…like a box of chocolates!

This week I am kind of free to choose which topic I want to tackle so feel surprised.

First I would like to start with a little rant on an article in Time magazine that dealt with the new brainchild of Blake Ross. Ross is the spokesperson and one of the main programmers behind the Explorer rival Firefox. The article gives a short overview of what Ross has planned with his new project, so far dubbed Parakey. In short it is supposed to be a desktop that can be accessed from every computer with online connection. The user is ,in Ross’ mind, able to manage accessibility for other users, like friends and family as easy as drag and drop. Also he explains it as the ultimate fusion of website and home computer. The ability to alter content, access etc. offline appears to be another main goal in his argumentation. The article continues to explain, for Ross, how his ambition to help his helpless parents break the wall that geeks seem to have put up in order to keep every non-geek out of their domain, namely the internet. And at this point I started to think to myself: ” This programe will tank bad!”. I know his goal is very honorable, and that is the problem. On the one hand there are the people who grew/grow up using all kinds of applications online and are perfectly apt in separating the two worlds of on- and offline. And then there are those folks to proud to use a simplified version or not able to understand what this new programe does because it still requires basic knowledge of certain aspects of computers that can not be learned through simply reading the manual. Also I am a little weary considering online security but that has turned into a constant nagging at the back of my head; so nothing new to me.

Among the articles I read was also one that dealt with the liability of internet dictionary Wikipedia. It mainly deals with how the German “newspaper” BILD (yellow press) tries to defame Wikipedia and at the same time promote their own online dictionary. The do so by having readers send them mistakes they found on Wikipedia and then print them in their paper. Of course BILD has no right to do so since their own incorrectness in facts is  more than infamous. On the other hand I have to agree that the reliability of facts on the internet in general should always be something to question before you deem it true. Nevertheless I also believe that Wikipedia is 1. well monitored by a group of experts, reducing the actual quota of mistakes to a minimum. 2. not even printed media is always correct on facts (e.g. BILD, but also some of the fact books) and 3. Wikipedia is only a readers digest of things you will have to research for yourself if you really want to know the truth, so no laziness allowed(even on the internet).

I certainly do hope that my little elaboration helped you a bit and see you in two weeks.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: