Edge recently asked some of the world’s leading scientists, authors and thinkers the following question: “How has the internet changed the way you think?”
One of my favorite answers came from the one and only, Kevin Kelly. And yes, I’m a huge fan of Kevin Kelly’s work. Here’s what he has to say in response to the question.
… my knowledge is now more fragile. For every accepted piece of knowledge I find, there is within easy reach someone who challenges the fact. Every fact has its anti-fact. The Internet’s extreme hyperlinking highlights those anti-facts as brightly as the facts. Some anti-facts are silly, some borderline, and some valid. You can’t rely on experts to sort them out because for every expert there is an equal and countervailing anti-expert. Thus anything I learn is subject to erosion by these ubiquitous anti-factors.
I can so relate to this. Think about the above and then just imagine the impact the web will have on religion in the long-term.
… My certainty about anything has decreased. Rather than importing authority, I am reduced to creating my own certainty — not just about things I care about — but about anything I touch, including areas about which I can’t possibly have any direct knowledge . That means that in general I assume more and more that what I know is wrong. We might consider this state perfect for science but it also means that I am more likely to have my mind changed for incorrect reasons. Nonetheless, the embrace of uncertainty is one way my thinking has changed.
Uncertainty is a kind of liquidity. I think my thinking has become more liquid. It is less fixed, as text in a book might be, and more fluid, as say text in Wikipedia might be. My opinions shift more. My interests rise and fall more quickly. I am less interested in Truth, with a capital T, and more interested in truths, plural. I feel the subjective has an important role in assembling the objective from many data points. The incremental plodding progress of imperfect science seems the only way to know anything.
Brilliant. Read the rest here.
I’m in love with the fact that “truth” is no longer what the guy sitting on the throne and a bunch of bearded men want it to be. Like inter-continental satellite television before it, the internet is now causing disturbances in the epistemologies of Muslim countries worldwide.
But, unlike the push medium of conventional media, the internet is a pull medium and the epistemic consequences of this massive property are as fascinating as they are exciting.
Me loves.
One the negative side, say hello to postmodernism on steroids!
Solution? What Carter Phipps said:
Rehabilitating confidence in truth and reason will undoubtedly be one of the tasks of the twenty-first century. As a culture, we must begin to recognize that while truth and objectivity may not be absolutes that exist perfectly free of time and history, neither are they hopelessly embedded in personal perspectives. Simply because truth is always subject to revision does not and could never mean that all truth claims deserve equal space at the table of cultural discourse. Let’s not put reason and science on the pedestal of perfection, but let’s also not confuse leaps of faith with rational inquiry. If the twenty-first century is being defined by an ongoing clash of traditional, modern, and postmodern worldviews both in individuals and in societies around the world, then escaping that clash with minimal harm and maximal development will mean finding a fourth way. It will mean learning to steer our ship of culture away from the overconfident certainties of theology and science but also away from the overwrought uncertainties of contemporary philosophy.
Right on.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
I think it will have an even greater effect on history than on religion. Generally, the history books used in schools on either side of a border have told different stories.
The Internet will force people to go back to the original documents and other evidence, and have a good hard think mabout what actually happened. This includes having to say “We don’t know what happened.”
We should distinguish between the simplified stories presented in school and colege textbooks, and the more complex understanding of the genuine researchers. Much of the complaint about the over-confidence of science refers to the simplified versions presented in textbooks or (worse) newspaper stories.
Yet, we have to have introductory books so that people can get started in a subject.
I think it will have an even greater effect on history than on religion.
Hmm… this makes me think– does/will the internet have a greater effect on humanity than religion?
Drima…
Welcome back…missed your posts.
On this…I couldn’t be more in agreement. For most of my life…I have held my “Truths” rather tentatively…but the Internet has been the nail in the coffin of certain for this guy.
Though I thought I was smart and had an open and critical mind and not much subject to propoganda…since I connected to the Internet and, especially to the Blogesphere…my 58- year old mind has been twisted and tweaked much like what Mr. Kelly describes…
I know if I stick my hand in a fire…it hurts (no don’t start with the “what is pain really” stuff) but beyond that…well…I guess that is why Socrates was probably my favorite philospher…
The Internet has changed the world and I think it is among the monumental of changes in all history.
For you younger dudes…who basically grew up with it…I don’t know if you have any idea what has happened.
Good to read you again Drima.
Don Cox, good point about history. But I think the internet will simply impact the nature of knowledge itself and how we internalize concepts and thinks like truth.
Your mom, nice nickname.
Howie, it’s been a while!
“For you younger dudes…who basically grew up with it…I don’t know if you have any idea what has happened.”
Eh, well I certainly didn’t grow up with it. I’ve only become an internet junkie in the last 6 years or so. Before that, the world and how I saw it was very different. And as you know, my experience with the blogosphere has been quite similar to yours in some ways.
One thing that I think will happen to the new internet generation is that it’s going to grow up used to voicing its opinions. Having the right to free speech will be its norm, and so that should have interesting consequences within countries that have no freedoms.
This article makes for a great bedtime story.
The influence of the ‘net is even greater than this. It physically restructures our brain due to the latter’s adaptability to new tools. The very way we think about things - and especially the way we analyse, store and retrieve data in our heads - changes. The medium is not the message, but it sure as hell changes its consumers.
Thank you a lot for the hot article like this good post. Can you aid to notice the thesis writing or an experienced dissertation writing service to purchase the thesis topics in?
Raccoon…
You are such a evolutionist…
How’s the weather…wife and later son are heading out to visit the homies…I assume my entire shevet there will be in their pajamas, sipping tea and waiting for the snow in Petach Tikvah to melt.
Drima…
My Internet experience changed my world in unimaginable ways…
I ended up being in contact with a Lebanese guy DURING the last conflict…back and forth, agreeing, disagreeing…he ended up visiting out here and we hung out, took him to lunch…met the family…also…as you might know…I have become buddies with a Darfur dude who has stayed with us, hung out, went fishing and hiking together…
Dude…do you have ANY idea how impossible that would have been just, say, 15 years ago?Absolutely astounding…incredible…what a way to cut through assumptions, beliefs, propaganda..it just twists the brain…You learn there are some very deep and complex people all over the place…and also a LOT of REAL scary ass screwballs.
So uplifting, so mindbending…so freaking scary!
“Dude…do you have ANY idea how impossible that would have been just, say, 15 years ago?”
Yes. For example, before the Internet all Arabs thought that we are aggressive, violent, impolite and arrogant jerks. No wonder they hated us.
But now the Internet made direct contact possible. Now they know that we are aggressive, violent, impolite and arrogant jerks and that we won’t go away.
So they are starting to cope with the situation.
AB…
Overall..we tend not to be that violent.
Impolite? Check
Aggressive? Check
Arrogant? Check
Jerks? Check
Funny as hell? Double Check
“Overall..we tend not to be that violent.”
I know. But I want the others to think that we are.
“Having the right to free speech will be its norm, and so that should have interesting consequences within countries that have no freedoms”
hmm Iran just closed “Gmail” to switch into their own messages system, that doesn’t forecast freedom of free speech,
Also China’s net is controlled
I expect that our countries will more or less control our accesses to the net too.
So, that means that “official truths” will be available
and the decade we past to freely randoming on the net will be like the liberties that the baby boomers got, until HIV changed the behaviours.
Now, Howie I’m glad that you have an open mind now
well, I can’t say that the net changed my perception of the world, but rather that it made me more aware of my identity and my values, that I am ready to fight for
Also, I can find explanations for whatever financial question, like the nowadays crisis, I can find articles on world papers that have a different perspective, that allows us to forecast geopolitical aftermaths…
until when ?
MC…
I am open everything except to all hairy women and people who walk about with both male and female names and refuse to pronounce the letter “s” at end of words…or should I say “word”?
BTW Marie Claude…you seem pretty cynical on this subject…so far “the man” has not mess too much with the Internet…other than…yes…friendly/exotic spots like Iran and China…
Still…for freedom of expression….best damn thing in human history.
And California keeps betting the French in wine tasting competitions…
HA HA
HA HA HA
I we will call sparkling wine CHAMPAGNE if we freaking want to…go on…SUE ME…or run me over in one of your stinking Renaults or it is Reyno..stupid language
HA HA HA HA!
One effect of the Internet has been to lead me to books that I would otherwise have missed. It isn’t just about what is actually on the screen.
For me internet is a choice. There are many different ankles of view throughout the world and its always up to you which one fits into your wider picture. The more perspectives you get the closer to the truth you are. Look at me, living in the heart of Europe I have read a lot about Darfur, conflicts in the south of Sudan, Bashir versus ICC, genocide allegations, upcoming referendum and yet here Iam writing to you and reading you. Because I have decided to do so.
Many people criticize internet and its impact but maybe they have just
made bad decisions.
Howie in your paradise, your women are fake, with inflated mouth, boos and bottoms
the champagne of California is a carbon and chemichal added, just good for your tea parties, but for the true feast meals, smart people drink true Champagne
at least our Renault industry is still french, hmm last I heard from yours, gone with the wind to Asia, hmm even the Toyotas’ that replaced it, isn’t’ trustful
Hope you’re enjoying the motor “J’appuie”, and take care of its wheels
boobs, oh my !
about internet, a german video, very clear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfttXqRnq9I
Marie Claude,
What a boring video.
My phone company already keeps track of my calls. My Internet service provider certainly knows what Web pages I visit. Amazon knows what books I read. And Steve Jobs is about to dictate which programs I use on my iPad, should I get one.
More often then not the 1984 types are too late. Reality has already proceeded. And guess what? It proceeded with my permission. I decided to get a mobile phone and a phone line, I decided to buy Internet access. And the iPad would also be my decision to buy.
Ten years ago I was worried about government wire-tapping. Now I realise that opposing government wire-taps is a safe fight. Most people agree with the “rebels” and the evil empire doesn’t do anything to you if you protest. It’s a safe way to be a rebel.
AB
but we have a polemic about this with the Hadopi law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law
which is considered by many persons as a danger for systematic investigation into privacy as a rule, so far, not like in Germany:
“In Germany court specifically considered the right to privacy and in March 2008 the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that ISPs could only give out IP address subscription information in case of a “serious criminal investigation”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_(policy)
The Big Brother of Europe?: France Moves Closer to Unprecented Internet Regulation… - http://tinyurl.com/yzxe2ld
Interesting post, Drima. Brings up some thought provoking issues. My biggest “concern” about the internet is that it further exacerbates the anti-social tendencies in American culture. We now have a whole generation of young people who think those 247 strangers on their friends list on facebook who they have never even met are actually their “friends”, for instance. Or that people they met playing online games are closer friends than the people they go to school with, or their neighbors. America was headed that way already before the advent of the internet, but online connectivity ain’t helping! I have no idea what impact taht’s going to have in the long-term but I can’t think of any way replacing the real world with the virtual world could be beneficial to the human spirit. But, I could be wrong!
I think it will have an even greater effect on history than on religion.
I doubt it, because religious discussions on the internet expose people to different perspectives and different beliefs. There is much room for debate even when discussing scripture within a religious sect about what the intention really was and what the correct interpretation is. The same cannot be said of history. There aren’t two differing sets of historical events. If there is such a contradiction, one or both narratives is incorrect.
The Internet will force people to go back to the original documents and other evidence, and have a good hard think mabout what actually happened. This includes having to say “We don’t know what happened.”
People use the internet as a vehicle to promote whatever version of history they want to believe. If anything the web muddies the waters. It has become a dream come true for would-be propagandists and conspiracy theorists. They used to have to publish pamphlets at home and physically mail them to their crazy friends (don’t even ask me how I know about that!), or post flyers on a college campus. Now they can literally reach millions with the click of a button.
Don, those quotes were yours and my comments below weer directed to you! Sorry I didn’t mention that
Marie-Claude failed to also mention that Renault received a 7.5 billion Euro bailout from France that unlike GM doesn’t have to be paid back. By using current exchange rates that means that the $10 billion GM received will be paid back with interest while Marie-Calude will have pride in a company that took money out of her pocket and promised to not pay it back.
Andrew,
My phone company already keeps track of my calls.
But it doesn’t record the contents of your calls. Nor does it release your phone record without a court order. Either of those transgressions would be a felony on the part of the phone company. At least here in the US.
My Internet service provider certainly knows what Web pages I visit.
And that’s a problem since nobody seems to be able to control what ISPs do with all the data they collect on their subscribers.
Amazon knows what books I read.
And you wouldn’t buy books from Amazon that you didn’t want people to know you were reading, would you? This is like the old “you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide” argument that law-and-order types have always put forward. My Gramps always uses that line and it drives me crazy.
And Steve Jobs is about to dictate which programs I use on my iPad, should I get one.
Then don’t choose to get one. Apple has always been proprietary with their platforms. That’s why the PC won the computer wars, and Apple didn’t. But maybe back in the 1980s when the computer wars happened people cared more about being able to make decisions for themselves about what kind of hardware they wanted to run, what kind of software they wanted to use, and so forth. Would you buy a television if you could only get channels that the television manufacturer provided for you? Maybe you would. I wouldn’t.
More often then not the 1984 types are too late. Reality has already proceeded. And guess what? It proceeded with my permission.
So you’re the rat bastard responsible for that! Figures you’d be German
I decided to get a mobile phone and a phone line, I decided to buy Internet access. And the iPad would also be my decision to buy.
And will you still be saying that if all the love letters you sent to your underage girlfriend end up getting waved around at you by your employer during a little sit-down session? Everyone always thinks “right to privacy” is not a big deal, until something from their personal lives becomes public and they have to deal with the fallout. This is not a new thing. The right to privacy has been written into the US constitution for centuries. Privacy was important back then, but it’s not now? Says who? Andrew Brehm?
Ten years ago I was worried about government wire-tapping.
I’m not worried about Government wiretapping. I’m worried about corporate abuses. But maybe I should be worried about Government wiretapping, as about 15 years ago I talked about something I shouldn’t have on usenet and I had two guys with crew-cuts in a black suburban following me around quite conspicuously for about a week after that. Just sending me a friendly message, I’m sure.
Now I realise that opposing government wire-taps is a safe fight.
Most people agree with the “rebels” and the evil empire doesn’t do anything to you if you protest. It’s a safe way to be a rebel.
Rebels? People who oppose government wiretaps are “rebels”? lol. Maybe Germany hasn’t come as far in the last 60 years as I like to think!
They weren’t really following you but rather wanted to ask questions about how to hook up their phone so they could get free calls ala Captain Crunch. But were simply to shy to ask.
But back to the original topic. All these sources of information now within minutes whereas before it could take weeks to gather not only sources but opposing arguments as wel. The problem currently is that people are using the internet like a vast library trusting that a librarian has already vetted the material for accuracy. What can one do when an opinion website is quoted on par with a primary source?
ah my favorite stalker’s back !
Paterson Renault has a state participation ( 15%, 30% ? tell me !)so this wasn’t properly a bail out but an increasing of state actions, besides Renault still sell more cars than GM could ever dream for itself, and we sell them to China too
Except France didn’t get any more stock and the bailout/subsidy does not have to be repaid. Even when adding Nissan and Renault car sales together they are 5th in the world behind Toyota, GM, Volkswagen and Ford. And I only come when I hear the siren cry of another weird claim. Such as Patton in Italy or 100,000 French dead at Dunkirk.
Here’s the link;
http://www.carazoo.com/article/0409200901/Top-10-Car-Makers-of-the-World-in-2009
“Apple has always been proprietary with their platforms. That’s why the PC won the computer wars, and Apple didn’t.”
Really? Which PC vendor “won” the computer wars? IBM?
To me it looks as if Apple and most other computer makers use off-the-shelf parts (what is/was “proprietary” about Apple’s hardware before the iPad?) and Apple are doing a lot better than those other vendors who have supposedly “won”. IBM certainly didn’t “win” in the PC wars.
If you want proprietary look at IBM’s PS/2 architecture. But neither NuBus nor PCI Macs and certainly not those based on the open CHRP standard were very “proprietary”. (I guess PCI is propriertary, but NuBus was an open standard as I recall. Of course all the PowerPC CPUs Apple used were available on the open market, as are the Intel CPUs Apple use now.)
People confuse operating systems with computers. Microsoft have certainly won the OS wars, but I can’t see that any PC vendor “won” the PC wars. And saying that all of them have won except one is pointless when that one computer maker is so much bigger than most of the “winners”.
As for privacy, I am more worried about terrorism than about government wiretapping.
Andrew,
Really? Which PC vendor “won” the computer wars? IBM?
The PC platform won the computer wars
And yes, the PC was invented by IBM.
To me it looks as if Apple and most other computer makers use off-the-shelf parts…
There is only one maker of Apple computers. Apple. There are literally thousands of makers of PCs. And Apple does not use off the shelf parts. They deliberately make their systems proprietary. If you think you can go to an electronics store and buy a third party motherboard “off the shelf” to upgrade your Apple, you are mistaken.
(what is/was “proprietary” about Apple’s hardware before the iPad?)
What wasn’t?
…and Apple are doing a lot better than those other vendors who have supposedly “won”. IBM certainly didn’t “win” in the PC wars.
At one point (roughly 1993) the PC had 98% of the desktop market, Andrew. They PC not only won, it annihilated the competition. 98% is a virtual monopoly.
If you want proprietary look at IBM’s PS/2 architecture.
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_System/2
The Personal System/2 or PS/2 was IBM’s third generation of personal computers. The PS/2 line, released to the public in 1987, was created by IBM in an attempt to recapture control of the PC market by introducing an advanced proprietary architecture. Although IBM’s considerable market presence ensured the PS/2 would sell in relatively large numbers, the PS/2 architecture ultimately failed in its bid to return control of the PC market to IBM.
But neither NuBus nor PCI Macs and certainly not those based on the open CHRP standard were very “proprietary”.
PCI was an intel PC standard that Apple adopted. Apple has also adopted many other PC standards, to the point where they now use 100% PC off-the-shelf equipment including motherboards, processor and memory. An Apple computer is currently a PC that runs proprietary software. And it is that proprietary software which prevents users from running hardware or software that is not licensed by Apple in their computers. It’s a deliberate decision Apple has made. As they have always made a deliberate decision to exclude unlicensed third party hardware and software vendors from making products for their computers.
People confuse operating systems with computers. Microsoft have certainly won the OS wars, but I can’t see that any PC vendor “won” the PC wars.
People often confuse vendors with platforms
And saying that all of them have won except one is pointless when that one computer maker is so much bigger than most of the “winners”.
It’s about market share, Andrew. Windows based PCs are still ~90% of the desktop market. They’ve lost a bit of ground - mostly to UNIX based desktops - but they are still the defacto standard for desktop systems and there isn’t anyone else even large enough to matter in the overall scheme of things.
Paterson the denier
GM: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Daewoo( Korea), GMC, Holden, Hummer, Opel (Germany), Pontiac, Saturn et Saab (Sweden).
Opel –> sold out ?
Saab–> sold out
Hummer–> sold out
the others ?????
Le 1er juin 2009, General Motors est placée sous la protection du chapitre 11 de la loi américaine des faillites. La société avait accumulé environ 172 milliards USD de dettes et possédait des actifs d’environ 82 milliards USD. Elle sera détenue à 60% par le gouvernement fédéral des États-Unis, à 17% par le Fonds d’assurance-santé du United Auto Workers, à 12% par les gouvernements du Canada et de la province de l’Ontario et à 10 % par les détenteurs d’obligations, les autres actionnaires ne détenant pas plus de 1% depuis l’effondrement du cours. Le plan de restructuration devra d’abord être accepté par le tribunal. Le même jour, GM a vendu sa filiale Hummer, plus précisément la division qui fabrique les véhicules destinés au marché civil, à une société chinoise, Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd.
Le 6 juillet 2009, le tribunal supervisant la faillite de GM a officiellement approuvée son programme de cession d’actifs sains au « nouveau GM ». Le 10 juillet 2009, GM a annoncé être officiellement sorti de la faillite. Selon ses plans, elle devrait avoir, à la fin de 2010, réduit le nombre de sites de fabrication à 34 (au lieu de 47 en juillet 2009). Aux États-Unis, les effectifs seront d’environ 64 000 à fin de 2009. Mondialement, en juillet 2009, GM affirme employer 235 000 personnes. En 2010, elle devrait employer environ 200 000 personnes.
Après quelques mois d’incertitudes et de remous politiques, General Motors a cédé, le 11 septembre 2009, sa filiale Opel à Magna International et à un groupe d’investisseurs russes.
Le 4 novembre 2009, GM décide de garder sa filiale Opel, cet épisode met fin à des mois de tractation avec Magna International.
Besides your bailing out of GM isn’t what you say, according to the many conservative american blogs, (and I know quite a few of t’em)
Must be your propension at inflating your psyché ala “no pasaran” that blur your perspectives !
Renault: Renault Nissan
http://www.zonebourse.com/RENAULT-4688/actualite/RENAULT-progression-de-l-Alliance-dans-le-monde-en-2009-13317331/
uh Renault isn’t the only french made label, also Peugeot, Citroen…. How many more then ?
Of course, the same deny for the rest (ie Montecassino, 100 000…) doesn’t refect of your intellectual honnesty, but it explains why you’re such a lonely bear raised by wolves
There were indeed 100,000 casualties at Monte Cassino and 90,000 of those were from the American 5th Army. But as usual you try to change the subject from you series of specious claims regarding Patton, Alexander and Montgomery. But you still haven’t retracted the absolutely false claim that the French Army suffered 100,000 casualties at Dunkirk.
But this is actually a good example of the untrained rampaging around the internet and only believing what agrees with them. If you had read the link then you would have seen that it was for the first 6 months of 2009 (the latter 1/2) hasn’t been released yet. But let’s say that sales remained the same and that Renault can add Lada’s sales in spite of not finalizing the sale till the 4thQ. Then there is absolutely no change in the ranking of car sales. One Japanese, two American, one German and one from tiny Korea. In fact GMC still sold almost 2 million cars more than Renault.
The bailout of GMC, inspite of what various blogs say (BTW, blogs are secondary sources) the money is a loan while Renault was essentially paid the same amount with no strings attached except for a somewhat reliable promise to not more any more production to its Dacia or Nissan factories.
But you still haven’t retracted the absolutely false claim that the French Army suffered 100,000 casualties at Dunkirk.
yeah, and I won’t, cuz these are facts collected into a book, of which I provide you the link, ( not of a blog)
Sure, history books have been written by the glorious great America opinionists (with its vassals the Brits), not historians, but of course there are honnest historians in America and in UK too, unfortunately those aren’t your eve reading, though they are from the very army staff ! And since a few years, voices are contesting your legends, I bet more and more will do too.
In fact, GMC still sold almost 2 million cars more than Renault.
yeah, with 5 labels ! when Renault has only 2, olright it’s the way you interpret contemporan history too, you have no risks when it come to antic history, there have no more witnesses !
(BTW, blogs are secondary sources)
A Lapalisse truth LMAO
except that these blogs are making your opinions, and when it comes to us, and or to our history, funny that you take t’em as objective truth displayers !
I love your euphemism “loans”
Paterson you’re a bad looser !
“It’s about market share, Andrew. ”
I figured, Craig.
I am just curious why you would think that one of the top-five computer makers, Apple, has “lost” the “PC wars”.
“People often confuse vendors with platforms”
Well, yes, you seem to do that. Apple’s systems were never very proprietary, not since the mid-90s anyway. Both the PowerPC and the Intel Macs are based on open standards. The Macintosh ROM and the Apple Desktop Bus were the only non-open components, and CHRP/New World machines didn’t even have those any more.
You say that there is a difference between vendors and platforms, so pay attention to that difference. Platforms come and go and so do vendors. Apple has certainly not “lost” the “PC wars” but seems to do very well in the market.
The PS/2 was a proprietary platform. CHRP PowerPC computers were certainly not. (Heck you can download the specs and build one yourself from scratch. Even the firmware is open.)
I am just curious why you would think that one of the top-five computer makers, Apple, has “lost” the “PC wars”.
Andrew, PC stands for “Personal Computer”. The PC was invented by IBM in 1981. It used an Intel 8088 processor, and the an operating system provided by Microsoft (which was Bill Gates and a few of his college buddies at the time) called MS-DOS.
Apple did not lose the “PC wars” because the Apple II was not a PC. It was an Apple. A competitor to the PC. It was never in the “PC wars”. It was, however, in the computer wars along with Commodore, Atari, Tandy, and others.
Well, yes, you seem to do that.
Your above comment seems to indicate you don’t even know what a platform IS, Andrew. I’ve been doing commercial software development for almost 20 years. I *write* platform-specific software, and I’ve ported my programs to different platforms. Think carefully before pitting your understanding of the term against mine. I was working as PC programmer before the “information age”, and before the “internet” became a household word. And before there was even a computer industry to speak of in Germany
Apple’s systems were never very proprietary…
That’s such an ignorant statement it’s not even worthy of a response. I suggest you do a little research before taking up this discussion with anybody who is the least bit knowledgeable about the computer industry. Let alone somebody who has been WORKING in the computer nndustry as long as I have been.
…not since the mid-90s anyway.
Mid-90s is when Apple was using Apple System 7 OS and Motorola 68000-series processors. How is that not proprietary? Or maybe you mean late 1990s, when Setve Jobs returned to the company and switched to OS, PowerPC processors, and Apple OS 8? Again, how is that NOT proprietary?
Both the PowerPC and the Intel Macs are based on open standards.
Open standards from the PC industry lol.
And do you know why? Because PCs were not just cheaper and more adaptable and flexible than Apple systems by then, they were FASTER and BETTER in every way. Apple was technologically inferior to the PC, whereas in the past Apple had always marketed itself as being better than a PC. So Steve Jobs figure “if you can’t beat em, join em!” and he sold out. Now you attribute that to Apple having established those open standards when in fact it adopted standards from the PC industry in order to try to compete! But guess what? They still designed their computers to not be compatible with PC hardware and software, even though they *were* PCs! I can’t write an application right that will run natively on an Apple computer, Andrew. Unless I write it specifically for an Apple computer. Why do you think there is such a shortage of software for Apples? Apple can’t convince people like me to write programs for their closed systems, when they have such a negligible market share and when they make it such a pain in the ass for third party developers to port to their platform. On top of that, if I *did* write an an unauthorized piece of software that would run on an Apple there’s a pretty good chance they’d sue me. Lovely, isn’t it?
The Macintosh ROM and the Apple Desktop Bus were the only non-open components, and CHRP/New World machines didn’t even have those any more.
Now we are having a misunderstanding between “open standards” and “compatibility”. Using an open standard doesn’t mean that any third party product that also is made to that open standard will be compatible with your system. That’s the purpose of open standards and that’s what it always meant in the PC industry, but Apple just stole adopted PC technology because it was superior, not because they were interested in supporting PC standards. And the first thing they did is ensure that Apple systems using open standards remained proprietary. Don’t take my word for it. Install Windows 7 on your Apple right now. Let me know how that works out for ya.
You say that there is a difference between vendors and platforms, so pay attention to that difference. Platforms come and go and so do vendors.
Platforms don’t “come and go”, Andrew. Platforms evolve or they cease to exist.
Apple has certainly not “lost” the “PC wars” but seems to do very well in the market.
*sigh*
The PS/2 was a proprietary platform. CHRP PowerPC computers were certainly not. (Heck you can download the specs and build one yourself from scratch. Even the firmware is open.)
*sigh*
Don’t take my word for it. Install Windows 7 on your Apple right now. Let me know how that works out for ya.
By the way, Andrew, before you try to get semantic-y on me with that, I mean install Windows 7 as the ONLY operating system on your Apple
And then what exactly are Lada, Dacia and Samsung. Names of French disco bands? That original link about the casualties clearly said those numbers were for the entire early part of the war not just Dunkirk. There are the deluded and then there the lazy. I haven’t really decided which category you fit into yet.
By the way, on this part:
The PS/2 was a proprietary platform.
IBM’s introduction of the PS/2 and their announced transition to OS/2 as opposed to MS-DOS and MS-Windows as operating system that would be supported on the PS/2 was the beginning of the feud between Microsoft and IBM. Microsoft was betting the bank on Windows even though it was also the developer of OS/2. MS came out with Windows NT as a direct response to OS/2, and a couple years later Windows NT merged with the wildly popular Windows 3.0 to become Windows 95, and the rest is history. The PS/2 and OS/2 was the end of IBM in the PC industry, and the beginning of Microsoft’s leadership position. I mention all this because it seems like you attribute this disastrous mis-adventure on the part of IBM as if it’s some sort of episode in the evolution of the PC when in fact it was a dead end that was ultimately meaningless to the PC industry except that it ushered in a changing of the guard between IBM and Microsoft.
Paterson, you clearly belong to the ” bad faith”, I know you for such a long time now, and I am not giving up my opinion about you soon
Well, I guess we’ve established that different people can have mutually exclusive versions of history and remain utterly convinced they are right no matter how much contradictory evidence there is available. So, anyway, how about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8523807.stm
They say their son was told off by teachers for “engaging in improper behaviour in his home” and that the evidence was an image from his webcam.
They allege the school district invaded their privacy and are guilty of “wiretapping” by putting children under covert surveillance.
In their lawsuit, they claim the webcams were activated remotely and images were taken which could have included anything going on in a room where the laptop was placed.
Lawsuit? Some people need to go to prison for that. There’s no possible way the school administrators can claim they didn’t know what they were doing was not only morally wrong, but highly illegal. These are EDUCATORS who did that! Somebody needs to file a case against them for conspiracy to traffic in child pornography. That’s got a hefty mandatory sentence, I do believe. Whatever other offenses they have committed is just icing on the cake.
The nature of internet is neatly encapsulated in this comment section. It starts with a broad idea, which is then quickly sectioned and reduced to unrelated issues. It usually ends up with two or more guys kicking each other over poor quality champagne, cars and computers.
To Marie-Claude and Co., I recommend fuckfrance.com which is a website especially created for Americans and Frenchmen who love to hate each other. Go get them!
Eva, you seem to know well the site though
I go there now and then when I’m in the mood to watch a dogfight. Right now there’s a low level of violence. The Frech discuss “René Descartes est-il mort empoisonné ? ” and the Americans are interested in the Surinam toad reproduction. In a nasty way, of course.
I loved the editorial. It is very interesting. cash advance no credit check Thank you for the information.
Leave a Comment