Memo #10—Google Docs Experience
For the best explanation of my experience and opinions as to the Google Docs program, I am currently typing this memo in Microsoft Word. I will then copy and paste the memo into Google Docs for publication to the Standards blog. So, in a nutshell, I feel that the limitations and compatibility issues outweigh the benefits of Google Docs.
I understand and appreciate the benefits of Google Docs. The first is that it is a thin client. By running the program on the Internet, no hard drive space on the computer is used and little RAM is occupied by the program. I run Mac OS X, and since I am currently using Word, I will write about the amount of processor capacity is being used, the amount of RAM occupied by the typing of this memo and the amount of hard drive space Microsoft Word occupies on the hard drive. I performed a clean login, which prevents startup programs from running in Mac OS X. Opening Activity Monitor, the program tells me that Microsoft Word is currently using 3.40% of the processor capability of my 2 GHz Intel Core Duo processor. Currently, Word is occupying 75.06 MB of RAM. Finally, Word as an application occupies 19.5 MB of ard drive real estate, but the entire Microsoft Office suite of applications occupies 415 MB of space. True, these numbers are relatively small, but when a computer is maxed out, all of the extra space, processor capacity and RAM space is needed and thus an online suite of office applications is attractive. The second advantage is the online storage of files, automatically backing up all files. If your hard drive fails, your Office files are lost unless you personally back-up your files. These are the two main advantages for me, but these two are entirely outweighed by the limitations of the program.
The first limitation for me is compatibility. Inexplicably, to me, Google Docs does not support Safari for Mac. While I am able to run the program in Firefox, Safari is my default browser, and my personal choice of browser. Firefox for Mac OS X takes a long time to initalize, longer then Word, and thus I am less inclined to use Google Docs through the Firefox browser. The Second limitation is the inability to Footnote or to import Footnotes into Google Docs. As a law student, I use footnotes all the time. Because this significant feature is lacking, I am less inclined to use Google Docs. Finally, I am using my computer to compose and edit documents regularly in places where I lack Internet access, such as the bus, car and airplane. If I cannot access the documents, nor save them, I am disinclined to continue using the program.
Thus, these three limitations for me far outweigh the benefits of using a thin, online word processor client such as Google Docs.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Memo #9-Second Life
My Second Life experience has been an utter failure, up until this week. Attending classes had been difficult, finding more than one person per session willing to talk had been difficult, and for the most part, I was surrounded by fellow "newbies," who knew even less about the system and protocols then I did. That changed over the weekend. I was finally able to attend a class, on the "island" of twilight. The following is my experience and my observations.
Having found the class through the Secondlife.com/events page, I clicked on the appropriate link and was transported to the right location. Only I did not know it at the time. The time for the class was listed as 11:00 AM. Well, what time zone (at this point I was still unaware that Second Life runs entirely on Pacific Standard Time, an ignorance that probably caused me to miss other classes)? I logged in at 9:00 (thinking the class was 11:00 EST) and walked around. I ended up in another portion of the island, owned and run by a character named Thoth. I asked him about the class and he helpfully directed me back off his property, which in the end I think was the actual goal. I was directed to a sign listing the class and the time, and was "teleported" back to where I had started.
Arriving back at the location, there was still no one in the area. After a couple of minutes of wandering around, a "Eccentric Person," named Zenos, literally rode in on a horse to help. Yes, a giant black horse. After speaking to him for a few minutes, I learned the actual time of the class and that he and a friend would be teaching the class.
Arriving back at the appropriate site, and finally at the appropriate time, I met the instructor, "Brenda Goodliffe," who provided a free supplies box (landmarks, a t-shirt, notes and so forth). The format of this class was a question and answer period for newbies. At the beginning of the class, I was the only person willing to ask questions. I did not focus on the basics of Second Life, as I was becoming proficient during my aimless wandering at using the interface; instead I was looking to get answers to some of the questions that had been bugging me about the system.
My primary concern was the issue of privacy. I had accidentally wandered onto the part of the island owned by Thoth. As I stated earlier, his primary concern was finding out why I was on his "land" and my intentions. When I informed him that I was a newbie, he essentially escorted me back into the "town" and his property. I found this fascinating. Also fueling my questions was the presence of blocked areas throughout the world, which essentially wrapped a portion of an island with police tape denying access unless I was part of a group. The answers I received fascinated me. Brenda spoke of how the "residents" of these islands, those who had actually purchased land and built structures, considered these places as their home, and were thus protective of the privacy and from trespassers. An online community, where there is complete freedom of movement and the ability to fly and teleport seems to be in opposite with this goal. Brenda also spoke of how residents restricted access so that they can change "outfits" in privacy. Really? Changing outfits means going into your inventory and clicking on file and suddenly your avatar looks different. The clothes never came off or went on, so why would one need actual privacy? The answer lies in the hyper-sexual nature of the Second Life Community. I was informed of an island of "Goreans" (This memo is sounding more like a fantasy novel at this point), where the women are sexual slaves, complete with S&M outfits and leashes. Zenos, my friend with the horse, sent me a "snapshot" he took while on the "gorean" island. Needless to say, the photo was quite graphic. In fact, one of the most profitable jobs on the island was to serve as an "escort," which is exactly as it sounds.
My second set of observations is based on these types of jobs. At the beginning of Second Life, residents were "paid" in the online currency, Linden dollars, for building new structures or for teaching classes. Now, there are very few paid positions. From what I learned, Linden dollars are now almost entirely derived from REAL World dollars, and not from economic activities within the Second Life world. Brenda agreed that this was the most likely reason for the reduction in actual classes being available, and she lamented on the increasing commercial nature of the world (whole islands are dedicated to commercial enterprises, including one advertising the L-Word show on Showtime).
At this point, the class delved into more mundane matters such as how to build and manipulate objects in the world. I had received the answers I wanted and left Second Life. I'm glad I learned what I learned form this class. It really has jaded my opinion about the Second Life community.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Memo #8-Podcasting
My experience with Podcasting is different then the norm. I have yet to find a podcast that I have not enjoyed and thus this memo will be directed to towards the qualities, in my opinion, that I an effective podcast should have. For the large part, the best podcasts in my opinion are those that are produced by professional entertainment companies. For example, my personal interests in podcasts relate to sports. The three podcasts that I listen to are the free versions of The Best and Mike and Mike in the Morning and The Big Show with Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann, both of which are Podcasts derived from the ESPN radio shows of the name, as well as the podcast version of Pardon The Interruption. The Pardon the Interruption podcast is the audio track of the ESPN television show of the same name. I listen to these podcasts because with my busy schedule, I have no time to listen to the free, over-the-air versions of the shows. The other reason is that the shows are presented largely commercial-free, an option unavailable when listening to the shows live.
The fact that the shows are commercial free is the primary reason I choose to listen to these podcasts. As an early adopter of TiVo-DVR technology, I have come to appreciate any new way to consume content without commercial interruption. Podcasts are generally inexpensive in terms of production and distribution. In the case of the ESPN podcasts, which are repackaging of content already distributed through radio and TV, the content has already been paid for through the traditional media model. this allows the podcasts to be distributed with little or no commercials. Other then The Big Show, which has a 10 second commercial embedded at the 8 minute mark, these podcasts have commercials at the end. The reason for this is obvious. The content is already paid for, and the podcast is an alternative means of developing an audience. Presenting commercial-free content is a way to draw in this secondary audience.
The second reason for choosing these podcasts is that, other then the Pardon the Interruption podcast, these are half-hour excerpts of three or four-hour radio programs. The editors pick and choose the segments from the day and re-cut them into a shorter, manageable portions before uploading to the Internet. Length is the key. A half-hour podcast works as an appropriate length. I listen to the podcasts during the bus-ride to and from Denver. Podcasts timing around 15 minutes are too short. The content is over before the trip. But podcasts that last longer then a half-hour mean that I will often be still listening to the podcasts after leaving the bus.
The final reason for choosing these podcasts is the professional nature of the podcast. I can trust ESPN to provide high-quality, entertaining content because the source is consistent and professional. Sports content depends on reporters and analysts that are connected to the teams, are able to interview players, and have a strong understanding of the sport. A professional source is the best way to deliver such content. But content is not the only aspect of a professional product. ESPN also ensures that the audio quality will be consistent, the podcasts will be uploaded and available and that they will provide metadata that allows easy searching. In choosing podcasts, I am looking for professional quality in terms of content and quality, half-hour programs, and content delivered with little or no commercials.
Other podcasts that have met this criteria are those from NPR: Fresh Air and Chicago Public Radio: This American Life. Both of these podcasts deliver high-quality content and audio quality and without commercials as they consist of repackaged content. The only reason I do not listen to these podcasts as regularly as the ESPN podcasts is the length. They are longer then a half-hour, which is outside my normal criteria.
My experience with Podcasting is different then the norm. I have yet to find a podcast that I have not enjoyed and thus this memo will be directed to towards the qualities, in my opinion, that I an effective podcast should have. For the large part, the best podcasts in my opinion are those that are produced by professional entertainment companies. For example, my personal interests in podcasts relate to sports. The three podcasts that I listen to are the free versions of The Best and Mike and Mike in the Morning and The Big Show with Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann, both of which are Podcasts derived from the ESPN radio shows of the name, as well as the podcast version of Pardon The Interruption. The Pardon the Interruption podcast is the audio track of the ESPN television show of the same name. I listen to these podcasts because with my busy schedule, I have no time to listen to the free, over-the-air versions of the shows. The other reason is that the shows are presented largely commercial-free, an option unavailable when listening to the shows live.
The fact that the shows are commercial free is the primary reason I choose to listen to these podcasts. As an early adopter of TiVo-DVR technology, I have come to appreciate any new way to consume content without commercial interruption. Podcasts are generally inexpensive in terms of production and distribution. In the case of the ESPN podcasts, which are repackaging of content already distributed through radio and TV, the content has already been paid for through the traditional media model. this allows the podcasts to be distributed with little or no commercials. Other then The Big Show, which has a 10 second commercial embedded at the 8 minute mark, these podcasts have commercials at the end. The reason for this is obvious. The content is already paid for, and the podcast is an alternative means of developing an audience. Presenting commercial-free content is a way to draw in this secondary audience.
The second reason for choosing these podcasts is that, other then the Pardon the Interruption podcast, these are half-hour excerpts of three or four-hour radio programs. The editors pick and choose the segments from the day and re-cut them into a shorter, manageable portions before uploading to the Internet. Length is the key. A half-hour podcast works as an appropriate length. I listen to the podcasts during the bus-ride to and from Denver. Podcasts timing around 15 minutes are too short. The content is over before the trip. But podcasts that last longer then a half-hour mean that I will often be still listening to the podcasts after leaving the bus.
The final reason for choosing these podcasts is the professional nature of the podcast. I can trust ESPN to provide high-quality, entertaining content because the source is consistent and professional. Sports content depends on reporters and analysts that are connected to the teams, are able to interview players, and have a strong understanding of the sport. A professional source is the best way to deliver such content. But content is not the only aspect of a professional product. ESPN also ensures that the audio quality will be consistent, the podcasts will be uploaded and available and that they will provide metadata that allows easy searching. In choosing podcasts, I am looking for professional quality in terms of content and quality, half-hour programs, and content delivered with little or no commercials.
Other podcasts that have met this criteria are those from NPR: Fresh Air and Chicago Public Radio: This American Life. Both of these podcasts deliver high-quality content and audio quality and without commercials as they consist of repackaged content. The only reason I do not listen to these podcasts as regularly as the ESPN podcasts is the length. They are longer then a half-hour, which is outside my normal criteria.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Memo #7-Wikipedia is not a credible source (Depending on how you use it).
Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. Wikipedia will provide quick-hit answers to questions in the legal, technical and pop-culture fields. The answers tend to be correct and the sourcing at the end of each article can be the start of fruitful research project. If that is how one plans to use Wikipedia, the basis for a larger research project and the starting point for relevant sources, then yes, Wikipedia is a credible source. But if a person wishes to cite to a Wikipedia article for support in a paper or project, then no, it is not a credible source. As it is in most questions I have approahced in law school, the answer depends...
Why is it not a credible source for citation in a paper or a research project? The answer lies in the very nature of the program. It is open to everyone. In July of 2006, New Yorker writer Stacey Schiff, examined the Wikipedia phenomonon. Her article forms the basis for this opinion. The first amazing quality of Wikipedia, which in turn is the first reason why it is not credible, is that there are five employees besides the founder, Jimmy Wales. Five employees; that is it. All other content and editorial control comes from the users. User creation and editing of content allows the site to run with just five employees, but it also invites unscrupulous actions. According to Schiff, U.S. senators have been caught massasging their own entries in order to santize voting records, refine their stance on issues, or to distance themselves from an unpopular president. In fact, the entire House of Representatives have been banned, at different points, from posting for the same reasons. If there are major question marks regarding the wikipedia entries for Senators and U.S. Represenataives, then it is hard to implicitly trust the information found in other entries.
The second reason stemming from the open nature of the site is that changes are not automatically vetted by the editorial “staff”, made up of administration level users who can enforce the site’s standards. Schiff points out an article on the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah that has been edited over 4,000 times and draws the interest of writers and editors. Thus, one could call this article a credible source because it is consistently being vetted. However, one of the attractions of Wikipedia is that there are articles on just about anything that strikes your interest. These obscure entries can be edited multiple times by people without ever being checked to ensure they meet the standards of the site. If the article is inaccurate, and remains so for an extended period of time, then it cannot be a credible source.
Finally, a recent development in the wake of the Schiff article has forced me to conclude that the site is not an appropriate source. In preparing for the story, Schiff was contacted by a Wiki Administrator, identified only by the person’s screen name. In conversations, Schiff was led to believe that the administrator was a college professor with a Ph.D. in theology. In fact, the person was a 24-year old with no connection to teaching and with no advance degrees. If an administrator is lying about his identity, then the credibility of the source must be questioned.
So, if you are looking to use Wikipedia as a initial source for research, following the included citations out into the larger Internet, then use Wikipedia. I just can’t see anyone actually citing it as a stand-alone, legitimate site.
Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. Wikipedia will provide quick-hit answers to questions in the legal, technical and pop-culture fields. The answers tend to be correct and the sourcing at the end of each article can be the start of fruitful research project. If that is how one plans to use Wikipedia, the basis for a larger research project and the starting point for relevant sources, then yes, Wikipedia is a credible source. But if a person wishes to cite to a Wikipedia article for support in a paper or project, then no, it is not a credible source. As it is in most questions I have approahced in law school, the answer depends...
Why is it not a credible source for citation in a paper or a research project? The answer lies in the very nature of the program. It is open to everyone. In July of 2006, New Yorker writer Stacey Schiff, examined the Wikipedia phenomonon. Her article forms the basis for this opinion. The first amazing quality of Wikipedia, which in turn is the first reason why it is not credible, is that there are five employees besides the founder, Jimmy Wales. Five employees; that is it. All other content and editorial control comes from the users. User creation and editing of content allows the site to run with just five employees, but it also invites unscrupulous actions. According to Schiff, U.S. senators have been caught massasging their own entries in order to santize voting records, refine their stance on issues, or to distance themselves from an unpopular president. In fact, the entire House of Representatives have been banned, at different points, from posting for the same reasons. If there are major question marks regarding the wikipedia entries for Senators and U.S. Represenataives, then it is hard to implicitly trust the information found in other entries.
The second reason stemming from the open nature of the site is that changes are not automatically vetted by the editorial “staff”, made up of administration level users who can enforce the site’s standards. Schiff points out an article on the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah that has been edited over 4,000 times and draws the interest of writers and editors. Thus, one could call this article a credible source because it is consistently being vetted. However, one of the attractions of Wikipedia is that there are articles on just about anything that strikes your interest. These obscure entries can be edited multiple times by people without ever being checked to ensure they meet the standards of the site. If the article is inaccurate, and remains so for an extended period of time, then it cannot be a credible source.
Finally, a recent development in the wake of the Schiff article has forced me to conclude that the site is not an appropriate source. In preparing for the story, Schiff was contacted by a Wiki Administrator, identified only by the person’s screen name. In conversations, Schiff was led to believe that the administrator was a college professor with a Ph.D. in theology. In fact, the person was a 24-year old with no connection to teaching and with no advance degrees. If an administrator is lying about his identity, then the credibility of the source must be questioned.
So, if you are looking to use Wikipedia as a initial source for research, following the included citations out into the larger Internet, then use Wikipedia. I just can’t see anyone actually citing it as a stand-alone, legitimate site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)