First, let me start by saying that I do sympathize with the frustration of people like your mother, who are technologically clueless but still desire to function in modern society. I'd even go so far as to say that I don't find ignorance to be a bad (read: evil) thing. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge about something; and everyone ever born is "ignorant" until they learn. However, too many people out there are belligerent, and that *is* an evil; one which in theory at least could be stopped if, and I say *if*, society at large decided to do something about it.
I don't agree with the earlier comments about taxing people for email sent, and I doubly don't agree with there being any agency set up (or any other entity likewise empowered) to filter email based on any factors and then start penalizing people for it, especially if it's a government agency. That doesn't mean I don't think that hyper-obvious spam shouldn't be blocked or 100% known-for-a-fact spammers shouldn't be gone after; clearly they need to be and should be.
However, I absolutely don't believe that governments or other public agencies are the panacea that many believe them to be. You want something royally f-ed up, go ask a government agency to do it. I don't want anyone having to tip-toe through my personal email to decide whether it's spam or not. Doesn't "Invasion of Privacy" ring any bells out there?!?!? I mean, come on!!!
The problems, as I see it, are more social than anything else. The general public (especially here in America) are a bunch of lazy, self-important, running-away-from-personal-responsibility, lawsuit-o-matic asshats. Not everyone is, of course, because if everyone was this country would have already collapsed into anarchy. The companies in this country are, for all of their greedy strong-arming tactics, just a bit too afraid of the general public for their own good. They're also a bit too greedy for their own good, too. Companies need to understand that not everyone who walks through your (virtual or brick-n-mortar) doors is someone you want as a customer.
While I don't feel it would be appropriate to have to have a license to own and use a computer, I do think it would be highly appropriate to make it so that a potential owner/customer would have to take various educational and certification classes before they were allowed to buy a computer, and also before they were allowed to have an Internet connection. And if that means that there would be a lot of suddenly "disconnected", "disadvantaged", or "disenfranchised" people out there, well then so be it! It just means that those of us who take pride in actually knowing what we're doing wouldn't have as much competition in the job market. Oh, yeah, and it would also mean that as a company you would be more likely to get people as employees who you really *wanted* to have as employees.
But, of course, that would mean the "dumb masses" out there would suddenly have to be responsible for themselves, show initiative, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Oh heavens, what an outcry of lack-of-fairness there would be!:)
Let's also not forget how litigious people can be here in the good 'ole U.S. of A. "How dare you accuse *me* of sending spam?!? Give me my damn connection back, or I'll sue!!!"
Now, I also fully realize that most threats of lawsuits are meritless (both in terms of the customer carrying through with it, and how well it would stand up in court if tried), but companies are, for the most part, scared to death of dealing with a lawsuit. Or, in the case of larger, established ones, *another* suit.
It's funny; it's almost schizophrenic. "No, that customer can't do such-and-such. Oh, wait, they're threatening to sue us? Well, give them anything they want." It's predictable!
Well, even though he mostly wrote it for British consumption at the time, I think that Charles Dickens pretty much nailed it on the head when he said that Ignorance and Greed were the watchwords of the future.
And why not stop and look at your comment and others: other than *ownership* of computers, the other major common factor here is Windows. It certainly isn't as though Microsoft isn't complicit in this. Look at the security holes and exploits and everything else that can be laid at their doorstep over the last, well, 5-7 years.
And before someone here tries to flame or mod me and say that Windows isn't the only thing you can write viruses for, yeah, silly, I know that. It's just that writing a virus for W32 / WinNT-class environments has always been made pretty much brain-dead simple by those folks from Redmond. If you want to write a virus for anything else, you actually have to know what you're doing to write code. You know, like the "good old days" of MS-DOS and Win1.x/2.x/3.x. Or Apple II. Or Amiga, etc.
I tend not to pay very much attention to the reports on the state of Internet or individual computer security when it comes from most public authorities, since they all like to dance blithely and blindly around Microsoft's (however unintentional) part in all this noise and nonsense. "Criticize Microsoft? We can't do that! We'll just pretend these problems are part-and-parcel of owning a computer! Heh heh! Nobody will notice!" The media needs to get a clue.
Oh, tell me about it. But then again that's been the story ever since Apple put the Mac out. Microsoft has *always* been playing the game of catch-up. And for all the much-lauded advantages of running Windows vs. other OSs because of GAMES, well, let's be honest about it: Microsoft's developed DirectX, true, but it's simply riding on the backs of the power of everyone elses' hardware. Try running Quake, Unreal, KOTR, etc., etc., with the latest version of DirectX using a low-end mobo and a shitty video card. Just ain't happening...
Oh, and as for GNU/Linux or Mac OS X loosing their advantages, I hardly think so, unless Microsoft happens to put out a rock-solid-stable, reasonably secure OS. I think we all know the odds of that happening (in light of our collective experiences), folks.
And as far as ease of install and that sort of thing, Apple still has it over both the GNU/Linux and Microsoft crowds, anyhow. Under Classic MacOS, unless your filesystem was hosed, you could always do a clean install of the OS and leave the existing one essentially in-place; and under Mac OS X you can also do an Archive and Install, either of which allows the user to migrate settings and drivers and other resources (user image data, fonts, system sounds, etc.) across to the new install prior to killing off the old OS install.
And both GNU/Linux and Mac OS X have the advantage that neither uses a registry, so you don't have *as much* to worry about getting your already-installed apps to work.
Yes, I know that Microsoft offers an Ugrade and a Repair option, but they oftentimes just don't work, or have other unintended consequences.
So there!!!:)
Well, actually, most of the major name brand vendors already use a similar approach to doing OS re-installs. I used to work for Sony, and their System Recovery media contained basically two things: a total system image, and individual app reinstallers if you just needed to reload an app on an otherwise-working system. It sure as hell cut the install time down.
What this reminds me of on a more philosophical level is the departure from doing any kind of in-depth TS and analysis of an OS. Basically, this is Microsoft's shot across that particular bow. "Doesn't work? Just crapped out on you? New Install? Just nuke-n-pave! Oh yeah, and do it quick, too."
As for bootloaders and all that, while there's probably a case to be made for Microsoft having no reason to support (even tangentally) other OS vendors, I still think they're a *bit* scared of both Linux and, via hacks, Mac OS X incursions onto their soil. Besides, Microsoft has *never* made it easy to install another OS, even if it's one of their own. If you want to dual-boot or multi-boot Microsoft's OSs, you have to go from oldest to newest, otherwise the boot loader will get nuked. As for dual-booting different OSs, it's always Windows first, then whatever else second.
It's even the case for Apple. I'm typing this right now on a PowerBook G4 1.5GHz under Ubuntu 6.0.6, which I had to install *after* installing Mac OS X, which I also happen to *want* as well as need. The only OSs I know of that don't deliberately sabotage dual/multi-boot are the various GNU/Linux distros, and even then it doesn't always go smoothly, either.
Well, I suppose if you're running IE, it's still pretty cool. But I bounce between Safari and Firefox, so I've been pretty much "over it" for a while now.
C 'est la vie...
Well, merely providing a tactile control interface isn't really sufficient. The problem is the overall system is context-driven instead of being more absolute in nature. Therefore, no amount of tactilly-discernable buttons is going to solve this issue.
The only iPod Apple's ever produced with what I'd call a "safe" interface is the iPod Mini. True, it's capabilities are severely limited, but all the controls are absolute -- up and down are always and only for volume; left and right are always and only for previous and next tracks; the button in the middle is always and only for playing or pausing -- honestly, you don't really need to even look at the thing once you've used it a bit.
The way to do this given the context-sensitivity of the normal iPod interface would be to sell a button system which itself was absolute, and could totally bypass the menu system, etc. on an iPod. And when I buy my next car, if such a system were an option, it would be a no-brainer for me to get it.
Well, at least Andy Inhatko is on the list. Thank God for that. I can never read any of his stuff without (at some point in the process) rolling on the floor (and not ROFL, either).
Under Mac OS 6.x and earlier, you could actually type in a path statement if you liked. However, the path and filename had to be 32 characters or less. I used it a bit myself, and was rather disappointed when Apple auto-remapped the : to a - in MacOS 7.x and later.
However, in MacOS X you can actually do path statements again using the / . Hooray! (Not that I really use it that much, still, but...)
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, whoops. What I *meant* was NOT iPod Mini, but iPod Shuffle. Many apologies for the confusion.
It doesn't get as hot under Ubuntu 6.0.6, either. Hmm...
First, let me start by saying that I do sympathize with the frustration of people like your mother, who are technologically clueless but still desire to function in modern society. I'd even go so far as to say that I don't find ignorance to be a bad (read: evil) thing. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge about something; and everyone ever born is "ignorant" until they learn. However, too many people out there are belligerent, and that *is* an evil; one which in theory at least could be stopped if, and I say *if*, society at large decided to do something about it.
I don't agree with the earlier comments about taxing people for email sent, and I doubly don't agree with there being any agency set up (or any other entity likewise empowered) to filter email based on any factors and then start penalizing people for it, especially if it's a government agency. That doesn't mean I don't think that hyper-obvious spam shouldn't be blocked or 100% known-for-a-fact spammers shouldn't be gone after; clearly they need to be and should be.
However, I absolutely don't believe that governments or other public agencies are the panacea that many believe them to be. You want something royally f-ed up, go ask a government agency to do it. I don't want anyone having to tip-toe through my personal email to decide whether it's spam or not. Doesn't "Invasion of Privacy" ring any bells out there?!?!? I mean, come on!!!
The problems, as I see it, are more social than anything else. The general public (especially here in America) are a bunch of lazy, self-important, running-away-from-personal-responsibility, lawsuit-o-matic asshats. Not everyone is, of course, because if everyone was this country would have already collapsed into anarchy. The companies in this country are, for all of their greedy strong-arming tactics, just a bit too afraid of the general public for their own good. They're also a bit too greedy for their own good, too. Companies need to understand that not everyone who walks through your (virtual or brick-n-mortar) doors is someone you want as a customer.
While I don't feel it would be appropriate to have to have a license to own and use a computer, I do think it would be highly appropriate to make it so that a potential owner/customer would have to take various educational and certification classes before they were allowed to buy a computer, and also before they were allowed to have an Internet connection. And if that means that there would be a lot of suddenly "disconnected", "disadvantaged", or "disenfranchised" people out there, well then so be it! It just means that those of us who take pride in actually knowing what we're doing wouldn't have as much competition in the job market. Oh, yeah, and it would also mean that as a company you would be more likely to get people as employees who you really *wanted* to have as employees.
But, of course, that would mean the "dumb masses" out there would suddenly have to be responsible for themselves, show initiative, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Oh heavens, what an outcry of lack-of-fairness there would be! :)
Now, I also fully realize that most threats of lawsuits are meritless (both in terms of the customer carrying through with it, and how well it would stand up in court if tried), but companies are, for the most part, scared to death of dealing with a lawsuit. Or, in the case of larger, established ones, *another* suit.
It's funny; it's almost schizophrenic. "No, that customer can't do such-and-such. Oh, wait, they're threatening to sue us? Well, give them anything they want." It's predictable!
And why not stop and look at your comment and others: other than *ownership* of computers, the other major common factor here is Windows. It certainly isn't as though Microsoft isn't complicit in this. Look at the security holes and exploits and everything else that can be laid at their doorstep over the last, well, 5-7 years.
And before someone here tries to flame or mod me and say that Windows isn't the only thing you can write viruses for, yeah, silly, I know that. It's just that writing a virus for W32 / WinNT-class environments has always been made pretty much brain-dead simple by those folks from Redmond. If you want to write a virus for anything else, you actually have to know what you're doing to write code. You know, like the "good old days" of MS-DOS and Win1.x/2.x/3.x. Or Apple II. Or Amiga, etc.
I tend not to pay very much attention to the reports on the state of Internet or individual computer security when it comes from most public authorities, since they all like to dance blithely and blindly around Microsoft's (however unintentional) part in all this noise and nonsense. "Criticize Microsoft? We can't do that! We'll just pretend these problems are part-and-parcel of owning a computer! Heh heh! Nobody will notice!" The media needs to get a clue.
Oh, wait, it's the media. Nevermind... :(
Of course, the sound you'd hear would be the collective sigh of relief from the general public after years of indentured servitude.
Well, except for the gamers, of course... ;)
Oh, tell me about it. But then again that's been the story ever since Apple put the Mac out. Microsoft has *always* been playing the game of catch-up. And for all the much-lauded advantages of running Windows vs. other OSs because of GAMES, well, let's be honest about it: Microsoft's developed DirectX, true, but it's simply riding on the backs of the power of everyone elses' hardware. Try running Quake, Unreal, KOTR, etc., etc., with the latest version of DirectX using a low-end mobo and a shitty video card. Just ain't happening...
Oh, and as for GNU/Linux or Mac OS X loosing their advantages, I hardly think so, unless Microsoft happens to put out a rock-solid-stable, reasonably secure OS. I think we all know the odds of that happening (in light of our collective experiences), folks. And as far as ease of install and that sort of thing, Apple still has it over both the GNU/Linux and Microsoft crowds, anyhow. Under Classic MacOS, unless your filesystem was hosed, you could always do a clean install of the OS and leave the existing one essentially in-place; and under Mac OS X you can also do an Archive and Install, either of which allows the user to migrate settings and drivers and other resources (user image data, fonts, system sounds, etc.) across to the new install prior to killing off the old OS install. And both GNU/Linux and Mac OS X have the advantage that neither uses a registry, so you don't have *as much* to worry about getting your already-installed apps to work. Yes, I know that Microsoft offers an Ugrade and a Repair option, but they oftentimes just don't work, or have other unintended consequences. So there!!! :)
What this reminds me of on a more philosophical level is the departure from doing any kind of in-depth TS and analysis of an OS. Basically, this is Microsoft's shot across that particular bow. "Doesn't work? Just crapped out on you? New Install? Just nuke-n-pave! Oh yeah, and do it quick, too."
As for bootloaders and all that, while there's probably a case to be made for Microsoft having no reason to support (even tangentally) other OS vendors, I still think they're a *bit* scared of both Linux and, via hacks, Mac OS X incursions onto their soil. Besides, Microsoft has *never* made it easy to install another OS, even if it's one of their own. If you want to dual-boot or multi-boot Microsoft's OSs, you have to go from oldest to newest, otherwise the boot loader will get nuked. As for dual-booting different OSs, it's always Windows first, then whatever else second.
It's even the case for Apple. I'm typing this right now on a PowerBook G4 1.5GHz under Ubuntu 6.0.6, which I had to install *after* installing Mac OS X, which I also happen to *want* as well as need. The only OSs I know of that don't deliberately sabotage dual/multi-boot are the various GNU/Linux distros, and even then it doesn't always go smoothly, either.
Well, I suppose if you're running IE, it's still pretty cool. But I bounce between Safari and Firefox, so I've been pretty much "over it" for a while now. C 'est la vie...
The way to do this given the context-sensitivity of the normal iPod interface would be to sell a button system which itself was absolute, and could totally bypass the menu system, etc. on an iPod. And when I buy my next car, if such a system were an option, it would be a no-brainer for me to get it.
Time will tell; it always does.
Well, at least Andy Inhatko is on the list. Thank God for that. I can never read any of his stuff without (at some point in the process) rolling on the floor (and not ROFL, either).
Under Mac OS 6.x and earlier, you could actually type in a path statement if you liked. However, the path and filename had to be 32 characters or less. I used it a bit myself, and was rather disappointed when Apple auto-remapped the : to a - in MacOS 7.x and later. However, in MacOS X you can actually do path statements again using the / . Hooray! (Not that I really use it that much, still, but...)
LOL! Well, actually I use Picas. So that would be 1,584,000 pica crimes. Ah well...