Let me be clear – my primary affiliation in this respect is as an end user. I am into web development, but nowhere considering myself to be a web publisher. Of course, I’ve been writing here at PC Mechanic for well over the past two years, given the tremendous opportunity the editors and David have presented to me. Beyond that, I am also a web instructor, perhaps developing the next generation of web publishers of which I speak. All that aside, this gives me a rather unique perspective that I thought I’d share – something that, I believe, will complement PC Mechanic owner David Risley’s take on the subject.

Advertisement: Getting your Attention

For those of you who have been avid web surfers since the first influx of the ad-based web economy, you realize, much to the chagrin of everyone new or old, that web advertisements have become not only more of a ubiquitous presence, but also more intrusive. Pop Ups, Flashing banner ads, voice-ads, event-handler ads – new innovations seem to free-flow into the minds of advertisement artists and commercial coding gurus. However sad the reality may be, the more intrusive the mechanism is, the happier the ad-coders are. That means it caught your attention on whatever ad the ad agency wants you to see. Now, granted, an overwhelming majority of ads, as David pointed out, are subtle and non-intrusive. Google AdSense, in particular, does a nice job distributing listings that are in-line with the content of the page. Those were fine, but a few greedy web coders developed intrusive ads that are simply not OK. And when the line is crossed, people block ads, ethical or not.

Balancing Web Publisher’s Prerogatives and End User’s Interests

A select few web publishers have come up with the “implied contract” between the end user and the visitor of the site: that is, in exchange for free-flowing content and the service and resources required to maintain that, the end user will tolerate advertisement. I have a problem with that concept and it isn’t because I am not moral. Sure, its good for the users to support the site. And while the end users, or the readers in most cases, should help out within reason, it is ultimately the responsibility of the web publisher to keep the site going. The onus shouldn’t be placed on the users. Justifying ad-placement by stating that the end users have the implicit responsibility to uphold the site is not within reason.

Ads as Part of Site? A Web 2.0 View

For those of you who draw parallels to any static media (newspapers, written materials, even television), you could say that advertisement, however annoying they may be, is part of the package. So a webpage, say ESPN, includes the content, as well as the advertisements and annoyances. The content, by the very nature that its not “free” to the web publisher to publish, requires the backing of the ads to stand.

After looking through technological trends and more specifically the concept of the new media-based Web 2.0, I offer this suggestion: Perhaps its NOT that we should draw from older media for the ethics of keeping ads – rather, its an evolution of the web to keep ads at a minimum. That perspective lends credence to the web’s tendency towards a more user-friendly environment. Bombardment of advertisement, no matter how attractive they become, is not the answer. Rather, if the content of the site, from its base, is formidable and engages the user to a large extent, you don’t need a barrage of pop up ads and inappropriate advertisement asking the user whether they would like to claim their free Apple iPhone pending full market participation.

Question of Morality? Just Adjust.

Just like technology we talk of today, it is absolutely vital for websites to stay in touch with trends and innovations today. Its not a good idea to stick with one source of revenue and jump up and down when it doesn’t suffice; rather, that should be a lesson. Look for more creative sources of revenue, whether you use your traffic to channel effective sales, or whether it be offering services for a fee. Mass advertisements may create some revenue, but anything beyond subtlety will most definitely drive important traffic out of your site. Its not a question of morality. It should be about stepping back and solving a problem, just as entrepreneurs do every day.

While this procedure is still largely in use and is practiced today, the quick diffusion of the Internet into our everyday lives has brought upon Internet shopping. With each impending purchase, instead of thinking of a shop you might go to, you might use Google, or Yahoo! instead to find the product. Or then again, you might go directly to a specified website (Newegg, Amazon, etc.) to find a product. You look around for the lowest price, but also the reputation of the reseller. But now that products are a two-dimensional picture on a screen, how do you know how the product is? For instance, if you were purchasing a car online, how would you know what condition the product was in, whether or not the facts written by the product were indeed true, and that it is ultimately worth the money you might pay for it? Well, you wouldn’t, at least for certain. And so you trade in peace of mind for convenience.

Researching Products: Review Websites

Chances are, in order to gain more knowledge about the products that you want, you’ve visited product review websites. While there are literally thousands out there, the some of the more well-known ones are CNet, HardOCP, as well as Tom’s Hardware. By visiting these review websites, you’ve probably garnered a greater amount of knowledge about the product. But in reality, you are relying on others to rate and review the products that you are considering. Reviews, though, are generally accurate on reputable websites, since they need be truthful and fairly accurate to account for their reputation.

As a case and point; when my older 802.11b Netgear wireless router was dying after several years of use, I decided to jump to an 802.11g wireless router to replace it. I did a thorough search of wireless routers and I eventually came upon Linksys’ WRT54G and WRT54GL. From research, I found out that apparently, the WRT54G has a chronic restart problem that results from lower amounts of memory and a recently implemented firmware. While power cycling a router is needed from time to time, I wanted to avoid that. The Linksys WRT54GL, which they offered with the older, larger bank of memory along with a flexible firmware, garnered better reviews than its counterpart. The reviews also went into how the “L” version could be flashed to a different firmware — “L” hinting at Linux, that is.

To that end, product review sites offer generally trustable advice. Keep in mind that certain sites may have subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) biases towards certain brands and products.

Peer Reviews: Customer Surveys

Customer satisfaction reviews and surveys are something you have to watch out for. When you buy a product, you actually have the product in your hands which may lead you to review it for other folks like you. Because it’s no longer just an image on a monitor, you may have that certain “leg up” on the situation — that your first-hand experience may be valuable to others.

As with any other personal and unlimited review, you must be careful when reading it. The person who may have written the review may have a motivation for writing it, or, more likely, a pre-determined impression of the product. You also cannot judge whether or not the reviewer is simply ignorant, or didn’t know better. There are a number of facts that you must weigh when using user reviews as a gauge for product quality. To that end, customer reviews should be taken with a grain of salt.

My Take: Evaluating Products

First and foremost, since products are no longer “tangible” as they always used to be, you must rely on someone’s review in order to find out information about the product. That said, you must know where to look for honest feedback about a product. While I do consider product customer reviews when looking at a product, you must know what to trust and what not to. There is rarely no motive for someone to post a review — rather, they do it for a purpose. In addition, you cannot trust that the user is necessarily knowledgeable enough in the field to make certain products. The anonymity of the Internet allows people to post without their “pride on the line.” They do not necessarily have to be honest.

All in all, I generally trust large reviewers’ publications. Usually, those people are very knowledgeable about the products they review and can provide the insight that consumers can appreciate. However, when researching a product, just keep digging. To some products, like a processor or software, there are tangible tests done about it that can be analyzed for the consumers. With all the tools available today, it’s just up to you to research the product thoroughly.

Wait. Is email the means of communicating today? Do you still have casual conversations over email, or is THAT even delayed communication?

A New Means of Communication

When thinking about communication, a new wave of sites might come to mind. Specifically, with the social networking movement, Facebook and MySpace. As with many websites out there, it might have been appropriate to assume that this movement is a short-lived phenomenon. But to many, including presidents and founders of Social networking sites, the movement goes far deeper than that. Specifically, this movement is often labeled as a possible new main mean of communication — replacing the venerable email system as our main form of communication. That is quite extraordinary — how the way we communicate things can go through a single company on a single website. The president of Scriptovia.com, Asheem Badshas, mentioned as much: “For me even IM died, and was replaced by text messaging. Facebook will replace e-mail for communicating with certain people.” As a new means of communication, do we simply check Facebook or MySpace everyday to find out how people are doing, or to catch up on friends?

Furthermore, what are some of the ways that social networking sites have affected its users? Does it extend far beyond a simple means of communication?

When you look back at communication by telegrams and snail mail, you can clearly see a difference. Those means of communicating with one another relied on physical transportation which is much slower. There was a tendency to be able to wait on exchange of information. In addition, writing a letter as opposed to typing keys into a program injected a noted level of authenticity in conveying yourself. Granted, you convey more about what you’re talking about when meeting with someone face to face, talking to that person right in front of them. However, text in a program is a series of codes that have no emotional or conveying value. It’s just a series of 0′s and 1′s. What’s to come from that?

A Shift in Social Attitudes

In any computing site, whether it be Facebook, Microsoft’s Wallop, or MySpace, there is “instant gratification.” In short, the time you convey your thoughts to the time that you get a response is so little that you can satiate curiosities instantaneously. Now, instead of waiting for a response from a person who may be tentative about spending the time to write and send a letter, you can instead, use your mouse and keyboard to convey everything you need to. It seems, as a result of this instant exchange of information, that there is more perceived pressure to keep up with everything. You don’t necessarily have to keep mining around, hear rumors, and talk to people anymore — rather, you need to spend more time in front of your computers on any social networking site to soak up information. What used to be a word-of-mouth exchange of information is now up to bits of data on the Internet.

Be Heard

A part of any Web 2.0 branch is the ability to be heard. The individual user on the Internet has the power to broadcast his/her voice in varied formats. In YouTube, this manifests itself through the sharing of digital videos. For blogs, you can broadcast your own feelings and thoughts. And similarly with social networking sites, you can control the content that you post and read and you can be heard. The ability to make you heard is easier now that the world has “shrunk” as a result of instant communication. Some previous examples range from someone dancing to a Dragostea Din Tei clip to declaring interest in running for the Presidency in the upcoming 2008 election. On Facebook and MySpace, users have even declared engagements through profiles. Quite simply, it’s a powerful medium to be heard and is a large addition to information technology.

My Thoughts: New Communication or a Social Shift?

In the generation where the Internet allows instant communication, I think that many more Web 2.0 services are possible. More specifically, the concept of the new web where you can be heard allows for people throughout the world to be the audience of a service. To me, the movement goes beyond a simple new means of communication. Surely, I still check my email often and communicate frequently using it and social networking sites. However, the simple concept of a world-wide audience allows for many more opportunities to be the “next great movement.” Social networking happens to be one of them right now. And this definitely has implications throughout normal society and life more than just simply your Internet personality. To be armed with the amount of power the Internet has to offer today, any movement is possible.

I’ll leave you all with a quote from the late Peter Drucker: “The new information technology, Internet and e-mail, have practically eliminated the physical costs of communications.”

Like any aspiring computer techie, I eagerly look forward to learning of today’s latest and greatest gadgets, how each tiny component in a computer functions, but most importantly how to make it work for our good. For us, it’s easy to comprehend with our unrelenting interest leading the way — hear about a given product, research it all you can, and finally have a chance to use it. Maybe the drive will carry us to even improve the product. It’s an exciting three-step process. As governed by time, products become more and more complex and as a result, there is an increasing demand for knowledge and understanding of the product being used. Perhaps we’re getting ahead of ourselves too much — not everyone is the prototypical budding neighborhood tech specialist. With products becoming more feature-filled, it is well to conceive that these products become more of an obstacle to use. For everyone, from users all the way to the manufacturers, it’s vital to keep in mind the key.

Simplicity.

When uttering that word in the context of computers and technology, perhaps one image comes to mind — one company, whose motto to "Think Different," ironically simplified their business approach and the products they release. For me (and certainly for many others, I hope), Apple Inc. came to mind. While their products do not boast the high-tech glowing case fans, or the ultra-modern look, they’ve kept it simple. And perhaps that’s what makes them so successful. Products can be feature-filled, but to consumers who may not have the aptitude or the extensive background as the makers might, simplicity is paramount.

Simplicity. Again: simplicity.

Problems with Complexities in a Simple Task

A couple of days ago, I was tasked with a short film project. After filming the conference, I was asked to edit, and prepare the product. Editing the film is a multi-faceted process. From a normal mini-DV camcorder, you must import it, line it up on the time progression, actually edit it, render, save, and convert the final product. So I imported it, opened up Apple’s Final Cut Pro, and started lining it up and editing the footage. About four minutes in, the system halts. All my files are saved, but the mouse that now resembles a colorful wheel (equivalent to the Windows’ sandglass timer) was stuck in place while focused in Final Cut. Using the Force-Quit command does not force it to quit. After rebooting the workstation, I consulted the system administrator, who faulted the crashes on the "aging" nature of the PowerMac dual-G5′s. Somehow, I didn’t buy that but then again, I’m not the expert. I worked for another hour. After I get on a roll and forget to save for over thirty minutes, the inevitable strikes home — the colorful wheel spun freely as I watched growingly irritated.

Fortunately, just then another "aging" PowerMac opened up. Since the previous user seemed to have no problem using the workstation for over two hours, I decide to hop on over. However, the footage was saved on the original computer’s local hard drive. Because of the way the computers were secured and the size of the file, I could not use file transfer over the internet. So naturally, the first instinct is to grab onto an external hard drive and transfer the files from one computer to another. That’s as easy. Right?

Not really. Because I lent my 80GB USB external hard drive out, my only option was two 160GB Firewire self-built hard drive, one of which emitted the clicking sound of hard drive death when powered up. I power the working hard drive up and connect it to the Firewire port. OS X picks up on it and it shows all the files saved on that hard drive. Great. So I tried to create a directory in the hard drive. There were no available options to do so. Weird. I tried dragging the 13 GB .fcp (Final Cut Pro) work directory onto the hard drive root. "Error – unable to write to hard drive."

My first instinct was to check file permission settings. Maybe the original owner, from whom I borrowed the drives, had strict permissions set to it. No dice. After fiddling around with it, I discovered that, like most hard drives formatted in Windows XP, the drive was formatted in NTFS. For those unfamiliar, NT OS was developed by Microsoft and its file system, NTFS, is used exclusively in Microsoft operating systems. NTFS was developed to succeed the cross-platform universal file system, FAT32. If the drive is not formatted in FAT32, it is natively impossible to edit files on a Mac.

A Simple Solution: Connect one to the Other

After fiddling around for a while, a thought came to mind. All this talk of getting around the NTFS-FAT32 barrier, all this thought going into forcing the system to read the hard drive — it’s too complicated. No sooner had the concept of the crossover cable come to mind — just connect the two workstations and drag and drop. Unfortunately, I didn’t have a crossover cable, but I did have another, much faster data transfer cable in hand.

IEEE 1394, AKA, Firewire.

Having done a bit of research, Mac OS X has a software component called Target Disc Mode built into their operating system. This essentially allows a master computer to read the subordinate computer as a mass storage drive. In short, all but the connection from the Firewire ends to the hard drive cease in the subordinate system. The steps were quite clear and I went through them step by step.

Save all the necessary documents, then shut down the subordinate/client workstation. Connect the Firewire cables, then boot up the client system. As the system boots up, hold down the ‘T‘ key until a screensaver-like display appears. After running through these moves unsuccessfully at first, I determined that the Firewire ports on the chassis must be used as opposed to a Firewire hub. Using the chassis Firewire port, the master computer recognized the two local hard drives as a "mass storage drive." I simply dragged and dropped the file I needed to transfer, a 13GB .fcp extension file. Because of the nature and architecture of the Firewire transfer, the files were transferred in well under thirty minutes.

Again, going back to the theme here — simplicity is key. I could have spent hours and a possible migraine finding a way to transfer the files using a storage media. Instead, the simplest solution was to simply connect the two computers using a simple cable. Don’t bother with the complexities involved with over-the-network file sharing. Just use a simple cable. It’s safe, it’s fast, and it’s easy.

While the history of the internet is certainly one to look at, that is far from where I want to go here. And many of you certainly know what the internet is today without my telling you. More importantly, however, many people are arguing that they are witnessing the end of the internet’s "golden age" as the real-life reality blends in with it. The United States Congress is in a fury of debates as whether or not the international medium, the internet, should be taxed. Local and state governing entities, specifically, are looking to force the national body to channel revenue from it. What does this mean? What exactly is meant by "internet tax?" And what could we expect as its implications?

Before I start off here, I would like to make it very clear that this article is not meant to debate the rights and wrongs of taxation. That is far too political and a subject that would derail us from the real topic at hand — what are its implications?

Not surprisingly, this isn’t the first time that the topic of internet taxation has garnered national attention. In fact, the topic crept up only a few years after the introduction of the internet to the mainstream public. In a way, the topic was deferred and not addressed properly in its first public appearance. The Internet Tax Freedom Act was instituted in 1998. In short, it barred all levels of government from collecting any sort of tax based on general usage of any sort of online commerce. The ITFA, as a result, systematically barred e-mail taxes, bit-taxes, as well as general bandwidth tax. This, however, did not bar taxation of consumer sales accomplished through the internet. As was the accepted policy, the ITFA was twice extended from its expiration. The most current version, enacted in 2004, was entitled the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. It is set to expire in November 2007 unless an extension is in place.

When the most recent extension, the ITNA, was signed into law, the general consensus was positive. A spokesman from the Computer Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) released a statement which seemed to echo the general sentiment at the time. "With today’s signing of the Internet Tax Moratorium by George Bush, Americans can remain confident that the Internet will flourish as a powerful consumer and business tool," CompTIA group director of US Public Policy said in a statement published in PC World, "Though temporary, the moratorium’s benefits are clear. Internet access will not, for the most part, face taxes." The internet was seen as a valuable tool for consumerism and businesses. As a result of this law, consumers could use the internet as much as they wanted for as long as they wanted for as fast an internet speed as they could afford through the provider.

If we look specifically into sales, any sort of tax on the internet would likely result in internet sales being treated differently than normal physical sale of items. Today, under the ITNA, any normally taxable items (consumer electronics, household items, etc.) are taxed through internet purchase. However, as defined in the legislation, both points of sale, the seller and the buyer, must be located in the same state. That is the main reason why many of you enjoy buying on popular online stores as Newegg or Amazon. Newegg holds is main offices in The City of Industry, California as well as shipping branches in New Jersey and Tennessee. If you are from, say, Massachusetts, you are not asked to pay the county and state sales tax resulting from the purchase. However, if you live in California, you are charged the regular tax amount. Likewise, Amazon, with its main offices in Washington, will not tax you in California (though you are required to voluntarily submit tax through annual state tax returns).

My Take: What Would Taxing The Internet Do?

If there were internet taxing, what would change? Perhaps internet would grow much less than its explosive pace today as a fluid medium for business and opportunity? I would assume, perhaps, that the internet would then be used much more like we used our celluar phone minutes — in moderation. We are in an age of high-speed access to the internet and that has channeled a number of us towards unlimited and unrestrained use, day in and day out. But noting that it would cost you per time no matter what package you subscribe to through your provider, you would be more conscious of your usage. If anything, and if bandwidth taxation is substantial enough, I’d say that we would see surfing habit resembling 56k internet surfers. And as a result, it could seriously impede the tremendous growth we experience in e-commerce.

Taking it a step further, a typical internet surfer may purchase numerous products online — of which he/she may or may not be taxed for depending on where the points of sale are. However, the internet is not limited to direct purchases of products. Remember that on a very basic level, the internet is a medium for information. If a person, say, were researching a product today to buy something in person, that person is using the internet to indirectly purchase a product. If information flow is limited as a result of low usage of the internet, this could certainly impeded real-life economies as well.

In a different, but completely relevant topic, by very nature, the internet is hard, if not impossible, to control. With wireless access points everywhere today, with seemingly anonymous internet surfing we enjoy today, perhaps internet taxing is easier said than done? And since the internet is, by nature, non-geographic, would that not further make problems in uniformly taxing it? One thing, however, is for sure — if this bill were to pass, it would be a major project in terms of simply implementing it. Is it worth all the trouble or is it the absolute evil that many have spoken out against? Perhaps it’s a mix of both — but surely, how things unfold as the November expiration date approaches would be of great interest to a great number of people as its implications may be felt not only in the United States, but throughout the world.

Given today’s constant need for internet access to a large number of people, the overwhelming penetration of the technology makes sense. However, I’m sure you will be surprised to hear that among high-tech countries who are members in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States is fifteenth in per-capita broadband adoption. Simply, the United States, who has traditionally been pioneers in science and technology, is nowhere near the most "connected" nation in the world. And what is to blame for that? I think there are numerous reasons.

We should be all familiar with the relation between power and power to do evil. Broadband internet opens a gateway of tremendous information and versatility to do everything from within the luxury of your own home. As the internet is further saturated, more and more can be done through it. You can now check and resolve your bills online. For those of you in school, you can register for certain classes online. You can shop online using virtual money. You can even purchase groceries online. With all this versatility and power, you can also become a victim. You are transferring financial data online. You are disclosing your identity when you shop. Heck, given that emails are "virtual mailboxes," mal-intent people can even read your personal mail. If you don’t have internet, you won’t have to worry about that. In short, there are those who would rather not mess with new technologies.

For those who want internet or have had it before, the step goes further. If any of you have moved at all in the past few years and have attempted to sign up for new broadband internet service, you quickly find out that your options are severely limited. Generally, you have the option of one or two cable internet services as well as about two or three digital subscriber line (DSL) services through phone companies. As there is a semi-monopoly in the business, each broadband company tend to charge very high prices for internet — usually around triple that of normal dial-up internet services. Given the financial model of internet services is a monthly payment setup, any sort of price peaks can be rather costly to the average consumer. For many, as I see it, this is enough to discourage upgrading to the "fast lane" and either stay with dialup internet, or not subscribe to any internet at all.

The latter case has been of concern to several major corporations over the past several years. A total of fifty four companies have voiced their concern and have collectively called on the United States Government to implement a nation-wide broadband policy. The corporations are calling not only for regulated and more competitive pricing of broadband services, but also open-access, net neutrality, as well as enhanced security. Currently, the broadband providers are free to set prices and control their areas as they see fit. In true form of the given economic model, prices are high and speeds are low. The technology used in broadband internet, no matter what spin it takes on, is among the worst in the world. That should change, noted the group.

My Views: Internet for Everyone

First off, with the way the internet today is becoming an integral part of life and society, it is without doubt that what was once labeled as a luxury and a commodity is slowly drifting into the realm of necessity. Uniform internet and computer access is a necessary part of a modern society and to say that only those who can afford it have the opportunity to do things online is one of the shortcomings of society today. One day, perhaps government functions, such as voting or filing forms are required to be done online? Gateways to the "other world", the virtual world, should be open to everyone as it is a necessity to many.

Now, having switched broadband providers numerous times due to numerous moves, I can say that this market is highly non-competitive. A limited number of companies can provide cable or telephone to a given area and given that high-speed internet relies on those mediums, monopolies are a certainty. If the United States was truly a pioneer of technological innovation, it should start with the consumers. The Internet should be in the hands of everyone without a large premium to pay.

For those young readers out there, or anybody with a vague recollection of this mundane chapter in the drama of college admissions commonly referred to as the SAT Exams, these instructions should be a reminder of what precedes a multi-hour dreaded standardized examination.  Almost every college-bound high school student has to take either this or the alternative in the ACT Examination. I had to take this test a few years ago. Following these instructions, a resonating sound of reselling papers can be heard as students try to make use of every second of the allotted time. Students would bubble in scantrons and work out problems on the booklet in old-fashioned pencil and paper. Find the answer? Fill it in completely on the answer sheet.

You might ask, what does this have to do with technology? Where’s the technology in my above introduction? Well, that is exactly the point. Where IS the technology in it?

In the general realm of academia, computer and technology-aided instruction has gradually been injected into the overall curriculum scheme. Instructors have used presentation slides for their daily lectures for notes, animations to convey visual concepts, and in all, have greatly enhanced the educational process through technology. Students have used technology largely in scientific laboratories, research presentations, and, among other things, of course in programming. And as such, the generations of kids growing alongside this advanced technology view the use of computers as an inseparable part of life from day one. Given this saturation of computers into every-day classwork, does restricting technology during the every-so-important examination make sense? Are classical examinations beyond their times, or are lack of borders in technology too insecure for a controller environment of the average test setting?

Currently, most schools offer the use of a mobile computer for special needs students as an alternative to the standard frightening Blue Book. As an alternative of writing on blank, college lined sheets of paper, these test-takers are allowed to start typing their responses. However, much similar to the ordinary student, the only use of the laptop is as a word processor. Researching any outside information is prohibited and special measures and software (eg. Examsoft) have been developed to curve any cheating.

Bill Thompson, reporting for the BBC, suggests that technology should be allowed not only as a general medium of turning in your test (as in submitting your answer, submitting your essay, etc.), but as an open gateway as an exam resource. "Giving grades for IT as a core skill is not nearly enough; we need to let them show what they can really do online" notes Thompson. "Perhaps it’s time we considered open laptop exams too, at least for some papers." In arguing that, he certainly points to the importance of technology as part of our daily lives today. If it is so important that perhaps a day without computers can cause severe repercussion in our daily educational or working lives, shouldn’t it be tested in these tests given to the young?  In addition, he asks if we often use the internet as a valuable research tool, shouldn’t certain aspects of the examination test that as well?

My Thoughts: Old Exams to New Technology?
Drawing from my own experience, it is certainly nice to be on the student-end of the exam when you are allowed to use a laptop. Essay tests are not only exhausting mentally, but also physically. Sitting in the same chair for three straight hours resting my hands on small intervals of time is not my idea of fun, but the effect is further exacerbated when you cannot simply lay out all of your ideas onto the paper on time. Given no outside resources (as Bill Thompson suggested), if you have good ideas in your mind and you’ve organized it clearly enough, you are qualified to a high mark. Your grade should not depend on your inability to write fast or your incapacity to write beyond a certain number of pages.

Opening the internet with laptops during exams is certainly a step up and an entirely different scenario. We are all surrounded by technology today and I reiterate that it is so common in the lives of this current generation. Where libraries were once the treasure-chest of information, the World Wide Web has quickly become a more popular medium of information. Take for example — if you were to find the year that Apple originally released its famed iPod, chances are, you would "Google" search instead of digging through a book.  How someone is able to seek the vast wealth of information on the internet should play as large a part as aptitude or knowledge today. However, should it be a part of an examination, such as an SAT® test? Should it be standard for Advanced Placement® or ACT® Examinations, where outside information is more useful? If these tests measure the ability of a student to perform in college, should these tests adapt to the current technology? I think so — and while this does not mean that the standard multiple choice or essay tests need to go (as Thompson recognized), I imagine testing and researching the possibility would be very worthwhile.

As generally recognized throughout any industry, failure and mistakes are, in the end, not necessarily a bad thing for the company. Through general failures on the part of competing companies, they create valuable insights on how to move forward. Often times, it is said that competition is the sole reason for improvements. It is important, however, to also look at the role of mistakes and failures that go to improve the company and the industry as a whole.

After reviewing its products and internally realizing its lack of success, nVidia pulled the bulky FX5800 from the shelves and they started from scratch learning where they fell short. With ATi prospering with its new Radeon 9700 (later, 9800), nVidia finally built from the ground up with their GeForce 6-series line. It was a legitimate competitor to ATi’s newfound success in its line of cards. Would nVidia have done exactly what they did if they hadn’t failed terribly in their first attempt? Would they have continued developing and adding onto the FX series? I think not. While this can be largely traced back to overall competition, I think learning from failure played a major role. When you stumble, you get back up. You learn from your mistakes. You move on.

I would believe more pertinent to consumers, Microsoft’s rollercoaster ride with its infamous Windows operating systems clearly depicts how numerous shortcomings, more than competition, improves the product. Microsoft’s release of its Windows Millennium Edition (ME) operating system was expected to be a marginal improvement over the older MS-DOS-based operating systems, namely Windows 98 Second Edition. It was, as Microsoft hoped, supposed to be the "home" edition of its Windows 2000 systems. However, the hybrid-technology operating system proved to be a catastrophe as it caused widespread instability and inconvenience to many of the consumers who installed it. With new operating system codenamed "Whistler" already in the works, Microsoft incorporated what they knew from Windows ME into what was eventually labeled Windows XP. What exactly did they learn? They hadn’t completely committed to making the OS as successful as it could have been. Most importantly, while they released a string of successful operating systems that dominated the market, they are completely capable of stumbling just like any other company. They are not fail-proof and are not excluded from any such scrutiny for successes and failures alike.

My Take: Take the Past into the Present

Clearly, to become a better person, a better company, or any existing entity, it is vital to learn from the past. Throughout human history, improvements were made based on the ability to take what mishaps occurred and improve on them. If something doesn’t work or doesn’t work correctly, work at it and try to release something better. If something works, keep at it. Intel learned the lesson. nVidia learned that lesson. So did ATi, Apple, Microsoft, and many other companies involved in this relatively new and modern industry. All of those companies, as I see them, are better off as a result of having stumbled and gotten back up.

Certainly, competition does cause missteps for many. nVidia would not have been openly forced to release its FX series cards so quickly were it not for the heat from ATi’s new card line. Microsoft could simply have sat on their older operating system were it not for the emergence of open source alternatives. But it is also learning from past failures and mistakes that, in the end, result in the overall development of products. Even today, right now, we can observe this phenomenon. When I look at Microsoft, specifically, I would be very curious on how Windows Vista pans out in the coming months and how consumers accept it overall. Initial acceptance is on line with the past, but if Microsoft applied what it learned from its past failures and with its successes, Windows Vista could be a very permanent fixture for years to come.

And so? Don’t we all know that?

Well, Microsoft’s Windows operating system is a prime example of a regular update on a product through its lifecycle. Given the nature of the modern software and the changing technological environment under which it exists, the software itself has to evolve to keep pace. Or does it? When a product works, though, what’s the need for change? Furthermore, to what extent does a product (not necessarily computer software) need to improve over its predecessor in order to fully garner public adoption? And there is also, certainly, a learning curve associated with every software. When is it worth leaving a comfort zone to go for the "latest and the greatest?"

I think it’s worth looking at two very good examples of this concept. Obviously, Microsoft’s Windows operating system is one of them. However, on the hardware side, I think it’s worth looking at how the old, yet powerful Pentium Pro technology chips, were replaced by a less efficient Pentium 4 line.

Less than half a year ago, Microsoft released Windows Vista. Touted as an absolutely revolutionary operating system that is meant to change the way we work with a computer, Microsoft set out to convince the mass that the new guy in town, Windows Vista, was clearly (no pun intended) superior to its predecessor, the ageless Windows XP. Similar to Windows XP when it was displacing Windows 2000, its adoption was admittedly slow and while general widespread consensus seem to agree that Vista has numerous functionalities that are nice, an overwhelming majority of consumers stick with Windows XP. In fact, numerous mainstream computer manufacturers offer to load the Windows XP operating system instead of the newer Windows Vista operating system.

Vista, other than its sleeker "prettier" interface, offers numerous mainstream functionalities. These include increased security and encryption, a more efficient system, and a host of pre-loaded applications. A nice list of all the new features of Vista is available on Wikipedia. Scanning the list, over four-fifths of the applications are currently largely useless to most mainstream consumers. Does a normal computer user need the three-dimensional Aero interface? How about the native partitioning manager? Or the Windows Meeting Space program? Probably not, judging by the level of conformity current users has with current systems. Simply put, the current situation and level of functionality of Windows XP satiated the consumers to an extent that leaves little incentive for many to replace it. Surely, there were times in which an upgrade was blatantly necessary such as with Windows ME, but to uproot an already solid OS requires a tremendous amount of convincing. I’m by no means advocating a complete blockage of the new OS. However, Windows Vista has not reached that level quite yet, but as always, I’m sure that will change when computers are preloaded by default with Vista and or the necessities of the consumers evolve.

To many, a look at the software side clearly shows this concept of when to replace the older product. This, however, extends to any other product and in computer hardware, there are numerous great examples of what to look at. More specifically, Intel has made numerous attempts throughout the years to convince its consumers that its newer processor is better than the older one. Such rhetoric is simply true for some of the more recent releases seen as the Core 2 Duo lineup. However, this was not always the case.

After intensely developing the Pentium Pro architecture to the Pentium III level, Intel decided to push the clockspeed envelope even further by dumping the seemingly maxed out Pentium III and create a newer Pentium 4 line of processors. To many, the Pentium 4 seemed much faster than any of its predecessors and any of its rivaling processors from Advanced Micro Devices. Just look at the numbers. A 1.8 Ghz processor must be faster than a 1.2 Ghz chip. In a comparison test, however, it failed to live up to the hype. In fact, two subsequent releases of the Pentium 4 were needed in order to keep pace with its predecessor, the Pentium III. Buying into the clockspeed myth, numerous mainstream consumers purchased Pentium 4-based systems with hopes as high as the sky-high clockspeeds that the chips ran. However, with the advent of the Pentium-Pro derivative Core architecture, the Pentium 4 architecture (P7) is considered a small diversion on an otherwise successful P6-based chip line.

So to what end do you consider replacing what’s old with what’s new? How convincing does the new product have to be to uproot the old?

When is old, old? My Take:
I subscribe to the idea that you want to avoid upgrading as long as there is not a very clear need to do so. This threshold varies from person to person. If this lends perspective, I currently operate a two-and-a-half year old desktop with no intention of upgrading in the near future. Every game I play runs on it. Heck, when I decide to, I can even load Windows Vista onto it comfortably. Surely, it’s fun to play with the latest and greatest. But when a particular product, as a computer, is useful/needed for your everyday routine, it is nice to have what you know will work day in and day out. While, at times, it may be hard to determine absolute need admits a slough of advertisement and companies telling you that you must upgrade, it is important to keep perspective. New stuff is great. However, you need to know what you need. Don’t let a company tell you what you need. Buy (or rather don’t buy) based on necessity. Technology always evolves. Things get better. Unless you have very deep pockets, you will never be able to have the latest and the greatest all the time.

Prominent blogger and noted author Kathy Sierra experienced a rude awakening from mal-intent users when she was met with a barrage of death threats. It started four weeks ago in when threats started appearing in her blog, "Creating Passionate Users". The threats continued to escalate in nature and scale as eventually, the threats became so graphic and overwhelming that it convinced her that her livelihood was in danger. The threats included a post by other prominent bloggers on a now-defunct site, meankids.com, leaving very explicit and explanative threats. With the addition of very specific graphic threats, it became clear to Sierra, at least, that the threats should certainly be taken seriously even if the person making the threat did it "for fun." The exact reason these threats were made is slightly unclear, though Sierra points to her female presence in a male-dominated internet world. Since then, she has posted once on her blog to convey this as the reason she is missing numerous engagements which included a keynote speech for O’Riley. According to sources, that is understandably her last blog post.

I won’t go into much detail as it is not the point of this article — for further detail, visit Kathy Sierra’s blog. A kind warning: especially in dealing with the threats, the blogger has posted graphical threats that may be disturbing to some.

In reality, this is only one of many threats that exist in today’s "anonymous" internet. Because you express yourself through the keyboard and mouse and not through an eye-to-eye interaction, users have adopted a false sense of security behind the screen. The founding members of the internet community identified this as a problem and made internet users more trackable. Now, while surfing the internet, you can be tracked individually by your Internet Protocol Address (IP). The Internet Service Provider can, if legally and properly subpoenaed, release even the physical street address of the IP Address. Further more, given proper networking equipment, the source can narrowed down further to a specific computer using a distinct Media Access Control (MAC) Address, traced to your Network card. You get the drift — you are never truly anonymous, even with proxies, even if you’ve made a conscious effort to remain under the radar.

With so many people blogging and an even larger number pool of users reading these blogs, what responsibility do these bloggers have? More specifically, what are the limits of expressionism in the age of "you"?  This has been widely questioned for quite some time, and to many, the golden standard lies in the 1996 Community Decency Act passed by the United States Federal Government. Essentially, this provides a layer of immunity to physical and software mediums that provide services in which indecent acts can be committed. For example, any sort of forum has its own right to its own set of rules within a certain bound. Neither the host, nor the owner, nor the administrator of the forum can be held accountable for the content posted by the public. Given the volatile nature of internet and changing technology, the law has been occasionally scrutinized throughout the years. But with bloggers all questioning the act again after the Sierra incident, perhaps it is a good time to revise an outdated legislation.

How should it be? My Take:
The internet has undoubtedly created completely new set of challenges that do not have proper rules of precedents set. Every single user who cruises has internet access has the potential to speak out to every other person who is connected. Unlike the era of exclusively printed media, there is no finite number of venues to control. There are a plethora of sites that simply express their views. Anyone could start a blog or a news site and run it with minimal risk right now. Quite simply, it’s a universal medium and it’s growing larger every day.

The law is in place, albeit completely outdated considering the level at which change happens in the digital age. To fully understand what rules and regulations should be put into place, it requires you to step back and ask yourself the simple question: if there were no bounds or restrictions, what would the internet be like? Of course, without federal law and such limiting at least a part of internet information exchange, there would be total chaos. Now, from total chaos, what exactly is wrong with it? What is the "basic and proper decorum" that needs to be followed? To me, a right to a sense of security ranks highly in that regard.

Certainly, there is a regard to neutrality and freedom of expression. However, a violation of basic rights worldwide does not fit under the umbrella of free expression. Expressionism is, should, and always has been conditional — it is not a universally true concept. In the case of the threats that Kathy Sierra received, it clearly violated her sense of security that a free person should, without question, posses. Racist, violent, or otherwise ill-willed slurs and attacks are not acceptable in a normal conversation or for print, and are therefore not at all acceptable for the internet. Should fear stop a user from using the internet to convey her thoughts? Nope. Should it prevent her from living her life as a normal human being? Certainly not.

From my viewpoint, the internet is simply a different manifestation of our everyday conversations and printed media. Because of the capabilities it brings, there are many more far-reaching amenities that make the internet truly an instant phenomenon. While a lot can be done on the internet, it is critical to stay within common sense and treat it as you would treat anything else in life.