Quote - One more small thing...it seems to be the trend in OS's lately to become more 'stupid' and idiot-proof rather than less. I find I want more options for customizing as the years go by. I'm not sure if it's because users are either that stupid or unwilling to bother with their computers, but it should always be an option for experienced power users. After all, a computer is not your average appliance that you can just use and never bother with settings or tweaking like a television or a telephone. And that IMVHO, is the beauty of it ;). It's really sad that Microsoft has chosen this route. I'd much rather be able to tweak to my heart's content than take what I'm given. Maybe I'm just a rebel...hahahahaha.

One thing I definitely do NOT see is businesses migrating to Windows 8. It's just not gonna happen. They'll either have to go back to the pre-Windows 8 model or split the OS's again. I'd have no problem at all with the latter. I'd happily buy the business OS ;).

Laurie

Oh, yes. This is my impression too.

I'm going to guess that eventually the major commercial OS's will be so infuriating that "experienced power users" won't even bother with them. We'll all be using Linux or equivalent.

Earlier this year I took some community college classes. A substantial number of users among those students admitted that the sum total of their computer knowledge consisted of knowing how to use Facebook. And it turned out that, for the most part, they were the more experienced ones. You don't want to know what the average newbie user is really like. But whoever said that if you're posting in these forums it indicates that you're an experienced user is quite right. Just accessing the web on a laptop which has already been connected to a network by IT professionals is apparently quite difficult for many people. I'm seriously not kidding.

I'm surprised most people can even make a phone call these days.

Poser on Linux would be good.

I suspect that both Microsoft and Apple will need to retain some form of power-user desktop interface. Both bank heavily on their developer userbases, as well as computer graphics users.

Whilst the interfaces for these user groups could well evolve into something way better than the basic keyboard / mouse centric desktop UIs we have now, the requirements are very different from the masses, who, indeed, don't really need desktops at all.

For standard / mainstream application users,  an interactive (gesture, voice, touch sensitive) projection (from some sort of portable device)  that followed them around their environment is likely to be the kind of way it goes... I think.

Developers and designers, for some considerable time to come, will still need a more traditional workstation set up, I reckon.

Quote - I'm surprised most people can even make a phone call these days.

I rarely do. The "phone" that I carry around with me is generally just used to access web-based services...

It's not something I really approve of though... when that becomes purely text based. Much as it can be nice to hide behind these typed words.

I'd like to see a renaissance of voice communication.

I guess web-service based video interaction is probably going to be the way forward there though... things are already burgeoning on that front, really, I suppose, with Skype and YouTube, et al.

“After all, a computer is not your average appliance that you can just use and never bother with settings or tweaking like a television or a telephone. And that IMVHO, is the beauty of it ;).”

I’d say the first statement is changing as we speak, ironically, because of the second. The true beauty of computers is that, as meta machines, they can be anything – including appliances. Microsoft and the rest of the industry probably see the market for power users as limited. At the same time, there are billions of people from Boston to Bangalore who just want to push a button and make a phone call, send an email or watch the latest funny cat, celebrity sex or beheading video. That’s where the computer as appliance comes in. You can’t sell a ‘PC’ to people who may not even have electricity but you can sell them a cell phone. Smart phones are full fledged computers but many people use them as little more than appliances. How many of them tinker with the OS – I doubt you can without special software. To rip off Arthur C. Clarke, ‘Any technology sufficiently advanced will be indistinguishable from an appliance.’

The ‘dumbing down’ of technology is part of its evolution. One consequence is that it becomes accessible to more people without requiring special skills or training. You don’t have to be an amateur mechanic to drive a car or a tyro chemist to take pictures, though those were pretty much required in the infancy of those technologies. The corollary is that the systems become less accessible to the experienced or the curious. Increased integration and sophistication lead to greater reliability and ‘No user serviceable parts inside.’ Now software doesn’t have to be that way, but if 90% of your customers never use setting X and half of those who do end up hosing their systems, chances are it gets hidden and eventually, it may be removed. Some things simply become unnecessary – when is the last time most of us changed an IRQ? The next unnecessary feature will be the traditional operating system itself.

Larry Ellison was premature, but increasingly, the network is the computer. I don’t like the idea and I don’t think it will happen next year, but I can see that the traditional PC operating system may well be headed for some kind of niche status. With enough bandwidth, it makes sense economically and environmentally to move processing to the ‘cloud.’ Increasingly, it makes sense to do the same with data. When your device dies, you plug in a new one. The biometrics recognize you and instantly you have access to everything – from anywhere. Security and reliability will always be concerns but I don’t think they will stop it from happening.

All the grunt work of the operating system, managing the file system, multitasking, security etc. will be moved upstream. Pretty much all the ‘OS’ will have to do is run a browser and manage a network connection. DAZ has already demonstrated a primitive online version of DS, so I think that, long term, even applications that have traditionally required local processing power will make the move. As a plus, you get automatic access to a huge ass render farm.

Business? Business will find it cheaper to run whatever interface John and Jane already know from their phone or XBox. I’ve seen personal computing go from being a guru because I knew cryptic DOS commands, to criminals who post their location on FaceBook. As Yogi said, “The future ain’t what it used to be.’ Don’t worry, there will always be alternatives for the power types – Linux as mentioned, and Poser’s material room ÷)

Quote - Smart phones are full fledged computers but many people use them as little more than appliances. How many of them tinker with the OS – I doubt you can without special software.

Well, for iphone, and the IOS operating system, you need XCode and an Apple Developer subscription (a paid one if you want to test on an actual device or publish).

Apple have locked down access to the actual operating system of course, for the most part. I'm talking really about "app" development.

For Android, a copy of Eclipse will do it... along with the SDK etc.

In order to do this development work you need a traditional workstation computer (a mac if you want to develop for IOS using Xcode).

Likewise for designing any form of professional grade graphics.

I guess the point I'd make is that as long as content for the new paradigm devices requires to be coded / drawn / rendered, a smaller, but entirely vital subset of "computer" users will require something at least equivalent to what we now expect in a "workstation" computer. This will underpin the market availability for graphics prosumers / hobbyists, I'd hope.

I don't think that the format of the interface that the end-user designer or developer needs will be able to be changed too radically, any time soon.

Although we may well see a lot of the processing power moved into the cloud.

The limit to this, however, is network connectivity. Until internet access bandwidth limits are more universally overcome, there are some real limits here I think.

Thin client technology can overcome this to an extent. Although currently, thin clients are, as far as I know, not yet suitable for higher end graphics applications.

True, bandwidth will be the barrier. In that aspect, there are probably other countries that are more advanced than the US.

HP claims to have a solution for remote graphics. How well it works I don't know. I do know that it's something folks have been working on since the 80s when a company called SunRiver was doing remote graphics over serial connections, so I'm sure developments will continue.

Software developers, and perhaps other 'creatives,' may tend to be more possessive about their boxes, but I don'r know that the requirements are any different - apart from the aforementioned bandwidth. I believe that Adobe already has basic photo editing online. It's not Photoshop yet, but that will likely come eventually. I haven't read anything about Microsoft doing an online version of Visual Studio yet, but again, the basic requirements of development, text editing, compiling and working with mainly static graphics wouldn't seem to preclude it. I didn't even particularly like having 'my' code on a network share, so I think the main barrier may be cultural. IT will love the extra control and even coders and doodlers will appreciate being able to grab any laptop or tablet and go work outside.

Big companies may prefer subscriptions to buying all those copies of Photoshop or VS, not to mention upgrading all those workstations to handle a new OS. Startups can get in for a lower initial cost. Maybe some software companiew will even do rent to own - rent Maya for a year and it's yours.

I'm far from sanguine about the prospects - I'll stick with the PC as long as I can. More centralized control can be stifling, and you can be sure that various entities salivate at the prospect more traffic to surveil. I could be wrong but the factors seem to be converging in that direction and I'm sure old mainframers are chuckling at their ultimate revenge.

I am dubious about having people I can't control taking care of the stuff that I make (where I do have control currently). And frankly, until the web becomes hacker-proof (which I don't see EVER happening. Someone always builds a better mousetrap...) I don't think companies will be lining up to do it either ;). A lot of them have trade secrets which I'm positive they don't want winding up in the wrong hands, other companies, the government, or whatever. LOL. Almost every place I worked had trade secrets, I had to sign NDAs and couldn't even work for the competition for at least two years after my time with them was over. So, unless a miracle happens, I dunno how that's gonna fly. Aside from that, most places I've worked have also had custom software, which is harder to get working on an OS you can't really customize or maniuplate I would think.

Whatever is on the cloud is accessible and is out of the owners hands, for anyone willing to put in the time and effort to get to it ;). Someone that's motivated will do anything and everything to get to it until they do. How many times have we seen it already?

Laurie

That's all true but, incidents haven't stopped online banking, retailing, healthcare etc. Most of the breaches I’ve read about haven’t been works of genius hackers as much as a lack of pretty basic security. Companies learn, they get better – not perfect any more than our food and drug ‘safety’ or Toyota’s quality control, but better.

People (and companies) will accept a certain amount of risk if they perceive that the benefit outweighs it. The firm that sends design changes from the US to the plant in Shanghai via FedEx or flies staff around for meetings loses the edge to the one that does online collaboration and teleconferencing. GM, DoD, the power companies, everyone gets probed and hacked, but they still use the technology because not doing so places them at a disadvantage. The cloud also doesn't have to be on the public internet. Microsoft will be happy to sell Azure to companies that want to build their own private clouds.

Software installation is actually an argument for doing away with the heavyweight client OS. IT would much rather install on the server than deal with dozens or hundreds of PCs with possibly varying configurations. Think 'DS doesn't run on my system,' 'I have SR 3 and I don't see that,' 'Try updating your video drivers' etc. Whether the cloud is public or private though, I think that the main gateway will eventually be something other than a standalone PC.

Microsoft is in a bind here. They want to keep the traditional Office/Windows cash flow going as long as possible while catching up in mobile and devices. Win8 may be a dud but they're betting a lot on it, Azure etc. I still expect the desktop PC to last a few years and it may be a decade or more before thin clients become the norm but then I don't know what a decade is in internet years – and I could be totally wrong.

Personally, I too want to keep my stuff on my system, but I don't lead a modern mobile lifestyle. If I did, I might decide to make the tradeoff. I get the feeling that concepts of privacy and control may be kinda generational too. The current generation seems to be quite happy to share their entire lives with the world and they live on the internet. For them, the need to have a personal black box full of their stuff may seem as unnecessary as having a private diary with a lock probably is. Bah, I’ve blathered too much already and Opera has updated it self without my knowledge so I have to change a ^&*% setting while I still can – brave new world indeed!

Interesting take on Win8:

Microsoft quietly kills off the desktop PC  

Keep blathering, lmckenzie. It's an interesting topic.

I don't myself believe bandwidth will manage to keep up with demand. 6 billion mobile subscriptions -- and more and more people being encouraged to watch movies on their phones; streaming radio and video becoming a replacement for cable TV; Skype and even things like Google hangouts replacing traditional phone calls...

When it comes to production work in the cloud, I'm having trouble imagining it. For instance, all the times I've worked on tweaking the designs of websites, I never found it more convenient to upload my incremental changes to a remote host than to work on a local webserver and then upload the finished product. Are there people who do find working remotely to be more convenient?

As for security, it amazes me, for example, how stupid -- scratch that -- how inconsistent lawyers can be about this. I mean, some of them worry enough about leaks to have policies prohibiting office employees from using their own devices on the network, while at the same time they have no problem routinely sending/receiving legal correspondence and documents via unencrypted email. Perhaps this shouldn't bug me, but for some reason it does.

I don't think it's entirely paranoid to say the new generations are being conditioned, by reward, to accept a lack of privacy. The general lack of up to date education, on privacy issues, that I perceive exists, probably enforces that.

Hands up who thinks that's a good thing?

Thats the younger generation, I mean there. My own generation and above, I think are often acutely aware of the issues... but too ignorant of the technicalities... to the extent that ignorance at this level can be exploited (as opposed to naivety, about the need for privacy, being exploited).

It could be suggested that we're moving towards a kind of "open source" society. He he. Well, relative to individuals at least...

I'm totally generalising here of course... and speculating based on my finite personal observations. No surveys or statistics have been gathered to back this up

Quote - As for security, it amazes me, for example, how stupid -- scratch that -- how inconsistent lawyers can be about this. I mean, some of them worry enough about leaks to have policies prohibiting office employees from using their own devices on the network, while at the same time they have no problem routinely sending/receiving legal correspondence and documents via unencrypted email. Perhaps this shouldn't bug me, but for some reason it does.

Yup... this is quite simply that they can understand the written policy or rule, I guess?

Email is "magic letters" :laugh:

Also, to be fair to them, it seems absurd to the lay person to think that the Internet email format has been created in a way that renders it intrinsically insecure... and that indeed some decades in, it still isn't secure by default.

“Keep blathering, lmckenzie.”

Let it be on your head ÷)

I agree that wireless bandwidth definitely sounds like a problem. I have no idea what the situation is in terms of practical frequencies and the limits of data compression. Every time we seem to be about to hit a wall, they come up with something else. We may need a whole new design – the internet was never designed with streaming HD video in mind.

The remote experience can be pretty much the same as working locally. Essentially, you have virtual machines running on the server. Just like running another OS on your desktop in a VM, you connect to the remote VM and it works just like an individual PC. So, you can still have your ‘local’ web server. You get the benefits of centralized management, backups, updates etc., plus the ability to go anywhere that has a broadband connection and log on to your hosted personal workstation. I see that VMware can also synchronize local and remote VM images, so you could have a copy of the VM on a local PC to fall back on if the connection went down.

The security situation is probably going to take some companies getting sued, some going bankrupt and some people getting fired. Part of it is simple ignorance. Despite the inevitable objections, the government is probably going to have to get involved at some point – at least for critical infrastructure. I don’t think we can simply leave it up to the utilities, chemical plants etc. The same controllers that were driving those Iranian centrifuges are used in plants everywhere. Hopefully, it won’t take a Cyber 9/11 to wake us up.

The privacy thing is too complex. Reward is probably part of it. I’ve always thought of it as not valuing privacy but that may be backwards. It may be more a matter of valuing non-privacy. The reward is being a part of the group identity where everything is shared. I’m sure people still have secrets, but the tendency seems to be to ‘Book or Tweet every random act, thought or opinion – I suppose for group validation. Giving up privacy isn’t a toll, it’s the goal.

There’s also a youthful desire for fame and attention and YouTube celebrity. I think there’s some illusion that once it scrolls off the screen, it’s gone, no consequences. But … Society adapts. We accept that just about every politician of a certain age smoked weed. In the future, the fact that the President flashed her breasts or the Bishop molested a cantaloupe on the intertubes may be just par for the course as well. In the mean time, as Ben Franklin said, “Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other.”

It may be that the technology arrived to coincide with a generation that, for whatever reason (changes in childhood socialization, the rise in daycare, whatever), was predisposed to these attitudes. I don’t know how the 60s ‘me’ generation would have dealt with the web back then. I hate to put the blame on parents, but I think my parent’s generation, without being ‘tech savvy,’ would have known instinctively that letting their fourteen year old daughter have a TV broadcast from her bedroom was a bad idea. 

Good blathering! Yup... all good points there, I reckon

Let's hope the government doesn't get involved. They're sure to muck it  up. LOL

Laurie

Quote - I don't think it's entirely paranoid to say the new generations are being conditioned, by reward, to accept a lack of privacy. The general lack of up to date education, on privacy issues, that I perceive exists, probably enforces that.

for sure.

while on the one side i know dozens of older people who will refuse to do a credit card purchase online or set up online billing (despite it being much more secure than handing your CC to someone at a convenience store or restaurant), there are many people nowadays who just assume that everything they upload to the cloud/online servers/etc is inherently safe.  youd think people would learn from all the facebook debacles, ongoing reddit/photobucket fusking, companies databases getting hacked or info being leaked, etc.

even if we ignore the external danger from cyber-criminals, no matter what hardware/software/encryption is protecting your files there will always be a human element working with them somewhere.  as more and more sensitive data is accessible online, criminals will be even more attracted to positions which can potentially provide them access to this data.

im not sure what sortof checks employees at online social sites/cloud/hosting facilities go through to get hired, or what oversight they receive - if any. but look at all the recent attention that airline TSA employee baggage theft rings are getting. if you cant trust a government airline security employee that has gone through an extensive screening process and is under 24/7 video surveillance with your personal belongings, what makes you think you can trust some unscreened, underpaid, bored techie sitting in a server room at 3am with your personal data?

sure our entire web trails/email correspondence/transactions are already in the same position, but id still hesitate to upload my entire life to cloud storage and simply assume that its going to remain completely safe and private.

Some of the privacy issues surely have to do with a lack of experience, a naivety about the world...

It takes quite a bit of cynicism to believe that harmless status updates on Facebook can result in increased insurance policy rates or credit application denials. When I tell people that ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia -- which controls auto insurance) routinely scans Facebook for evidence of insurance fraud, they think I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist. But if you work for personal injury lawyers, or you know those who do, you learn real quick just how far thse people will go.

For example, people making claims to various kinds of injury have been denied payment because their Facebook updates or photos suggest they might not be as badly injured as they claim. ICBC actually sends investigators out to watch people's homes. If you have a back injury, but are seen carrying your groceries or taking out the trash, it's taken as evidence that your injury isn't as serious as you might be claiming.

If they are having people watching you outside your home and taking photos (like some sort of secret service freakin' spy operation), you can bet your life they are monitoring every single thing you do on the internet that they can legally access.

I'm also told by a friend who works for the federal government that Facebook gives the Canadian government backdoor access via a special login that permits them to see anything you post which is visible to any of your friends. The old warning that you should be careful who you friend because the government might be among them is bullshit. Only private industry needs to create fake friends to spy on you. The government already has access. My pal knows this because she's in human resources and they use info gleaned from social media to make hiring decisions.

But it's not until you've experienced actual serious negative consequences -- a higher mortgage rate, an inability to get a job, a termination, rejected credit card or loan applications, insurance benefit claim refusals -- that you really believe any of this is true. Until then, you'll probably dismiss it as the paranoid ranting of lunatics.

Big data is kind of scary too. Canadian Tire uses your purchase history to determine your interest rates and credit limit. Too many liquor store purchases (or a habit of shopping at discount stores) may well affect your bottom line. And we think that aggregating all the web sites people visit isn't also used to determine, for instance, credit worthiness?

People think that if they don't do anything "seedy" or that if they live a "clean" life, they are safe. But data isn't analyzed in order to make moral judgments. It's analyzed in order to determine risk. If it turns out that people who like to read the Washington Post are more likely to default on their credit card debts than those who read the New York Times, it's quite possible that this simple, morally neutral choice of reading material could still result in higher interest charges.

This sort of thing -- making prejudicial decisions about people based on group behavior -- is morally repugnant to me. We don't think it's acceptable to make such determinations based on race, right? But it would still be easy to deny someone a loan application because they downloaded a bit too much hip-hop. In the end, it's just another means to the same ends.

Ah, well. I probably do sound nuts. Me, I no longer care and tend to let the cards fall where they may. But if I were younger, or had kids, and had a bigger stake in the future, I'd be a lot more worried.

Frankly, whether it’s security, privacy, redistribution of jobs or whatever, things are simply moving too fast to understand, much less predict or plan for. If aviation, the automobile or just about any other significant technology had developed as the internet has in the last 20 years, the carnage and disruption would have probably been unimaginable - and none of those had the reach or social impact of the internet. That’s what makes the evolving internet society so interesting and in some ways scary at the same time.

It is true that the biggest problem is usually the human factor. That’s always the case – don’t buy a car made on a Monday as they say – at least the robots don’t get drunk on the weekends, but alas, the programmers may.

Quote - Some of the privacy issues surely have to do with a lack of experience, a naivety about the world...

It takes quite a bit of cynicism to believe that harmless status updates on Facebook can result in increased insurance policy rates or credit application denials. When I tell people that ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia -- which controls auto insurance) routinely scans Facebook for evidence of insurance fraud, they think I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist. But if you work for personal injury lawyers, or you know those who do, you learn real quick just how far thse people will go.

Well it doen't take any cynicism from me and, although I had no proof, I suspected it was being used by big business.  I don't use facebook but that is probaboly to do with my age but it also has to do with the damge I see on a daily basis.  Such as the young girl literally shaking with anger, or crying her eyes out, because her boyfriend's ex had said something bad about her.  The relationships I have seen broken up because the 'affair' has been played out on the line.  The withdrawl symptums I see when someone is parted from thier phone and scared at what people might say if they are not "connected".

I am not blaming Facebook, affairs happened in my younger days (not for me I might add) but stangely enough people tried to keep them secret.  People said bad things about others but often the victim was ingnorant of such comments so the damage was miniamal.  What amazes me is all tjhis hurt is, in the main, self inflicted.  After hundreds of years of fighting for freedom many are placing the ball and chains around their ankle willingly.

No doubt the day will come when you can't get a job unless you have a certain social network profile.   Luckily I am in my last job, when this one goes I will be too old to look for more.  I have no children and therefore no interest in Facebook and the like, on any level, but I do get annoyed when I hear statement like "everyone is on Facebook", it is a lie and always will be for, at the very extreme, it will be the world minus one until I am no more.

Quote - facepalm

 

Yeah, I'm not sure how much I want a smartphone OS on my PC.  Plus MS is going towards the Windowsstore route and will probably eventually try to clamp down on what you can install.  I think I'll try to stick with vista for now.

Vista is kindof a POS.
7 is a vast performance and stability improvement over Vista.
if you can secure a cheap upgrade id highly recommend it.

the Windows Store should terrify any software developer or consumer. not only will it allow M$ to steal a very large piece of the pie from virtually all mainstream PC software developers, but itll also put them in a position to exert control and censorship over what software can be distributed to the masses.

Wow, Apple's platform exactly ;)...lol.

Laurie

already it seem's MS is doing that.

reportedly no games rated  PEGI 18 are going to be carried..

@ Moriador

I knew it was possible (purchase analysis) but I wasn’t sure if it was happening. The degree to which people’s lives are rendered transparent through their purchases is pretty enormous. Add in the fact that your movements are recorded in mobile carrier databases or state toll databases. In many cities, you’re being recorded by cameras on the streets. The police are using facial recognition scan for terrorists and any bozo with a cell phone may be photographing in your face or up your skirt to post on the ‘net. The people who say that privacy is dead are correct to a disturbing degree. I’m actually less peeved at the people doing the surveilling than I am with the ‘If you’re honest, you have nothing to fear’ crowd.

Unfortunately, we are unlikely to have the mythical ‘national conversation’ about privacy that we sorely need, at least not in the US, where everything seems to turn into a political fight these days. Ironically, it is a subject that liberals and conservatives might find agreement on. It would take leadership though. Business has no interest in it, quite the contrary, because data equals dollars. The only interest companies like FaceBook have in protecting your data is to keep it away from someone else who wants to make money on it without paying them. The political part of government answers to whoever will pony up the most lobbying money. The security state is overjoyed with the new tools at their disposal to protect us from the enemy. Of course, the definition of enemy is flexible, see Ellsberg, Daniel. Today, Nixon’s plumbers could have probably done their job from the comfort of home.

Ignorance is part of the problem. Few people understand the potential dangers.. I’m sure that I don’t know a fraction of what is being done. I know enough about databases to know what can be done. I know enough about human nature to know that what can be done probably will be, especially where money and power are involved.

Most people probably don’t read the privacy terms of the websites they visit. They may not have heard about lawyers trawling FaceBook. Some things should be fairly obvious though. If your Gmail message about a golf date pops an ad for golf clubs, you should probably get the hint – they’re reading your mail and I’d be looking for another email provider. As soon as I heard about FaceBook’s shennagins, I’d be gone, unlike the guy I saw who said he’d leave if he could only find another online sodoku game or something. The fact is, people are being complicit in their own exploitation. For the benefit of knowing if their friends liked a movie before they rent it – without actually talking to them, they’re willing to be recorded, tracked, classified and sold, all safely anonymous of course.

I was naive about how far a ‘reputable’ web firm would go for profit under the guise of ‘free speech,’ until I ran across this article involving Reddit on Gawker the other day – warning, you may need a shower after reading.

Business has a right to make a profit and protect itself from loss. Everyone has a right to free speech. No can reasonably expect privacy in a public space. These things are so basic that we seldom think about them. We may need some serious deliberation on what they mean and whether traditional practice can remain unchanged in the internet age. The web is some bizarre mix of democracy, oligarchy and anarchy that touches virtually every area of our lives. At the moment, I feel as sober about the outcome as Franklin may have when he was asked if the Continental Congress had birthed a monarchy or a republic and he replied, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It.”

As a friend of mine once said (jokingly I think).  "I love Facebook, in the past I had to hide in bushes in all weathers, now I can stalk someone from the comfort of my own home."

Wow, that article was scary in more ways that one...lol. I still cannot resolve within myself that free speech gives one the right to spew hatred and garbage (because I hate that), even if I understand the importance that one have free speech ;). I liken it to a situation that one can't run into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE". Free speech should also bring responsibility with it, which apparently this jerk has none of. LOL. I feel for his offspring. But having said that, I can't bring myself to deny another's free speech simply because I don't like something they have to say. What a conundrum ;).

Laurie

Quote - Most people probably don’t read the privacy terms of the websites they visit. They may not have heard about lawyers trawling FaceBook. Some things should be fairly obvious though. If your Gmail message about a golf date pops an ad for golf clubs, you should probably get the hint – they’re reading your mail and I’d be looking for another email provider. As soon as I heard about FaceBook’s shennagins, I’d be gone, unlike the guy I saw who said he’d leave if he could only find another online sodoku game or something. The fact is, people are being complicit in their own exploitation. For the benefit of knowing if their friends liked a movie before they rent it – without actually talking to them, they’re willing to be recorded, tracked, classified and sold, all safely anonymous of course.

unfortunately this is easier said than done these days.

its nigh on impossible to maintain your privacy these days unless you want to devote an unhealthy portion of your life to it, forego pretty much every significant technological advance in the last few decades and go back to living as if it were still the '70s.

Even using a tablet, if you allow the geographic location part of apps, will basically tell anyone where you are at any given time - especially if it's on a cell plan. It's kinda creepy actually. LOL. Anything used for good can also be used for...well, you know ;).

Laurie

I'd forgotten about these things, but this shill, excuse me, analyst seems to thing that Chromebooks will be the next big thing.

"The Chromebook doesn't have a hard drive. Users with an Internet connection get to information and applications stored in large data centers."

I don't think it's going to woo anyone from their 3D box obviously, but how well might it appeal as a second machine, especially for those who don't already own a laptop or tablet?  After chuckling over the guy's hype, I went and did a very quick glance over some of the features. If you look at the bullet points they're hammering and the details, they may be onto something. How many people these days buy a computer almost soley to do stuff on the internet? If it's a big enough number (and it's probably growing) and if they advertise the hell out of Chromebooks @ $249, who knows.

*Personally I have my Desktop (w7), my Laptop (w7), my Tablet (Android) and my Phone (android). *

I've learnt what the "analysts" and "bloggers" have not.

a Tablet and a Phone are great assistants. but, trying to do serious work on them? if you like being held back. Limited by Ram, CPU power, small screens, non tactile inputs (a glass screen vs a full keyboard), limited to no expandability... oh and problems with upgrading your OS - eg my Phone can run Ice Cream Sandwich.... if Samsung adapt it. they won't tho, since that won't sell another phone, so we're stuck with Gingerbread....and yet, no desktops and mobile devices only are the "future" according to these people.

looking at the chromebooks, nice idea.... until you see they rely on the cloud.

apart from all the rest of the arguments about the cloud, has no one else thought of the fact the Cloud is vulnerable to being taken down by those that don't like it? eg the RIAA and MPAA.. they hate the cloud with a passion. it lets users share things. they were strong voices in the take down of megaupload...

you just know they'll target cloud services more and more... Fuck the legit users, we nuke the entire service !

It's strange to me that we seem to have gone from the idea of having one machine (a desktop wired with a bunch of peripherals such as a large flatscreen and sound system) that does everything from productive work to home entertainment to gaming to video conferencing -- a single device -- to the idea of having multiple, tiny devices that specialize in only a few things: a game console, a phone, an e-book reader, a portable DVD player to play movies not available legally on the net, an mp3 player, a tablet for browsing the internet, etc. Is it really an upgrade?

I mean, I get that mobile computing is kinda cool, but do people really spend so little time at home or at work that they need so many little, and, compared to desktops, underpowered devices?

Quote - Wow, that article was scary in more ways that one...lol. I still cannot resolve within myself that free speech gives one the right to spew hatred and garbage (because I hate that), even if I understand the importance that one have free speech ;). I liken it to a situation that one can't run into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE". Free speech should also bring responsibility with it, which apparently this jerk has none of. LOL. I feel for his offspring. But having said that, I can't bring myself to deny another's free speech simply because I don't like something they have to say. What a conundrum ;).

Laurie

The article was interesting reading. And, yes, indeed, it's a conundrum. After all, it's very easy to support free speech when you're not terribly bothered by what's being said. The true test is when you find the speech repulsive. I find it hard to defend anything that can directly harm children. But if we begin to target things that indirectly harm kids (Amanda Todd, for example), we could make a really good case for dismantling almost anything online that permits public participation. But that participation is what makes the internet what it is. I'd hate to see the web turn into another variety of TV broadcast because we can't figure out how else to protect the vulnerable. It is, indeed, hard to know where to draw the line.

the problem with the cloud is the simple fact that you arent always tethered to a data connection. 

like when youre traveling. do people actually use heavy data when roaming? even if i was rich - and im far from it - i wouldnt be paying several dollars per meg of bandwidth. youd have to be completely insane to use data while roaming at the extortionist prices most carriers charge. which means when traveling you are completely at the mercy of wifi hotspots since your device is completely useless without one.

there are rural areas where i dont always get coverage. so what do you do with a tablet that has no onboard storage and needs to be tethered to the net to work?

and then theres the fact that yes, while some files are suited for cloud storage - like documents that you (or several people) are working on from multiple devices, photo galleries, etc - many others arent. its a waste of your data connection to be constantly streaming everything from the cloud every time you use it. look at how popular offline apps are: like offline voice search, offline maps and offline translate are three features that people have been clamoring for for so long.

as many tablets and smartphones have proved, an onboard 8-16 gigs of storage is plenty to install a lot of content. memory prices are constantly coming down, so it gets cheaper to add it every month. designing a device with absolutely no onboard storage is just plain stupid. id never buy it, and neither would any tech savvy person i know.

“… a device with absolutely no onboard storage is just plain stupid. id never buy it, and neither would any tech savvy person i know..”

Agreed. USAToday says the $249 model includes: “SSD storage of 16GB”

“… the idea of having multiple, tiny devices that specialize in only a few things …”

That was true, but I think the trend is towards integration. A smart phone (or tablet) can be a phone, mp3 player, video player, web browser, GPS, camera, radio, translator … perhaps not as good as dedicated ones but it’s there in your pocket when you have a bit of downtime. Apparently just sitting and daydreaming or people watching is no longer an option. If you believe the commercials, some people are that mobile – work, errands, kids to practice, yada, yada.

Free Speech – aka the death of my liberal street cred.

If someone can get a NVIATWAS image taken down, then the same should be true for some poor kid’s beach party photos that end up on ‘Bikini Jailbait.’ Maybe FaceBook et al should watermark every image posted and encourage users to grant them copyright for the sole purpose of combatting image theft. They have the money and the technology to do it if anyone does. If the government can shut down MegaUpload for hosting masses of illegal files then it should be possible to do it to sites that egregiously rip off images. Every frontier needs a modicum of order in order to thrive. Without it, the participants may be limited to vandals, victims and vigilantes.

It’s not about banning the raunchy porn sites or the StormFront Nazis or even the Taliban – better to introduce them to Stuxnet. It’s not even about guys privately fap-excuse me, admiring nymphets in bikinis; Lord knows we’d have to ban post-pubescent males from beaches everywhere. It’s about people (especially minors), at least having a right not to be crudely exploited for some company’s financial gain, or a sociopath’s ego trip. There’s enough consensual exploitation going on.

It is a seemingly unsolvable problem, but I think we need to start thinking about it now, while the internet is still in its relative infancy. I’m pretty sure that the founders didn’t have publishing pictures of dead girls in mind when they crafted the First Amendment. They were probably most concerned with protecting political and religious speech. Somehow, we’ve made almost a fetish of everyone having the right to say anything, anywhere at any time – and that is indeed wonderful, at least in principle. The federal constitution has no privacy amendment. We may need one to protect private citizens against malign and unreasonable harassment and exploitation.

The devil will always be in the details and I know the dangers of the proverbial slippery slope but I’m not sure that this unprecedented technology and a decent society are compatible without some adjustment. Set the bar as high as is reasonable, but, without accessible legal recourse. I think we will see people taking the law into their own hands. We put people in prison for images of consenting adults having sex. If we have to tell a parent who just buried their child that we can’t do anything about their daughter’s corpse displayed on some Dead Jailbait venue, but oh; be grateful you live in a country that cherishes free speech – hire a lawyer and hope. I’m sorry, but IMO, something’s wrong with that picture. As a society, we owe them more than the hope that some digital sleuth will out the perpetrator, and maybe it’ll get taken down. And frankly, we owe him more than a system where someone may feel that the only justice they can get is carrying out one of the death threats he’s getting. Gather the most wise and thoughtful people we can find, get public input and have a discussion. Leave the pols out until we at least have an idea of where we want to go. If people want the status quo, fine. I hope I’m wrong about the perils of doing nothing.

I cannot imagine being at all entertained by web browsing on a 4 inch screen. I realize that a few popular web sites include mobile versions, but they are comparatively rare. But my question still stands. When do I need to browse the web on a mobile device anyway? While I'm driving? When I'm in the middle of a 15K run? When I go out for dinner and I find that Facebook is more interesting than the people I'm with? If it's the last, I'm in serious trouble. ;)

Many of the things you take issue with are unique to your country. While I do find US con law fascinating, US laws are kinda beside the point, and constitutional amendments are not going to fix the problem.

Canada does have privacy legislation (as does the EU), but laws aren't really a solution. After all, you can pass all the laws you want, but that doesn't mean they can be enforced. Or that they can be enforced globally.

It's illegal to steal someone's identity. Yet it happens frequently. The only way it can be tackled is by educating people about their own responsibilities, and constantly trying to update technology to protect them. When it comes to online harassment and personal data/image theft, it's the same. Without some astounding new technology, personal (and corporate) responsibility is going to have to do. And that also means educating your children about the permanence and easy dissemination of any digital content (from texts to sexts to screenshots of webcam chats). The fact that so many kids are utterly blasé to the risks suggests that their parents never understood them either.

It may just be that the technology is too young and we haven't worked out how to protect ourselves yet. But we can't rely on the government to do it all for us.

I quite often use this forum via my phone... it's something to do whilst I'm sitting on the bus waiting to get somewhere. It's not the most ergonomic experience though, since there's no discernable site optimisation for mobiles at all, he he... :laugh:

I think win 8 is out in 4 days...the 26th?

Here is my question? When are the stockholders going to wise up and throw the mad Ballmer out the door. Jobs came back and saved Apple. Yo, Billy, we need you back and fast!

Quote - I cannot imagine being at all entertained by web browsing on a 4 inch screen. I realize that a few popular web sites include mobile versions, but they are comparatively rare. But my question still stands. When do I need to browse the web on a mobile device anyway? While I'm driving? When I'm in the middle of a 15K run? When I go out for dinner and I find that Facebook is more interesting than the people I'm with? If it's the last, I'm in serious trouble. ;)

i take it you dont own a smartphone or tablet yet? :P

i was one of the last holdouts. i put off getting a smartphone till last year. now? i simply cant imagine being without one.  its basically having a computer in your pocket at all times. 

im notified of emails instantly wherever i am, i can read breaking news, do my online banking, monitor exchange rates in real-time, navigate with GPS, do conversions, translate voice/text/OCR-ed photos to/from just about any language, look up recipes, log my nutrition through myfitnesspal, log my hikes/bikes/paddles through endomondo tracker, take pretty decent photos, see the weather forecast and receive severe weather alerts, stay in touch with my friends, use it as a boarding pass, monitor my heartrate, check which gas stations around me have cheap gas (this alone has paid for my smartphone), listen to music, set alarms, scan barcodes and look up reviews/prices on items im about to buy, and get calendar birthday/appointment/to-do notifications --  and play games.  i could list even more but it would take all day.

as for tablets, theyre just a further convenience. i dont see the point of ungainly 10+" tablets, but a 7" tablet lets you do 95% of what most people do on their laptops/netbooks/ultrabooks in a much more convenient and portable device (especially for you ladies that can just toss them in their purse). no, you wont be rendering poser scenes on them. but you can do just about everything else. a 7" tab is perfectly suited for reading the morning news, checking the weather, reading and answering emails, skype, reading your favorite forums, etc.  which is exactly what im going to do now as i drink my coffee.  i just wish Rosity would do more work on its mobile site, or go Tapatalk compatible :(

id highly recommend the Google Nexus 7, they start at only $199 and come with $25 of Google Play store credit which actually goes a long way considering most apps are free.

”But we can't rely on the government to do it all for us.”

I agree completely. Like any other form of pollution, it will take everyone, government, the private sector and citizens working together.

“Jobs came back and saved Apple. Yo, Billy, we need you back and fast!”

LOL, I imagine that a lot of people feel that way. The question is, what is the strategy? I haven’t really thought about it. What should Microsoft do, given the way things are moving? The catch up strategy has worked in the past but I’m doubtful they can do that now.

I could perhaps see having a tablet as kind of a sit in the living room and do some stuff, as a universal remote control etc. That might actually be better done with a smart phone though. If you’re running, etc., neither makes a lot of sense. It’s lifestyle I suppose I can see watching a video on the bus or many of the other utility functions. The constantly connected thing has always eluded me. If it’s a business requirement, I suppose but really, it’s seems like giving your employer license to work you 24/7. Otherwise, I can’t imagine wanting the social umbilical. I suspect it may have as much to do with personality as with circumstance.

Quote - > Quote - I cannot imagine being at all entertained by web browsing on a 4 inch screen. I realize that a few popular web sites include mobile versions, but they are comparatively rare. But my question still stands. When do I need to browse the web on a mobile device anyway? While I'm driving? When I'm in the middle of a 15K run? When I go out for dinner and I find that Facebook is more interesting than the people I'm with? If it's the last, I'm in serious trouble. ;)

i take it you dont own a smartphone or tablet yet? :P

i was one of the last holdouts. i put off getting a smartphone till last year. now? i simply cant imagine being without one.  its basically having a computer in your pocket at all times. 

im notified of emails instantly wherever i am, i can read breaking news, do my online banking, monitor exchange rates in real-time, navigate with GPS, do conversions, translate voice/text/OCR-ed photos to/from just about any language, look up recipes, log my nutrition through myfitnesspal, log my hikes/bikes/paddles through endomondo tracker, take pretty decent photos, see the weather forecast and receive severe weather alerts, stay in touch with my friends, use it as a boarding pass, monitor my heartrate, check which gas stations around me have cheap gas (this alone has paid for my smartphone), listen to music, set alarms, scan barcodes and look up reviews/prices on items im about to buy, and get calendar birthday/appointment/to-do notifications --  and play games.  i could list even more but it would take all day.

as for tablets, theyre just a further convenience. i dont see the point of ungainly 10+" tablets, but a 7" tablet lets you do 95% of what most people do on their laptops/netbooks/ultrabooks in a much more convenient and portable device (especially for you ladies that can just toss them in their purse). no, you wont be rendering poser scenes on them. but you can do just about everything else. a 7" tab is perfectly suited for reading the morning news, checking the weather, reading and answering emails, skype, reading your favorite forums, etc.  which is exactly what im going to do now as i drink my coffee.  i just wish Rosity would do more work on its mobile site, or go Tapatalk compatible :(

id highly recommend the Google Nexus 7, they start at only $199 and come with $25 of Google Play store credit which actually goes a long way considering most apps are free.

I can do ALL of that stuff now.

There's obviously something fundamental that I'm missing. I just don't understand why I would want to use a tiny little device to do something when I can just as easily do it on a full sized machine. I type 85 wpm on a full sized keyboard. I can't stand using anything else because it's just too slow and annoying.

Does nobody actually spend any time at home or at the office any more? And if you're not at home, where are you that you can't wait to check email and surf the web? I mean, if you're out with friends, playing with a smartphone is antisocial. So when do you have time to play with it?

Bored on a bus or train home from work... like now

I have a tablet, a first gen iPad and I love it. That being said, I hate typing on the on-screen keyboard...lol. I use it mostly for a video player and games...haha. You can even draw on it, tho I hate those stubby pens you use for them. As it is tho, for as nifty as it is, I could do without it for sure ;). Long as I have my desktop...hehe. I have three desktops actually and can't do without any of them. They all serve a different but essential purpose.

Laurie

Quote - Bored on a bus or train home from work... like now

Interesting. I wonder what people did about boredom 10 years ago? I guess a whole lot of people were really suffering.

I suppose I'm old fashioned and not easily bored. Trains and busses are great for napping, composing sonnets, watching people, nature, the countryside, solving problems. I'd hate to lose these moments.

10 years ago? I read books. I still do.... (ok on my phone LOL but I read the same books... I can just fit an entire library in my pocket and leave my precious paper friends safe at home...)

........ I mean, if you're out with friends, playing with a smartphone is antisocial. So when do you have time to play with it?

Well some people not only play with their smartphones when out with friends but also while buying something in a shop and then get annoyed when I serve another customer.  Particularly if I am not there to continue to serve them the minute they end their call or text.  Then others use it in front of me driving to work as they cross the road clearly protected by some magic force just because they have the latest smartphone.  While yet more, socially minded people, are aware that normal body functions are a waste of time and boring and entertain strangers with their vital communications while in the public toilet.

Yes it does really ask the question 'what did we do before the smartphone?"

What did people do in elevators before Muzak, in cars before AM, at home before radio? People sat around the fire and sang or told stories. Before the transistor, you couldn't even take a radio around with you. I remember when Compaq brought the 'portable' PC - portable if you had a strong back or a dolly and you still needed an outlet It's amazing but predictable that when people were able to bring substantial computer power around with, they would fins uncanny uses for it - scanning bar codes to compare prices, translating menus and signs or even speech. It's not so much that there was a vaccum in people's lives, just new things taking up time that was spent in other ways. 

One can arge that some of those ways were more humane or virtuous - actually talking to each other, but the train's left the station. This 'stuff' is making fundamental changes in the way people live and interact. It's probably making subtle changes in neuro-anatomy, who knows. If there are alternate universes then people in the one where the internet and computers were never invented may probably be surprisingly different in a few hundred years - for better or worse.

Quote - > Quote - Bored on a bus or train home from work... like now

Interesting. I wonder what people did about boredom 10 years ago? I guess a whole lot of people were really suffering.

I suppose I'm old fashioned and not easily bored. Trains and busses are great for napping, composing sonnets, watching people, nature, the countryside, solving problems. I'd hate to lose these moments.

The beauty of it is, for me at least, that reading or writing or interacting with this or that online can be merged seamlessly into those other activities... that, yes, were what I would have done more exclusively ten, twenty, thirty years ago.

I spend a couple of hours a day commuting on public transport. A lot less time than some people spend. But still a fair chunk of time.

Having a small computer in my pocket, that I can work on some writing with, probably inspired by what I'm looking out the windows at, or read or listen to something that it occurs to me there and then that I'd like to read or listen to... is somewhat convenient, I guess.

But that's certainly not to say that some days, some journeys, I don't just leave the thing in my pocket and daydream...

I try not to sleep. This is a recipe for disaster, on public transport, I've found. LOL.

I'd still rather sit and listen to my grandmother tell me the funny stories of her youth than noodle around on the tablet. Heh ;).

Laurie

omg, you people make it sound like you have to be a teenager with ADHD to want a smartphone :P

i am not 'bored' - quite the opposite, i dont have time to be bored :(

Ah, when tablets were made of paper, laptops were were for napkins and being hot in the pants meant something other than your iPhone battery overheating.

Quote - omg, you people make it sound like you have to be a teenager with ADHD to want a smartphone :P

Well, that is the impression I get from the people I see using them. Especially the ones that insist on risking the lives of everyone around them by texting while driving. Or the ones who text while crossing the street. I guess we can only hope some Darwinian selection will take care of this type eventually. ;)

I understand why my previous bosses need smartphones: they really do need to sync their appointments and keep track of billable hours to a precise degree. But I see an awful lot of undergraduate and high school students, and others working hourly scheduled jobs, who seem tethered to their phones as though they are waiting to be called in to perform emergency surgery.

Me, I'm just not that important that I need to be so "connected".

ETA: I agree that having information available electronically must be altering our brain functions to some degree, as we begin to rely less and less on memory and more and more on devices. It's also extremely inconvenient. I still remember overhearing a conversation between a guy waiting for the bus and some girl who had lost her keys and cellphone. She had no money and no keys, and would have called one of her friends to pick her up except she couldn't remember anyone's phone number, not even her family. So there she was, sleeping in a bus shelter at midnight. Brilliant, eh?