28 November 2009
The Overhead is Management, not Employees
A great little video - the people who aren't properly laying the foundations for the future should be fired during a recession, not the employees.
27 November 2009
Dell UK Hates Ubuntu
Trying to find out whether Dell UK still has any idea of Ubuntu on its site, I eventually stumble across this page:
It's not so much that I disagree with the points in themselves, but the wording. It presents the idea that you will have to learn new programs in all cases (never mind if you already use Firefox, Opera, Pidgin. OpenOffice or Skype in Windows). I don't know what it is, but something about it just immediately presents as if it's a very high barrier, of which in my experience (personal and otherwise) is rarely the case - often it's the irrational fear, not the reality that dissuades people from using Linux.
The last one I very much disagree with however. There is little reason why a completely new user will find Ubuntu more difficult than Windows. Dell even provides the custome interface (pictured) that in itself helps expose applications well. Note how they seem to use Control Panel in Windows as if it's the same thing. They even pre-install non-free codecs and a DVD player so out of the box new users can play their existing content.
The page for an Ubuntu machine is also fairly well buried - It's very specifically on the laptop pages, on the Inspiron series only, where at the same time it mentions Ubuntu, leading you either to the pictured above, or the next page, which whilst is meant as a warning, comes across much stronger.
Dell UK Ubuntu Page
Completely in contrast to WINE, which is actually carried in the repositories for Ubuntu - although I can understand why they wouldn't want to mention it, saying there is not compatibility at all is an outright lie.
Pidgin, Empathy, Emesene and others work with Live Messenger IM network amongst others, OpenOffice can read and write Office formats. Those are the only major ones I can think of apart from iTunes - although Microsofts latest Office and Wordpad versions can read/write the open format ODF.
Choose WINDOWS if:
- You are already running WINDOWS programs (e.g. Microsoft Word, iTunes, etc) and want to continue using them
- You are familiar with WINDOWS and do not want to learn new programs for email, word processing etc
- You are new to using computers
Choose UBUNTU if:
- You do not plan to use Microsoft WINDOWS
- You want to learn new programs for email, word processing etc
- You are interested in open source programming
It's not so much that I disagree with the points in themselves, but the wording. It presents the idea that you will have to learn new programs in all cases (never mind if you already use Firefox, Opera, Pidgin. OpenOffice or Skype in Windows). I don't know what it is, but something about it just immediately presents as if it's a very high barrier, of which in my experience (personal and otherwise) is rarely the case - often it's the irrational fear, not the reality that dissuades people from using Linux.
The last one I very much disagree with however. There is little reason why a completely new user will find Ubuntu more difficult than Windows. Dell even provides the custome interface (pictured) that in itself helps expose applications well. Note how they seem to use Control Panel in Windows as if it's the same thing. They even pre-install non-free codecs and a DVD player so out of the box new users can play their existing content.
The page for an Ubuntu machine is also fairly well buried - It's very specifically on the laptop pages, on the Inspiron series only, where at the same time it mentions Ubuntu, leading you either to the pictured above, or the next page, which whilst is meant as a warning, comes across much stronger.
Dell UK Ubuntu Page
UBUNTU is an open source operating system – so is not compatible with Microsoft WINDOWS or any WINDOWS based programs
Completely in contrast to WINE, which is actually carried in the repositories for Ubuntu - although I can understand why they wouldn't want to mention it, saying there is not compatibility at all is an outright lie.
Most open source programs are not compatible with Microsoft programs
Pidgin, Empathy, Emesene and others work with Live Messenger IM network amongst others, OpenOffice can read and write Office formats. Those are the only major ones I can think of apart from iTunes - although Microsofts latest Office and Wordpad versions can read/write the open format ODF.
26 November 2009
Modern Warfare 2 Suffering?
All of the bad press over the lack of dedicated servers amongst other things may have had the impact some were hoping it would. Far from sales asserting to Infinity Ward that people will take what they're given, the opposite seems to have happened.
Note the very sharp drop in sales - from 5 to 20 in 1 week, whilst 360 and PS3 still sell. Word of mouth has seemingly gotten around, and MW2 is suffering for it.
I wander if this has happened in the US?
Note the very sharp drop in sales - from 5 to 20 in 1 week, whilst 360 and PS3 still sell. Word of mouth has seemingly gotten around, and MW2 is suffering for it.
I wander if this has happened in the US?
5 October 2009
Don't Mistake Access for Content
The biggest difference between now and then (then being even just 10 years ago) is obviously the way in which we can access content. The way in which we can access our films, TV shows and music is easier, quicker and more convenient. The increase in cost for this near unrestricted access has been very little, if not actually decreased in cost substantially.
Rather than taking advantage of this near unlimited ability to copy and distribute to their advantage, many of the incumbent entertainment and media companies have revolted. They have eschewed the dramatic reduction in cost for distribution, and used the likes of DRM to block off others from getting their e-hands on these works apart from whom they have given permission to. What would make them take what seems to many others an opportunity, including both typical customers and the creators of works themselves, and turn it into something that threatens the very foundations of their “industry”?
There are 2 fundamental ideas they appear to be attached to. The first of which is that the decrease of cost in making something available and the subsequent availability is directly tied to value of the works they're outputting. In other words, they're view is that a large portion of how much people value the entertainment is based on how much access you have to it, and subsequently a significant portion of their money is made almost entirely based upon how rare said work is, or at least how you obtain it.
The second and more likely option is that they have mistaken the reason for why people pay a larger sum for CD but are happy to copy for nothing over the internet. They have forgotten that a large part of that value and therefore the money that the consumer paid was in fact for the convenient of the printing and distribution of works for public consumption, and not because they necessarily genuinely valued the work itself at such a price. In other words, one of the main reasons people paid was for convenience - the convenience of owning a CD or vinyl copy for use at home to be able to listen to the songs they liked almost whenever they wanted to. With the onset of the internet and digital distribution, this cost has reached near zero. You don't even have to involve a (typical) publishing company any more.
This both threatens the mainstay of their business (the distribution of and subsequent sales of music) but may also lead to wrong conclusions that the reason people aren't paying for music any more is because they're basically thieves who have little thought for the recourse of their actions on the "industry". Their mentality so based in the physical distribution world that it blinds them, and having forgotten why people were paying such a large part of the price was for the service they provided (convenience in being able to obtain a personal copy), and not for the music itself.
They have mistaken the value as not being so much for the content, but for the availability of it. Thus, significant sharing and availability that isn't explicitly controlled by them is bad. They have tied the cost of access to a work to the fundamental entertainment value of the work. This might be partially born out of their business model - most of these companies, whether they be record companies or rather overly large film studios are primarily publishers/distributors. They're business model - and perhaps "value judgement" is based largely on the access to a work, or more accurately, the inability to access a work without them.
Let's take one step back and go back to where this all starts: Your local store. When you buy the latest physical copy of an album, game, film or other work, you are not only saying "I value the content of this work enough that I will gladly pay the price", you are saying "I value the convenience that this work being printed on CD/DVD affords me in being able to access the content". Construing the 2 as one in the same seems to be the fundamental problem.
The point of a publisher in whatever form is to act as a gateway - a company that provides a service of giving you the ability to access a work through making copies of it, especially at a large scale. Costs of reproduction and the complexity of reproduction was too high of a barrier to most people, and so publishers stepped in acting as the middle man between the artist wanting to give larger groups of people the ability to see and hear their works and the customer who wanted said works.
If they are making the above mentioned mistake of equating value of access as so closely tied if not inseparable from value of content then that turns into a frightening prospect. They're job being to provide access, when the cost of access is decreasing and availability is increasing, leads them to believe that higher availability is bad, and that sharing of the works is bad. It leads to the assumption that availability is directly reducing how much people value the works themselves, rather than simply a reduction in how much they value the service of providing access.
Rather than taking advantage of this near unlimited ability to copy and distribute to their advantage, many of the incumbent entertainment and media companies have revolted. They have eschewed the dramatic reduction in cost for distribution, and used the likes of DRM to block off others from getting their e-hands on these works apart from whom they have given permission to. What would make them take what seems to many others an opportunity, including both typical customers and the creators of works themselves, and turn it into something that threatens the very foundations of their “industry”?
There are 2 fundamental ideas they appear to be attached to. The first of which is that the decrease of cost in making something available and the subsequent availability is directly tied to value of the works they're outputting. In other words, they're view is that a large portion of how much people value the entertainment is based on how much access you have to it, and subsequently a significant portion of their money is made almost entirely based upon how rare said work is, or at least how you obtain it.
The second and more likely option is that they have mistaken the reason for why people pay a larger sum for CD but are happy to copy for nothing over the internet. They have forgotten that a large part of that value and therefore the money that the consumer paid was in fact for the convenient of the printing and distribution of works for public consumption, and not because they necessarily genuinely valued the work itself at such a price. In other words, one of the main reasons people paid was for convenience - the convenience of owning a CD or vinyl copy for use at home to be able to listen to the songs they liked almost whenever they wanted to. With the onset of the internet and digital distribution, this cost has reached near zero. You don't even have to involve a (typical) publishing company any more.
This both threatens the mainstay of their business (the distribution of and subsequent sales of music) but may also lead to wrong conclusions that the reason people aren't paying for music any more is because they're basically thieves who have little thought for the recourse of their actions on the "industry". Their mentality so based in the physical distribution world that it blinds them, and having forgotten why people were paying such a large part of the price was for the service they provided (convenience in being able to obtain a personal copy), and not for the music itself.
They have mistaken the value as not being so much for the content, but for the availability of it. Thus, significant sharing and availability that isn't explicitly controlled by them is bad. They have tied the cost of access to a work to the fundamental entertainment value of the work. This might be partially born out of their business model - most of these companies, whether they be record companies or rather overly large film studios are primarily publishers/distributors. They're business model - and perhaps "value judgement" is based largely on the access to a work, or more accurately, the inability to access a work without them.
Let's take one step back and go back to where this all starts: Your local store. When you buy the latest physical copy of an album, game, film or other work, you are not only saying "I value the content of this work enough that I will gladly pay the price", you are saying "I value the convenience that this work being printed on CD/DVD affords me in being able to access the content". Construing the 2 as one in the same seems to be the fundamental problem.
The point of a publisher in whatever form is to act as a gateway - a company that provides a service of giving you the ability to access a work through making copies of it, especially at a large scale. Costs of reproduction and the complexity of reproduction was too high of a barrier to most people, and so publishers stepped in acting as the middle man between the artist wanting to give larger groups of people the ability to see and hear their works and the customer who wanted said works.
If they are making the above mentioned mistake of equating value of access as so closely tied if not inseparable from value of content then that turns into a frightening prospect. They're job being to provide access, when the cost of access is decreasing and availability is increasing, leads them to believe that higher availability is bad, and that sharing of the works is bad. It leads to the assumption that availability is directly reducing how much people value the works themselves, rather than simply a reduction in how much they value the service of providing access.
20 April 2009
Thoughts on How Information Spreads and How Misinformation Harms Us
Whilst there are plenty of problems with the sources of news, the way that news spreads and peoples own way of re-telling and piecing together the information they get amongst each other and through out society can cause just as much harm or good as the reporting itself. The effects of bad reporting or lack of complete information can create nightmares for individuals, companies and politicians as the effect then becomes magnified by the way that information spreads and people try to make sense of the relevant information, and the effects of wild fire gossip on its own can distort information and peoples own views, especially if the media picks back up on that reaction as part of its reporting. This essentially creates an echo chamber, causing disparity between what should be known as fact and fiction, leaving an impenetrable mess of notes and vibrations leaving it impossible to be left with a clear view of anything.
The People
First, lets point out fundamental things about the very individuals and groups that become part of and help accentuate this mess.
A fundamental point point about people in general, and no, it is not that they're inherently evil...no, it is not that they're idiots. No, it's not that we're all involved in a giant inter-continental game of Chinese Whispers. It's that we as people simply do not always have the time nor inclination to keep as close track of the multitude of subjects and hundreds of different things that happen every day. Everything comes to us through many filters we have consciously or unconsciously built, rather like the automatic sorting of spam in your email inbox, amongst potential tagging features that allow you to mark different pieces of mail not just under different topics, but of importance (with the 2 not being mutually exclusive).
A good talk on a subject very similar and has influenced my thinking on this called Filter Failure not Information Overload, which addressed the point that it may not be information overload that is a problem for us moving into a world where we're even more constantly bombarded with information and such on a daily basis, as humanity has always been facing what always seemed an insurmountable amount of information to absorb, but a fundamental filter failure in how we address and handle the information we both send and receive in the modern age.
Because people do not always have the time nor the interest/inclination, this means they are more likely or will definitely miss various amounts of information depending on how far out the topic is from their "core" interests, their social connections, etc. Subsequently, this means the knowledge they do have is likely to be incomplete. Also here comes the social interaction part - they end up relying on or receiving information through friends or family. Second hand information that will likely be simplified for the sake of conversation and brevity. If this process goes through a chain of several people, whilst quicker and easier to digest for someone less interested (and who probably won't take much note anyway), means a far higher likelihood of the absence of potentially important minor and major details. This leads to certain assumptions or overall views being constructed from incomplete knowledge. This is not absolutely dire in all situations though, as sometimes certain issues or topics are just that simple to grasp. However, in quite a few cases leads to what might be important topics having their debates and idle chit chatter coloured and skewed, purely because the information was not there or available to them to be able to take a solid, grounded stance (no matter which side of the fence they're on).
The Vacuum
Are we suddenly heading out into space? Is Scotty going to beam me up just to tell me TL;DR?
No. Sadly for you the reader, I do not have the budget for such extravagant special effectences to put down on paper what would surely be wondrous passages of text that you could only imagine.
Using the word vacuum in this case refers to a vacuum of information. When Ripley opened the airlock doors, air rushed out along with several weeks of rubbish that had built up, rushing to fill that empty void, the vacuum of space at work. Much the same applies here. As already touched upon, given a lack of clear information, assumptions, "educated" guesses and judgements based on common sense will rush to fill the void. Effects will vary, but this causes a minimum of slight confusion or misappropriation, and a maximum of infinite internet memes, massive misunderstanding and undermining of the very topics and discussions themselves, to the point where all sides will be convinced that they are right, but when pressed, will never be able to tell you why or how they truly and rationally came to that conclusion. Their beliefs will simply be repeated as if they are obvious and discussions will either break down or become an endless cycle of arguing. If this were applied to society at large, it may even lead to violence and war.
The People
First, lets point out fundamental things about the very individuals and groups that become part of and help accentuate this mess.
A fundamental point point about people in general, and no, it is not that they're inherently evil...no, it is not that they're idiots. No, it's not that we're all involved in a giant inter-continental game of Chinese Whispers. It's that we as people simply do not always have the time nor inclination to keep as close track of the multitude of subjects and hundreds of different things that happen every day. Everything comes to us through many filters we have consciously or unconsciously built, rather like the automatic sorting of spam in your email inbox, amongst potential tagging features that allow you to mark different pieces of mail not just under different topics, but of importance (with the 2 not being mutually exclusive).
A good talk on a subject very similar and has influenced my thinking on this called Filter Failure not Information Overload, which addressed the point that it may not be information overload that is a problem for us moving into a world where we're even more constantly bombarded with information and such on a daily basis, as humanity has always been facing what always seemed an insurmountable amount of information to absorb, but a fundamental filter failure in how we address and handle the information we both send and receive in the modern age.
Because people do not always have the time nor the interest/inclination, this means they are more likely or will definitely miss various amounts of information depending on how far out the topic is from their "core" interests, their social connections, etc. Subsequently, this means the knowledge they do have is likely to be incomplete. Also here comes the social interaction part - they end up relying on or receiving information through friends or family. Second hand information that will likely be simplified for the sake of conversation and brevity. If this process goes through a chain of several people, whilst quicker and easier to digest for someone less interested (and who probably won't take much note anyway), means a far higher likelihood of the absence of potentially important minor and major details. This leads to certain assumptions or overall views being constructed from incomplete knowledge. This is not absolutely dire in all situations though, as sometimes certain issues or topics are just that simple to grasp. However, in quite a few cases leads to what might be important topics having their debates and idle chit chatter coloured and skewed, purely because the information was not there or available to them to be able to take a solid, grounded stance (no matter which side of the fence they're on).
The Vacuum
Are we suddenly heading out into space? Is Scotty going to beam me up just to tell me TL;DR?
No. Sadly for you the reader, I do not have the budget for such extravagant special effectences to put down on paper what would surely be wondrous passages of text that you could only imagine.
Using the word vacuum in this case refers to a vacuum of information. When Ripley opened the airlock doors, air rushed out along with several weeks of rubbish that had built up, rushing to fill that empty void, the vacuum of space at work. Much the same applies here. As already touched upon, given a lack of clear information, assumptions, "educated" guesses and judgements based on common sense will rush to fill the void. Effects will vary, but this causes a minimum of slight confusion or misappropriation, and a maximum of infinite internet memes, massive misunderstanding and undermining of the very topics and discussions themselves, to the point where all sides will be convinced that they are right, but when pressed, will never be able to tell you why or how they truly and rationally came to that conclusion. Their beliefs will simply be repeated as if they are obvious and discussions will either break down or become an endless cycle of arguing. If this were applied to society at large, it may even lead to violence and war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
