Seems like we went from being impressed by things getting smaller, to impressed by things getting bigger. I guess it depends on how you look at it. I consider it a larger iPod Touch, while others consider it a small computer. Sure, it’s a cool device, it offers most of the features of my iPhone in a size more suited to reading, writing, and movie watching. But I cringe everytime I hear someone say it is going to replace the laptop computer. Here’s why I say that’s rediculous:

A) Multitasking – whatever your taste in OS is, whether it be Windows, Mac OS, Linux, those systems have spent years perfecting multitasking and file management for both business network users as well as home users. The iPad, while a user friendly device for simple computing, is a huge step back on these important features.

B) I cannot run any of my professional applications on it. It doesn’t have the computing power or multitasking flexibility for Adobe Creative Suite or any video or 3D modeling/animation software. Also, no matter how neat Apple’s word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation stuff is, there’s no way it will replace Microsoft Office in the average workplace. The iPad OS is just not suited to these types of business applications.

C) Even if it did have the computing power to run that stuff some day, I don’t like the idea of downloading the software from an App store. I want full access to the system and software I purchased. Its like getting a car and being told you aren’t allowed to open the hood. The dealer has to make all installations and upgrades. If you can’t open it, you don’t own it, I say.

D) The whole refusal to support Flash thing. This should be evidence to any power user that the iPad/iPhone platform is bad news. It’s not just about being a personal supporter/user/designer of Flash content, it’s about the principle of the whole thing. What if Steve Jobs decides he doesn’t like some other technology, is he going to just say that isn’t allowed on the device? As the owner and user of the device, I want the freedom to be able to use whatever technology I see fit. You can’t claim that the “possibilities are endless with the iPad” and then pick and choose what is possible on the device. Not to mention, Flash is still important, whether Steve Jobs believes it or not. A lot of popular websites use it. My son Maxwell will be very dissapointed that he can’t visit disney.com with his iPad.

The iPad definitely has a place in the business, but not as competition to the Personal Computer. If I were in the market for a book reader like the Kindle right now, the iPad would be my choice. If I were looking for a portable device for watching movies, I’d probably go with the iPad even though I still prefer having a physical Blu-Ray disc over a DRM-protected digital file.

It’s a cool device, but please don’t call it the laptop computer replacement. Because if this is the future of computers, I’m a little worried.

The nature of the personal computer is simply not fully understood by companies like Apple (or anyone else for that matter). Apple makes the arrogant assumption of thinking that it knows what you want and need. It, unfortunately, leaves the “why” out of the equation — as in “why would I want this?” The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ‘mouse’. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices.
–San Francisco Examiner, John C. Dvorak, 19 Feb. 1984

There are two schools of thought, I suppose.  On one hand, you have folks like Dvorak; yet, on the other hand you have innovators like this:

“If I’d asked people what they wanted, they’d have said faster horses.”
-Henry Ford

Where is John C. Dvorak now?  He’s still writing about computer technology for PC Magazine as well as some other places – on a typewriter, I assume.  I particularly enjoyed reading this story about his son buying a MacBook Pro.  Clearly, he’s still not an Apple guy.  However, it’s encouraging to read in the article that after 25 years, he’s finally able to admit that “all these whiz-bang features make me realize that I have fallen behind.”

Signing off now, from my mouseless iPhone …

• John C. Dvorak’s blog
• John C. Dvorak on Twitter
• More quotes from critics of the Macintosh from 25 years ago

The Big Apple has a new logo, and Apple says: Drop dead.

At issue is the emblem for New York City’s GreeNYC campaign, which has started to appear around the city on bus shelters, hybrid gasoline-electric taxicabs and even Whole Foods shopping bags.

The GreeNYC logo shows a stylized apple with a stalk and a leaf. It bears a resemblance to Apple’s famous logo — a resemblance Apple says infringes on its trademark. Read more…

A company’s brand is their lively hood. I don’t blame any company for vigorously defending their brand, Apple especially. Apple has gotten to that point in brand development where they don’t even need to write out their name on ads anymore, they just put the icon in the corner and everyone knows who it is. Target does the same thing. So since a little Apple icon is their whole identity, if anyone else out there uses a stylized Apple they’re going to be scrutinized for possibly diluting Apple’s brand.

When you register a trademark, you have to specify in which class or industry you will be using it to conduct business. You’d specify something like computers, food & beverage, telecommunications, etc. If someone uses a similar name or logo in a class where your trademark isn’t registered, you have a great case. If they aren’t in your industry or class, it’s a lot more difficult to prove dilution. NYC doesn’t make computers, and Apple doesn’t make cities. Right? Case closed?

Unfortunately, not in this case. NYC will probably get to use their Apple, it’s really not that similar. But if they let one Apple through without saying anything, they have to let all of them through. They need to get it down on paper why this one is isn’t an issue, just to ensure no precedent is set that will work against them in a more legitimate claim in the future.

Congress is going to hand the operation of the Internet over to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Democrats are helping. It’s a shame.

Don’t look now, but the House Commerce Committee next Wednesday is likely to vote to turn control of the Internet over to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and what’s left of the telecommunications industry. It will be one of those stories the MSM writes about as “little noticed” because they haven’t covered it. (Click here to read the rest of the article…)

Like many people, I feel like this bill would be more than just “turning over control” of the internet to companies like AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast. It would be the end to any and all internet Democracy that has existed up until now. It’s turning web content into a service only a few can afford to provide, where the little guy is not only crushed, but is not even able to start up.

If we aren’t careful about things like this, in 5 years the internet won’t be a public medium. You’ll pay for “Comcast internet” or “Verizon internet,” each of which will offer you access to a limited number of sites under contract with Comcast. For example, they’d slow down your connection to Yahoo, if Yahoo didn’t pay them a “high speed premium”.

If you don’t think this threat is real, check out this site for more detailed information about it. From the site:

The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They’ve set up “Astroturf” groups like “Hands Off the Internet” to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support.

Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The primary bill in the House is called the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006″ and is sponsored by Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), Rep Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Rep. Charles Pickering (R-Miss.) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.).

The current version of the COPE Act includes watered-down net neutrality provisions that are essentially meaningless. An amendment offered in a key subcommittee by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which would have instituted real net neutrality requirements, was defeated after intense industry lobbying against it.

But it’s not too late yet. A full committee vote on the measure — and another opportunity to save the Internet — could happen as soon as April 26.

The Senate is moving more deliberately on the issue. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has introduced the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, which would ensure net neutrality. And Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (R-N.D.) are expected to introduce bipartisan amendment supporting net neutrality when the Senate takes up its own rewrite of the Telecommunications Act later this year.

But neither chamber will support the free and open Internet without widespread public pressure. To keep the Internet free and open, Congress needs to hear from millions of Americans right now.

Ever since the development of paper and the printing press, corporations have been able to make tons of money from mass communication. Now with the internet, data is cheaply stored and cheaply moved around. Huge corporations, from music and movie studios to companies like AT&T and Comcast feel that they’ve lost control of communication and aren’t making the kind of money off of it that they supposedly ‘deserve.’ So they’re trying to take it back, and they have the support of our elected leaders. Instead of merely being a service provider, they will be a censor that can retake all that lost revenue by having total control.

This is nothing but selling the heart and soul of American Democracy in order to allow corporate powers to cash in on the movement of information. It’s disgusting and it’s wrong. Everyday corporate powers and congressmen sponsored by these nuts chip at the foundation stones of Democracy to fill their coffers with cash to pay their spin doctors.

Now maybe I’m falling into a big foolish overreaction here and I’m just being another doom-sayer, but this kind of crap has been happening behind our backs for far too long. Guys and girls, it’s never too late to take to the streets.

An excerpt from the article:

Apple could be in for a bruising legal fight with rival Creative over the technology used in iPod music players.

Creative boss Sim Wong Hoo has told the BBC he plans to “pursue aggressively” a US patent it owns on a system used to navigate music on digital players.

Mr Sim was speaking at the launch of Creative’s latest rival to the iPod video, the Zen Vision: M.

Creative was one of the first to market digital music players in 2000, but has since been overshadowed by Apple.

For a company named “Creative,” it’s a bit ironic that they have to rip-off Apple on absolutely everything they claim to “invent.” Then they have the audacity to sue the very people they’ve ripped off? How asinine is that?

I mean come on… It’s called prior art, Creative. You don’t have a chance. Apple’s had the same file organization system in question since the turn of the century in their Macintosh operating system.

If Creative were to win this ridiculous lawsuit, would we lose column view in Mac OS? What about Windows Explorer and Folders view? Will they be next? C’mon. They’re really grabbing at straws here. They’re whining about how files are organized and Creative has become the official “ambulance chaser” of the tech world.

It’s a wonder that Apple doesn’t file a counterclaim against them over the industrial design of the Creative players, as the Creative player has some pretty striking resemblances to the iPod.

I’m not quite sure how Creative managed to patent this navigation system – because it sort of contradicts the famous Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit from back in the day when Apple sued Microsoft, alleging that Microsoft Windows infringed on Apple’s rights to the point-and-click desktop interface that we’ve all come to know and love. I think we all know how that turned out seeing the success of Microsoft. The court ruled in that case that the desktop point-and-click metaphor was an unprotectable idea. The court also found that most of the individual elements that made up this desktop metaphor were not protected by copyright because they were functional rather than original expression. But it was useful – so I don’t know why a utility patent could not have been granted.

Software-based inventions rarely qualify for a patent, which is why it was legal for Microsoft to take the point-and-click desktop interface concept from Apple. Apple was only able to copyright the concept, but then the court ruled that a copyright wasn’t justified either. Now Apple is getting sued because someone was somehow granted the type of patent that they were once denied. It’s an unfair world for Steve Jobs’ Apple Computer, no wonder the guy has gone bald.

Most software-based inventions have historically been disqualified from a patents because they are considered obvious over the prior art, and must therefore be protected in another manner such as trade secrets or copyright law. As I just mentioned in the Apple case, that doesn’t always work either. Basically all patents that have been obtained on software are utility patents, which is a patent that is based on usefulness. This is likely the type of patent Creative has, but if Creative was able to obtain a utility patent, I don’t see why Apple wasn’t able to obtain one on point-and-click. Apparently the USPTO didn’t know anything about computers back in the 80’s.

So who does Creative think they’re kidding claiming that the design for the new Creative player was not heavily influenced (if not stolen) from the iPod design? Then they have the nerve to turn and claim that Apple stole their navigation? As of today, I officially will never buy any products with the Creative name on it. Not that I would have anyway, since it’s fairly common knowledge that all of their stuff is cheap junk rip-offs of something else. But at least my boycott is now official.

So the Mac will be away for a week, and now I’m working on the backup computer, my old Dell Laptop. It’s a pretty heavy and clunky big thing when compared to my tiny, lightweight Mac laptop. Plus it’s much slower, and is still running Windows 98 SE, which I guess is pretty ancient at this point. I bought the Dell laptop the summer before I left for college, it was used at that point and I’d gotten a pretty good deal on it. I knew I’d need a computer so I worked and saved up my money for my own laptop. Since then the battery is no longer any good so it has to be plugged in if you want to use it. But that’s to be expected, I suppose, after all it is about 8 years old now. The little switch that shuts the screen off when you close the laptop is a little touchy so you have to fiddle with that to get the screen working when you start up the computer. That’s kind of a pain, but no big deal. Now that I think of it, I actually haven’t had to replace any hardware on the old Dell and it still runs, so it’s served as a good backup when the Mac is on the fritz. The last time the Mac went away for a week, I was able to finish my class projects on the Dell that week. If not for this thing, I probably would have been working at the school’s computer lab until midnight.

When the Mac started having problems today I was in the middle of watching the beginning of the race. I contemplated whether bringing the Mac to the Apple store after the race would be fine, but I figured there would be a huge line at the “Genius Bar” so I decided to just skip the race today. Good thing I did, I was in line at the Apple store for about an hour and a half, because I had to wait for the twenty teenagers in line in front of me who needed help updating the software on their iPods… something most people should be able to do at home themselves without much difficulty.

Apparently if you don’t update your iPod software, new songs purchased from the Apple music store might not play correctly. Hmm, didn’t know that, but I don’t own an iPod so why should have I? To me it seems kind of peculiar that that’s the case. Maybe it’s just the Apple store employee’s nice way of saying “you don’t know how to maintain your iPod, it’s all screwed up because of all the illegally downloaded half corrupt 64kbps crap you’ve been putting on it so now it needs to be reset.” That would be my guess. I didn’t realize it happened so often, there were literally a dozen people in there to get their stupid iPod’s settings reset and software updated. They, of course, didn’t pay anything for it, but I did – I paid by wasting two hours of my day waiting for their piddly little music players to get fixed, even though they could have just fixed them themselves if they’d had the capacity to try doing two minutes of their own troubleshooting..

But I don’t own an iPod, so maybe I shouldn’t criticize. Maybe they really are a pain to maintain, especially if it’s being connected to a Windows computer instead of a Mac computer, which was the case among most of those getting them fixed today. Considering I’ve been using Apple products so long and have only had basic hardware problems and never any software problems, I kind of doubt that it’s a problem with Apple’s software. It’s probably a problem with the user.

See-ya later.

Geeky web designer stuff alert! Simply close the browser window this page is contained within if you are too cool for this kind of stuff. Okay, bye. Now, for those of you still with me: I stumbled across a web site today that discussed the sins of web design, and I learned that I have committed some of them. Oh no! They covered things like using frames, which I agree shouldn’t be done anymore. If you used them correctly back when they were practical, they worked pretty well, in my opinion. I think the problem was that no one coded them correctly, which is why they failed.

Then they started bashing “splash pages.” Yeah, this site has one. It’s that first page with the little animation of my logo. Yes, I have pondered whether or not it’s really necessary. On some sites, it’s definitely not necessary – for example it’s obvious even to non-web designers that Target.com would not need a splash page. I agree with that, and I fully understand that some sites have as their purpose the maximum distribution of maximum information; they need to get it all out now, and fast. Well, dustinmarson.com is not one of those sites. I view the splash page as the front cover of a book, or better yet the overture. Something that provides a break from whatever you were doing before you took your seat. So I make no apologies for my “splash page.”

Some of the other ones were:
Pop up ads(*) – Like duh, everyone totally already knows that.
Being required to install extra software to view site content – Okay I don’t entirely agree on this one. Some of us like to use Flash because it’s a very powerful design element. Unfortunately there are many old fogies out there still running Windows 98 with Internet Explorer 1.0 and they need to know that my site’s a little too complex for them but I’d still like them to enjoy it. The web shouldn’t be stuck in 1995 because 5% of the internet population still is.
Dead links(*) – Yeah, they suck. I’m proud that I avoid them on my sites as much as possible.
Confusing navigation(*) – On large sites this is tough, because you have a billion things to navigate to but need to keep the navigation simple so it’s not too confusing. I guess finding the happy medium is what it’s all about.
Required registration to access content(*) – Yes, this bothers me very, very much. Why can’t I read the Washington Times article Joe Schmo linked to on his blog without typing in all my personal information so the paper can spam email the hell out of me?
Slow-loading pages(*) – Well, that’s where Flash comes in handy because it’s fast. But you have to download the plugin if you’re an old fogey. Sites that use humongous image maps are a little ridiculous.
Ineffective site search tools(*) – Yeah I love it when I go on to a site that sells ceramic collectible cows and type in “holstein” and end up getting redirected to a Google search listing links to other sites that contain news articles about mad cow disease. I just want to buy your freaking ceramic cows you silly people!
And then, as I already mentioned, frames(*) and splash pages.

The sins with a star (*) next to them are ones that the very site discussing the sins of web design is blatantly guilty of. And as you’ll see there are only two that they are not guilty of. The web site also happens to be butt-ugly, but the site does not consider butt ugliness a web design sin, apparently.

See-ya tomorrow or this weekend, or whenever I get around to posting next. Wear a coat, it’s cold outside.

The new Caddy will feature a windshield-washer system that heats the fluid to 176 degrees in less than 40 seconds, then shoots it across the windshield. Along with the wipers, the scorching liquid clears snow and ice from the windshield within just a couple of wipes.

Just this once I’d almost consider buying outside my demographic (and most certainly outside of my price range) just to get my frost bitten hands on this brilliant new system. Or to save money maybe I can just start boiling a pot of water every day and pouring it on my windshield. What could possibly go wrong?

We all know how the three-blade commercials went:
1) The first blade pulls the hair
2) The second blade pulls the hair even more
3) Then the third blade cuts the hair

Then they’d sing “Gillette! The best a man can get!!”

Now we’re talking five blades which probably work as follows:
1) The first blade pulls the hair
2) The second blade pulls the hair more
3) The third blade exposes the root
4) The fourth blade exposes the nerve endings, digging six layers of skin to remove the hair follicle ensuring that hair will never ever grow there
5) The fifth blade sends an electronic pulse to the centre of the brain which destroys the part of the brain responsible for hair growth and four other non-essential functions, then it smoothes out the jaw bone to give your face a more even appearance, and finally it removes cavity causing tartar.

By the time that fifth blade passes over your face, you’re a first rate Manly Man. That promotion is as good as yours, sir!

Personally, I’ve never liked razors. I ditched them a long time ago and have stuck with electric shavers ever since. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking: “Man up, nancy boy! Shave like your Grandfather did, use a rusty steak knife or a lawnmower blade!”

Sure, razors definitely give a much cleaner shave, but electric is not only less tedious but less messy and less umm… bloody if you can’t seem to master the blade (Yeah, I’m guilty). Sure, electric isn’t exactly easy on the face either. I feel as if I have to rip half my face off to get every whisker. Ultimately, shaving sucks every which way you think about it.

You would think that by now we could just pop a pill or something that would inhibit facial hair growth, on the genetic level, permanently. Come on big Pharmaceuticals, where are you on this one?

Instant messaging in general is not a bad thing. It’s easy for anyone to access, and it’s fast and simple. The negative aspects really depend on the user. If you use it to your advantage, responsibly and with a proper amount of restraint, the benefits will probably outweigh the negatives.

I’ve used instant messaging to keep in touch with old friends, meet new friends, find help with technical questions, and I’ve even had business meetings over IM with freelance clients. My experience with instant messaging has been both positive and negative. To tell you the truth, I rarely use it anymore, as this journal has turned into my communication platform. I spend so much time doing work on computers that I just don’t have time for chatting anymore. By the time I have time, I’m all computered-out for the day and don’t feel like sitting behind the screen.

The history of instant messaging goes back about as far as the internet itself, but the way we know it today goes back to the development of AOL. Since the early ’90s, AOL has always had a form of Instant Messaging but it wasn’t until 1996, when they introduced the Buddy List feature, that it really took off. In the same year, ICQ (I Seek You) burst onto the Internet scene and helped popularize Instant Messaging. Whereas AOL Instant Messaging was exclusive to AOL members, ICQ was a free IM software available for download to anyone.

In 1997, AOL introduced AIM (AOL Instant Messenger), which allowed its members to talk with non-members for the first time. AIM eventually surpassed ICQ as the most popular IM client, and in 1998, AOL bought Mirablis (ICQ’s creator), thus becoming the dominant player in Instant Messaging.

As the popularity of Instant Messaging grew, other IM clients like MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger and a variety of smaller players eventually entered the mix. However, it’s important to point out that there is no interoperability between the different IM clients. Each IM software uses its own proprietary system and network.

This lack of intermingling led to the so-called “IM Client Wars.” Microsoft’s MSN Messenger tried to access the AIM network in 1999 to create a bridge between their users and the more numerous AOL and AIM members. AOL viewed it as a security risk and blocked MSN Messenger from its systems. The IM client wars continue on, but have settled down a bit.

There have been some software developments recently that combine the popular clients into one, running all networks through one program. An example for the Macintosh is Adium. This makes life easy for people like myself, who know people on each of the programs. Running one program instead of four is not only easier on the computer, but makes chatting with multiple people at once a little easier.

The Pros and Cons of instant messaging have been discussed since it started. There’s been a lot of concern that kids are developing horrible writing habits through instant messaging and text messaging. For example, spelling things out lazily like “how r u 2day?” instead of “How are you today?” I guess I’m an oddball – I’ve always typed in complete sentences and spell out all words while instant messaging. But it’s done a great thing for me: I’ve become an extremely fast and accurate typer. So if parents are concerned about the lazy writing used in instant messaging, one could actually think of it as a powerful educational tool, as fast and accurate typing has become such a critical requirement in many professions. As long as you encourage them to break that habit of lazy writing, instant messaging could be positive in this way.

Part of my success with instant messaging was my restraint. I would only talk to one or two people at a time maximum. Some of my friends talk to up to ten people at a time, maybe more. This is where the shortcutting and lazy writing starts to happen. Also, it gets especially annoying for people like me, who are talking to only one or two people at a time, but have to wait five minutes between each response because the other people are busy trying to keep up with talking to ten people at a time.

Probably the biggest problem and fear with Instant messaging has always been the anonymity aspect. We don’t know what kind of people are out there, and we’ve all heard the horror stories. Although it can be comforting to hide behind a screen when talking to someone, one must remember that the person who he or she is talking to may be doing the same thing. What can assure someone that he or she is actually talking to whomever the screen name signifies? One cannot know if the creator of the screen name is present, or if he or she is, how many other people are standing around the computer and reading the conversation. It’s clear that privacy in instant messaging is drastically less secure than in a face-to-face conversation..

The differences between spoken word and written communication is probably the hardest negative aspect of instant messaging to avoid. For example, It’s much easier to say the wrong thing when chatting online, and it’s easier to bite your tongue and not say the wrong thing when you’re arguing with someone face to face. This is where the responsibility and restraint aspect comes into play. Don’t get personal online, even if you’re certain about who you’re talking to. It’s just not secure, and the true colors you don’t want people to know about might slip out a little more easily.

A lot of people, like myself, express themselves a lot better through writing, which is why I think instant messaging and writing platforms like online journals & blogging are great things. However, face-to-face communication will always be the most genuine form of communication no matter how much better your message is worded in writing. That’s just the way it is.

This topic was prompted by a radio talk show I listened to on my way home from work Friday. The radio host couldn’t get his word in, the caller just kept talking over him. When the caller finally hung up he made the point that he loves the idea of instant messaging, because you can always get your two cents in. I bring this up because it raises the point that there are problems with every form of communication, so it should come as no surprise that there are negative aspects to instant messaging. Use it responsibly and with restraint, the same way you would in any other form of communication, and you’ll find instant messaging to be worthwhile.