through a similar version when they try for spots in fraternities and sororities.
Katz has done it again. To anyone who was born after the shooting of JFK, the Internet is a neat tool. It helps us get our shopping done. It helps us communicate with people.
But it's no more spiritual than the telephone, the fax machine, or the cell phone. Spirituality never comes from the things humans create. It comes from human beings themselves.
Want to be spiritual? Go hike in Yosemite, or go to church, or read the Koran. Going to a website and typing IMHO all over the place is just entertainment, amusement, and sometimes edification. It's certainly not spirituality.
We're using WebObjects - because developers can code the HTML in a text editor or a WYSIWG, or using the built in WebObjects front-end tool. The developer does the actual integration between the database and the frontend.
WO has been around for several years, is tremendously scalable, and is quite powerful
Basically these days Apple is going the Java route, so although you can code in WO using Java or Objective-C, Java is the way to go.
There's a fair learning curve associated with learning to develop in WO, but once you learn it, you've got a serious toolkit, rather than a "targeted solution" shrinkwrap affair. It can pull from practically any data source, has built-in load-balancing features, and utilizes a very sophisticated object framework.
You can develop on NT or OS X Server, and can deploy on NT, OS X Server, HP UNIX, and the strong rumor is that the next rev will deploy on Linux - it's being rewritten completely in Java.
Politics is what happens when two or more people interact. Think about it - when you go visit your folks for Thanksgiving this year, there will be politics. When you are discussing how to code the Widget-cracker 2000, there will be politics. There's even politics in... the Open Source Community (perish the thought).
Politics is about compromise, which is to many in geek culture a dirty word. But it's how people are able to get along, coexist, and move forward together. Human interaction is not binary. There are seldom yes or no answers. Even in programming and high-technology, there are countless arguments about trade-offs (RAMBUS/DDR, Mac/PC, Dreamcast/PS2, etc.).
Politics is not pretty. It doesn't always (or even often) produce the best leaders. However, it's a very complicated thing to get the majority of any group to agree on something and act on it.
By saying that new technology profoundly changes politics, or that it should profoundly change politics, people are essentially saying, "I want a technology solution to a human issue." They want clarity in a world that is fundamentally fuzzy.
It's not that simple - it never has been and never will be. Relationships, between two people or two hundred million, take hard work.
Slashdot Mirror
Many companies, consisting of people with bright ideas, sound business strategies, and clever products, were buried by Microsoft in such a rutheless fashion that Justice was forced, against their will seemingly, to take action.
It's not just about M$ being a monopoly, it's about blatant abuse of the rules of fair business. You can be as cynical as you want and say that every big company operates this way, but there's a huge difference between competing vigorously and taking out your competitors in a dark alleyway.
Microsoft has been hit hard by the Justice Department activity. It has taken their top people's attention away from important tasks, it has changed the public's opinion of them (which makes them less likely to blithely believe all claims of M$ technical superiority), and perhaps more importantly, it has sent the signal that illegal business practices will get you in serious hot water.
Come on, do you really think that Microsoft is just some company that makes software? They're a huge force in the business world, and for better or for worse, many many smaller businesses emulate their practices. We need to show all those other businesses that acting as Microsoft has is not something to be admired and repeated.
They're being used to conduct tremendously important research on global weather patterns and global warming. Without satellites, we'd have no real method of gathering information about these things on a global scale. The amount of information that can be packed into a series of geosat shots of, say, Africa, is staggering.
Without satellites we would never have found out about depletion of the ozone layer, nor would we have been able to successfully monitor progress toward restoring the ozone layer.
The war against Iraq would have been FAR more costly in lives without the use of satellite-assisted targeting. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the necessity of the war, in pure human terms, satellites probably saved lives by allowing the Coalition to decapitate Hussein's command and control rapidly.
Satellites are being used to identify viable areas of oil exploration. Again, regardless of whether you agree that oil is the future, it certainly is the present, and modern techniques depend to a great degree on satellites. Without satellite technology, we may well have actually run out of crude oil a decade ago.
Telecommunications. Our world would be profoundly different without the ability to transmit packets via satellite.
Weather reports. This may seem like a minor convenience, but if you're a farmer, it means the difference between a good crop and a great crop, or perhaps even a viable crop and one that forces you to go under. Farming is a sophisticated endeavor these days, and the people who provide the food we all eat depend on satellites to get us that food.
Treaty monitoring. How much more difficult is it for a nation to violate treaties on weapons of mass destruction, or to conduct troop buildups, now that we can monitor these things from above? The more visible things are, the tougher it is for anyone to mount the kinds of surprise attacks that have triggered world wars.
I could go on and on about this ONE technology made available to us all due to the space program. Now think of all of the other contributions, extrapolate each of them, and you'll realize how much better off we are because of our exploration of space.
Or your grandfather, for that matter ;-)
I've used Red Hat 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2. I've used SuSE 6.1 and 7.0. I've used MkLinux and Caldera 2.2. And I've used the OS X beta.
The question of whether OS X is a "threat" on the desktop has already been amply answered. Of course it's not a threat, but if you think of OS X as somehow thwarting Linux's growth on the desktop, let's put aside religion and think about the Average User. Linux's potential to succeed on the desktop has always been limited.
Why do most people buy personal computersr these days? To play games, get on the Internet, run Microsoft Office at home (because they have it at work), and maybe get crazy with some digital photo software and/or CD burning equipment. Now folks are even using tools like iMovie to create their own movies.
Linux simply doesn't have the software that will turn the average home user's head. There aren't many games (though that is changing). There is no Microsoft Office (the Mac's continued existence has in some ways been reliant on the presence of a Mac version of Office). There are no widely-known sound or video editing tools (no flames - I said "widely known"). Basically, Linux has been marketed to those of us who use it for hard-core geek uses like web services and LAN management.
Now, if the process of refining Linux installations continues (kudos to Caldera for their incredibly straightforward installation process), and Nautilus takes hold (let's be honest here - XWindows is a real pain in the butt sometimes), and more software becomes available, Linux will make further inroads onto desktops.
In the mean time, OS X will be there, keeping its guts hidden so that Mac users won't be too intimidated. Maybe a few would-be Linux users will choose OS X instead, but in the long run, it's probably good for everyone. As others have mentioned, the *NIX juggernaut can handle many different flavors. It's not about one OS ruling all, it's about many OSes being able to coexist peacefully.
World Domination is for those with limited imaginations. ;-)
Like most of us, graphic designers are creatures of habit, and unless something tremendously easier to use and more powerful comes along, they'll stick with what they've got.
There have already been several inexpensive and relatively powerful graphic design tools that have been steamrolled by the Adobe juggernaut, and my guess is that the GIMP will make only minor inroads into Adobe territory.
It would be great if the GIMP forced Adobe to rethink their pricing, and perhaps get off their butts and make truly scriptable actions. I think that the GIMP's biggest contribution will be just that - to kick Adobe in the pants and make them realize that competition can spring up from anywhere these days.
They may be very involved and addictive, but they're just games. I guarantee you that there are people who are gamers who also brag about their sexual exploits, and having been in a combat zone myself, I can tell you I'd much rather tell war stories than describe cheats I came up with for Myth II.
Why is it that because they're so technology-intensive, computer/console games are suddenly some new form of amazing expression to you?
I know people who watch movies continuously. I know people who play pencil and paper role playing games for hours on end. Are they also taking part in some kind of hitherto never witnessed revolution in creativity?
Maybe.. just maybe.. they're simply engaged in diversions. And maybe, just maybe, that's all there is to it.
>> Other generations told war stories or bragged about their sexual exploits. Gamers trade techniques and other lore -- early experiences, confrontations, conflicts, great exploits, cheats, tricks, myths, and legends.
I thought the whole point of the Open Source movement was that people working outside the boundaries of normal corporate business could create innovative, powerful products.
If interface developers dislike Apple for making Aqua proprietary, shouldn't they build their own interfaces rather than copying Apple's? Seems like imitation is the most sincere form of flattery in this case.
The biggest difficulties I found were usually not as much technical as they were administrative. Though nobody answered to me, I had to obtain cooperation for content management from the people running the various departments of the agency. Each department, of course, wanted to promote and present their content in a different manner, suited to their own internal operating methods and/or politics.
Essentially I had to become a user advocate, filtering every request to post content through the lens of the user. One constant was that internal clients could only see the website from their perspective within the organization. They wanted the structure of the site to mirror the structure of the organization.
Stay away from this at all costs - it's poison! As a user, I don't care whether annual reports are the responsibility of the Office of External Affairs or the Office of Transnational Affairs. All I care about is that I can find the annual report and get out of the site. Government sites are not entertaining - they can be easy to use, but people looking for entertainment on the web are going to The Onion, not to government sites.
In summary, think of yourself as a person on the street who needs information from your organization. You just want the info. Provide everything you possibly can in printable formats. PDF forms with fill-in boxes, while a pain to prepare, result in forms that users can fill in well regardless of their horrible penmanship. Give people direct communication when they ask you questions, and have the reply be from an actual person, not an autoresponder. This alone really impacted users' view of the organization. I received many emails from users thanking me for giving a face to the faceless agency
My guess is that you're understaffed and are being given contradicting mandates - that seems to be the way things work in government, and your site will doubtless reflect some of those tradeoffs. I wish you the best of luck!
Linux was created by geeks, and despite the immense brainpower of said geeks, it's been difficult to get large numbers of non-geeks to use Linux as their primary home or buisiness desktop computer.
Think about it - how many friends/family do you know who use Linux as their primary desktop machines to use the Internet, file their recepies, write memos, do their taxes, etc.?
Apple is and always has been the most well-known innovator on the consumer computer hardware side of the market. When they lead, others follow. Cast aside arguments about the merits of their technology, but think about how many times their lead has been followed by other OEMs.
Now imagine the leader in consumer computer hardware using a BSD variant as their OS. Now imagine other hardware vendors thinking to themselves - hmm.. we could take a cue here, cast off the M$ shackles, and use a BSD variant on OUR machines.
Until BSD and Linux can get past the stigma of being seen as useful only to geeks, neither OS will take a significant bit out of M$ in the consumer market. Right now the only hardware vendor capable of spearheading that charge is Apple.
Maybe this is why for so long schools have been such strong Mac advocates. I say this from the experience of having administered networks on a pro bono basis for three separate K-12 networks. They all used Macs and in every case but one had only volunteer sysads.
I use Linux at work, and I believe that Open Source tools could take over at nonprofits and other low-operating budget environments, but in those organizations the person running the network is usually a novice who has ten times more demands than he has time or resources.
If someone could package a distro aimed squarely at novice users who simply want to create a network that will allow file sharing, Net access, and printing, with very limited options, it would spread like wildfire.
A clear, non-technical step-by-step set of instructions as a PDF (take a look at the instructions that come with an iMac - the illustrations make setup idiot-proof) is essential to success. We may be used to man files, but admins of small nonprofit networks need clear, easy to understand guides.
This is the biggest single failing of Open Source tools right now - despite many efforts, the amount of learning - "Thinking Linux" that people have to do in order to use the tools is prohibitive.
The tools are supposed to work for human beings, not the other way around. When the Open Source movement can get out of the elitist mentality, we'll really see it take off like a rocket.
I mean, it's not like who we elect has any bearing on reality. They're all the same.
Uhhh...
Theodore Roosevelt starts the acquisition of huge tracts of wilderness for the American people to enjoy as national parks.
Abraham Lincoln wages war against the South to maintain the integrity of the Union.
John F. Kennedy puts the nation on course to the moon.
Harry Truman initiates the Marshall Plan, to rebuild Europe after World War II.
Woodrow Wilson throws the US into World War I, a war that most Americans thought had nothing to do with them.
George Bush embarks on a crusade against Saddam Hussein, creating the largest multinational force since World War II, and committing tremendous resources to throwing Hussein out of Kuwait.
Do you mean to tell me that all of those instances were fated to happen, regardless of who was president? Take off your Cycnical Bored Smarter-Than-You Glasses and look at the world as it is. Individuals, be they politicians or voters, are too complex to be reduced to means and averages.
If you think there's nothing gained by voting, then by all means, don't vote. It makes my vote that much more powerful.
It's up to the voters of the United States to decide, and the voters have spoken. Just because Florida had problems counting the ballots doesn't mean that voters in Florida abdicated responsibility for the election to the candidates themselves.
I disagree with the view that nobody *wants* either of the candidates. The vigorousness of the campaign and the intensity of emotion, particularly from Republicans who have an axe to grind with Gore because of his part in the Clinton administration, indicates to me that there was a clear choice to many people.
The fact that the nation was divided down the middle about it doesn't mean that there weren't strong feelings on both sides, it means that there is a cultural schism in this country that is widening rather than narrowing.
The big thing I was trying to get at is that to program an interface may be easy, but the thinking behind how an interface should work and why is actually extremely involved and difficult.
That's why Microsoft, in spite of having zillions of dollars, is still having a hard time getting their UIs to match those of (pick one) Apple, Be, Gnome, KDE... .
In fact, there's an entire discipline devoted to interface development, and the people who developed the graphical user interface over the years may have a little something to do with the personal computer revolution and the rise of the Internet.
But perhaps we should go back to the good old days, when there were no "pretty fountains" and it was just the command line. No pesky web sites with all those pesky maps, movies, and other nuisances!
Darwin is a case in point. Apple is clearly feeling the Open Source waters. If you were Steve Jobs, would you say, "Hmm, we've spent literally thousands of man-years on developing the technology behind the MacOS and our NeXT tools. I think we should just give this stuff away for free and make *that* the main thrust of our OS effort!"
Uhh.. not likely. Apple has finite resources. One thing that continually amazes me is that people seem to think that a large computer company has infinite resources to throw at any given technical challenge. The reality is that even an Open Source effort like Darwin requires time and money. Even more important, and scarce, is human capital.
The fact is, Apple can't trust an Open Source effort with their flagship software at this point. The entire future of Apple is at stake. It may be feasible to pull Darwin and OS X onto the same track at some point, but to expect that in the midst of a make or break project, Apple is going to siphon off extra effort for Darwin is just not realistic.
Microsoft's legal department!
Guess everyone's taking this pretty seriously. I even got marked up as flamebait!
I think I'll just go buy the latest issue of ZDNet Technology for Dummies and sit in a corner somewhere...
Bigger armies. Although those Greeks are nothing to scoff at it in a fight.
If it comes down to it, both the French and Brits have nukes, though I doubt they'd use 'em unless they had to go on the defensive.
Vegas odds say 3:1 for the big guys.
In the early stages of the automobile, there were hundreds of manufacturers in the US, and lots of unsafe cars. Now there are the Big Three and cars are much safer, but do you think that during the early stages of the industry anyone could possibly have predicted what the automobile would become? In the early stages of any new technology, it's really rather impossible to predict future uses or outcomes.
Dynamite was supposed to render wars a thing of the past, due to its vast destructive power. I'll bet if you polled leading "experts" and concerned citizens at the time of its creation, most would have agreed with that prognosis.
My point is that it would be wonderful if we could truly understand the impact of new technologies before their introduction into society, but there are so many variables (human behavior, economic trends, interaction with other technologies, invaders from Mars...) that it's just not feasible to come to any real conclusions about the impact of a technology, other than the really obvious, immediate effects.
You seem to be saying that we should innovate in accordance within the framework of a vast plan, which is contrary to how innovation works best.
All we need to do is reinstate the draft - problem solved ;-)
I checked out your rather vague and intellectually slack site, and my question is:
Other than simply protesting the current system, what would you do to create a better method that would allow Americans to govern themselves?
Seriously, I'd like to see what this better system would entail. You've got an open forum here, go for it.
It is a pain. You have to sort through all the election materials. You have to go out and *find* nonpartisan information. Then you have to go to the polling booth! The humanity!
When you figure that the US President is essentially the most powerful person on the planet (don't give me palaver about Gates - he can't send in the Marines or lob Cruise missiles at anyone), it's very important, not only for us here in the US, but for people all over the world who gets elected.
Then think about what people before you had to do *just to get the right to vote*! The Revolutionary War was about taxation without representation, among other things. The Women's Sufferage Movement, the Civil Rights Movement - essentially all these tremendous efforts were about giving people the right to vote and thereby influence the direction of the nation.
If you think that voting is too difficult, think about why all those people fought for the right to vote.
Finally, if you think that the system is flawed, get active in the political process. Find someone who would be a good candidate at the local, state, or federal level, and commit yourself to working your ass off to get them elected.
Sharpshooting from the sidelines is easy, but making democracy work takes work. It really is a responsibility as well as a gift. Pining for a more perfect form of democracy without using the tools you've already been given makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
"We *need* royalty, dammit!" these loyalists demanded. "We need a means of fixing our place in the social ladder. How will we know where we stand if we don't have someone at the top?"
So the tradition of the high school homecoming was instituted. Essentially it's a weird ritual that revolves around the most important football game of the year for a given high school. For this football game, the former Homecoming Kings and Queens, former runners-up, and former wannabe Kings and Queens who all graduated from said high school years ago, return to revisit the glamour and pageantry of their high school years.
The entire school is encouraged through relentless banners, announcements, flyers, cheerleading shenanegans, and other inducements, to attend this marvellous football game, so that they might be one with the pathetic alumni who are also attending the game.
Somewhere in the midst of this pageant (sometimes during the halftime, sometimes before, sometimes after the game), the Homecoming King and Queen are announced. These young royals have undergone a grueling competition that stretches for weeks. The competition consists of being as cheerful and friendly as possible. Bonus points are given for aristocratic precidents (sons and daughters of influential families often do well), good looks (let's be serious, this is America), lack of intellectual rigor (this isn't student goverment, you know), and involvement in as many sports and extracurricular clubs as possible.
The King and Queen are crowned, the losers are downcast, the alumni laugh and clap, and everyone gets a thorough dose of training for what awaits them in college, when they'll all go through a similar version when they try for spots in fraternities and sororities.
But it's no more spiritual than the telephone, the fax machine, or the cell phone. Spirituality never comes from the things humans create. It comes from human beings themselves.
Want to be spiritual? Go hike in Yosemite, or go to church, or read the Koran. Going to a website and typing IMHO all over the place is just entertainment, amusement, and sometimes edification. It's certainly not spirituality.
WO has been around for several years, is tremendously scalable, and is quite powerful
Basically these days Apple is going the Java route, so although you can code in WO using Java or Objective-C, Java is the way to go.
There's a fair learning curve associated with learning to develop in WO, but once you learn it, you've got a serious toolkit, rather than a "targeted solution" shrinkwrap affair. It can pull from practically any data source, has built-in load-balancing features, and utilizes a very sophisticated object framework.
You can develop on NT or OS X Server, and can deploy on NT, OS X Server, HP UNIX, and the strong rumor is that the next rev will deploy on Linux - it's being rewritten completely in Java.
Politics is about compromise, which is to many in geek culture a dirty word. But it's how people are able to get along, coexist, and move forward together. Human interaction is not binary. There are seldom yes or no answers. Even in programming and high-technology, there are countless arguments about trade-offs (RAMBUS/DDR, Mac/PC, Dreamcast/PS2, etc.).
Politics is not pretty. It doesn't always (or even often) produce the best leaders. However, it's a very complicated thing to get the majority of any group to agree on something and act on it.
By saying that new technology profoundly changes politics, or that it should profoundly change politics, people are essentially saying, "I want a technology solution to a human issue." They want clarity in a world that is fundamentally fuzzy.
It's not that simple - it never has been and never will be. Relationships, between two people or two hundred million, take hard work.