This week's assignment was to write a review of PC World's Techlog post "A Brief History of Computers, As Seen in Old TV Ads." This can be found at this link: http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/002950.html. We were asked to try to figure out the selling points of each ad listed.
Unfortunately, not all of the ads actually worked. The first one for me that worked is the first one for the Commodore VIC-20 (c. 1981). The selling point in this video appears to be that most PCs in the same price range as the VIC-20 were only good for gaming. However, the ad implies, the VIC-20 could do more than just gaming.
The second one that I could get to open was also for the VIC-20 (also c. 1981). This one seems to emphasize the fact that it is a "real computer" (i.e. a full-fledged PC) for under $300. Most general-purpose PCs of the time (ones that weren't just built for games) were selling for over $500, with some costing over $1000. Game systems at the time were much less expensive, but also less capable.
The third commercial that I could get to play was the first one about the Commodore 64 (c. 1982). It seems, once again, to emphasize the sales price, but it also talks about the features available. RAM (Random Access Memory) quantity vs. price seems to be the primary comparison here.
Another commercial that worked for me was the advertisement for the Texas Instruments 99/4A (1983). The selling price is once again the primary comparison. There is a mention of memory and software, but the primary sales point is the $100 rebate on the computer.
The fifth commercial that worked was the one for the Kaypro II (c. 1984). Here again, the sales price is the primary advertising point. The Kaypro is advertised as a "complete computer for $1295," which, according to the commercial, is much less than competitors' complete systems, which have more options but also sell for more.
Another commercial is not really a commercial at all. The advertisement for Windows 1.0 (from the mid 1980s) is an internal-use-only bit from Microsoft, showing some of the features of Windows and naming a price. Presumably, this price was to be a major selling point, but it could also have been a reminder to the programmers, saying, "Keep costs down, because we can't afford the price to go above $99."
The sixth commercial is an advertisement for Commodore's Amiga 1000 (c. 1986). It emphasizes the multimedia capabilities of the computer, something that was exceedingly rare during that time frame. No mention of price is made, unlike the earlier 1980s commercials.
A seventh commercial is for the Radio Shack Tandy 1000 (approx 1987). It talks about the computer's speed and several other features in comparison to the IBM PC-XT, including price. The main selling point seems to be the speed of the Tandy vs. the speed of an XT, and the fact that the Tandy costs less than the XT.
After this, we skip several years into the future, to 1995. The advertisement is for the IBM ThinkPad 701C. The focus seems to be on the full-sized keyboard and full-sized screen in a package that weighs four-and-a-half pounds. Features once again are the key selling points, but there is no mention of price.
The next spot is also from 1995, apparently an inclusion on the Windows 95 CD-ROM. It seems to emphasize a new freedom of thought and expression that the new operating system would allow. The tagline "Where do you want to go today?" is indicative of this new freedom.
Another commercial is advertising Packard Bell's PC product, supposedly from 1996. This particular commercial seems to emphasize the value of an Internet-capable PC. If this is the case, then the tagline, "Wouldn't you rather be at home?" makes more sense, since you can do a whole lot more from home if your PC is Internet-enabled.
The next working commercial is Apple's "Think Different" from 1998. It seems to state that people who use Apple's products are somehow more creative, intelligent, or innovative than people who use PCs. It emphasizes that Macintosh computers are different from PCs, and turns that into a selling point.
Another commercial from Apple is the one for its iMac from 1998. It shows the multiple colors that the iMac was offered in, and basically states that you don't have to have a boring, white, grey or black box in order to have a computer. This freedom of choice is their main selling point.
A commercial from a different company is the Pets.com commercial from the 2000 SuperBowl. It takes the theme found in Packard Bell's 1996 commercial and applies it to a retail website, saying that now you don't have to go out to a store in order to buy your pet supplies. The implication is that it will take much less time to buy them on the Internet.
The next commercial is Microsoft's 2001 commercial for Windows XP. It emphasizes the multimedia capabilities of the operating system, combining it with the freedom themes from Microsoft's Windows 95 bit. It takes the multimedia capabilities and makes them the selling point.
Another Apple commercial is their "Switch" commercial from 2002, advertising the PowerBook G4. The commercial emphasizes the laptop's portability, but also its capabilities. It says that you don't have to be stuck at home to have a lot of capabilities anymore.
IBM's commercial for its Linux distribution and services from 2004 seems to be emphasizing the difference between Linux's open-source nature and Windows' closed-source nature. It implies that open-source is better, and that Linux is a revolutionary product, much like Muhammad Ali was a revolutionary sort of boxer.
The last commercial, Apple's "Get a Mac" from 2006, seems to be attempting to say that the PC is old-fashioned, stodgy, uncreative, and sometimes downright hostile, while the Mac is new, hip, fun to use, and user-friendly. This posits the Macintosh as being a better alternative to old-fashioned PCs, and is in some way reminiscent of Commodore's 1986 commercial for the Amiga 1000. This is because the two commercials disparage the competition in a similar fashion.
Overall, this blog shows a gradual change in advertising emphasis, from solely price competition to solely features competition. It does a good job of chronicling the change in computer advertising, and shows a good sampling of different computer ads. It also has some interesting tidbits about the different ads, linked in the descriptions of the ads.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Recommendations
The assignment we were given for homework in class on October 17 was to make some recommendations for certain items as requested by the professor. The first of these was to go through our classmates' blogs and recommend the one that we like best. After going through all of my classmates' blogs, I decided on Christy's, which is at http://sephirosinst302.blogspot.com/. Her reasoning on the legality of wiretapping without a court order is very interesting, and she has a good point about the PATRIOT Act and also about America's view of the media.
Part two of the assignment was to find a website that we like and post it. Well, I've always been interested in science, and especially the aerospace sciences. Because of this, I would recommend http://www.spacedaily.com/. It is a site that specifically deals with news on the various space programs around the world, and also the commercial spaceflight efforts that are happening currently.
Part three was to find a picture that we liked and post it. I chose a picture from the Astronomy Picture of the Day page on the Goddard Spaceflight Center website:
The article on the Astronomy Picture of the Day page that this came from is at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060805.html.
The last part of our assignment was to find a video that we liked and post it in our blog. Being a science nut, I just had to post this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk0lYB_8c0
His little blurb about the "rapid generation of hydrogen gas" just before the bit about caesium is only half right. The reaction ("breaking" the water molecule and attaching to the oxygen) also generates a fair amount of heat. With lithium, the heat isn't enough to ignite the hydrogen, but higher alkali metals can make a spontaneous fire.
The explosions might be rigged, though. The detonation of hydrogen requires oxygen, and most of the oxygen in a rubidium-H2O or caesium-H2O reaction goes into oxidizing the metal. You'd need an outside source, such as air. I have seen another video where the caesium reaction destroys the glass container they were using, though.
Part two of the assignment was to find a website that we like and post it. Well, I've always been interested in science, and especially the aerospace sciences. Because of this, I would recommend http://www.spacedaily.com/. It is a site that specifically deals with news on the various space programs around the world, and also the commercial spaceflight efforts that are happening currently.
Part three was to find a picture that we liked and post it. I chose a picture from the Astronomy Picture of the Day page on the Goddard Spaceflight Center website:
The article on the Astronomy Picture of the Day page that this came from is at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060805.html.
The last part of our assignment was to find a video that we liked and post it in our blog. Being a science nut, I just had to post this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk0lYB_8c0
His little blurb about the "rapid generation of hydrogen gas" just before the bit about caesium is only half right. The reaction ("breaking" the water molecule and attaching to the oxygen) also generates a fair amount of heat. With lithium, the heat isn't enough to ignite the hydrogen, but higher alkali metals can make a spontaneous fire.
The explosions might be rigged, though. The detonation of hydrogen requires oxygen, and most of the oxygen in a rubidium-H2O or caesium-H2O reaction goes into oxidizing the metal. You'd need an outside source, such as air. I have seen another video where the caesium reaction destroys the glass container they were using, though.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Government Interception of Communications: Legal or Not?
According to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the government cannot legally intercept communications without a court order. However, the OCCSSA also makes plain that it should not be allowed to limit the power of the President to use communications intercepts in order "to protect the nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities" (Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, §2511(3)). It also does not restrict the President's ability "to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government" (ibid., §2511(3)).
These limitations meant that all government wiretapping had to have a court order, with the possible exception of that done for foreign intelligence purposes, and that done to track terrorists that would attempt to overthrow the government. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 clarified the legal framework for these activities, and imposed limits on how they could be carried out. Because these first two acts referred mostly to analog telephone and radio communications interception, there were some problems when computers began to become widespread. The advent of new communications methods and associated legal cases in which the government potentially overstepped its bounds in regards to these, led to the passing of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. This act clarifies the restrictions previously imposed on government interception of communications, and applies many of them to electronic (i.e. digital as well as analog) methods of communication.
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was a regression to some extent from the strong precedent that had been previously set. It required communications device manufacturers and communications providers to assist law enforcement in executing legal court orders by making it so that law enforcement can easily access communications. This act basically required device manufacturers and service providers to place a "backdoor" into their systems that would allow law enforcement to access the stream of communications.
More recently, the PATRIOT Act of 2001 contained provisions to make it easier for the government to access communications when in pursuit of the two exceptions mentioned in §2511(3) of the OCCSSA. This included making it easier to pursue court orders for interception, and re-defining the definitions of several important terms used in OCCSSA and other privacy acts. The purpose was to allow the government to more easily pursue terrorists and their backers.
Taking all of this into account, I would say that it depends whether or not the interception of communications (i.e. wiretapping) by the government is legal without a court order. The provisions of the PATRIOT Act and its predecessor, CALEA, seem to indicate that there are indeed cases where the wiretapping of communications by the government is legal without a court order. However, the great body of legislation prior to 1994 seemed more concerned with making it harder for the government to intercept communications without a court order. Now, I would have to say, it varies on a case-by-case basis.
The Constitution of the United States contains several provisions to protect the privacy of the people, including the Fourth Amendment. Though recent decisions have said otherwise, any law that disagrees with the Constitution is not allowable, by default. The recent trend (since 1994) has been toward laws that violate the provisions in the Fourth Amendment that protect the privacy of the citizen. Therefore, were I a Supreme Court justice, I would have to say that said laws are unconstitutional, and morally not allowable. Furthermore, I would have to remind people of something one of the Founding Fathers said, and which many of the Founding Fathers held to be true. Benjamin Franklin once said, "He who would give up the slightest freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." It is impossible for the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution to be guarded too jealously.
Therefore, I would say that government wiretapping, except that which is done via the permission of a carefully-considered court order, is patently illegal in any and all cases. This is because of the fact, established by the men who founded this country, that the Constitution is the final arbiter of what laws are correct and what laws are not. The Fourth Amendment, and other provisions for privacy in the Constitution, therefore, are the last word on whether or not the CALEA and the PATRIOT Act are even permissible in the United States.
These limitations meant that all government wiretapping had to have a court order, with the possible exception of that done for foreign intelligence purposes, and that done to track terrorists that would attempt to overthrow the government. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 clarified the legal framework for these activities, and imposed limits on how they could be carried out. Because these first two acts referred mostly to analog telephone and radio communications interception, there were some problems when computers began to become widespread. The advent of new communications methods and associated legal cases in which the government potentially overstepped its bounds in regards to these, led to the passing of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. This act clarifies the restrictions previously imposed on government interception of communications, and applies many of them to electronic (i.e. digital as well as analog) methods of communication.
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was a regression to some extent from the strong precedent that had been previously set. It required communications device manufacturers and communications providers to assist law enforcement in executing legal court orders by making it so that law enforcement can easily access communications. This act basically required device manufacturers and service providers to place a "backdoor" into their systems that would allow law enforcement to access the stream of communications.
More recently, the PATRIOT Act of 2001 contained provisions to make it easier for the government to access communications when in pursuit of the two exceptions mentioned in §2511(3) of the OCCSSA. This included making it easier to pursue court orders for interception, and re-defining the definitions of several important terms used in OCCSSA and other privacy acts. The purpose was to allow the government to more easily pursue terrorists and their backers.
Taking all of this into account, I would say that it depends whether or not the interception of communications (i.e. wiretapping) by the government is legal without a court order. The provisions of the PATRIOT Act and its predecessor, CALEA, seem to indicate that there are indeed cases where the wiretapping of communications by the government is legal without a court order. However, the great body of legislation prior to 1994 seemed more concerned with making it harder for the government to intercept communications without a court order. Now, I would have to say, it varies on a case-by-case basis.
The Constitution of the United States contains several provisions to protect the privacy of the people, including the Fourth Amendment. Though recent decisions have said otherwise, any law that disagrees with the Constitution is not allowable, by default. The recent trend (since 1994) has been toward laws that violate the provisions in the Fourth Amendment that protect the privacy of the citizen. Therefore, were I a Supreme Court justice, I would have to say that said laws are unconstitutional, and morally not allowable. Furthermore, I would have to remind people of something one of the Founding Fathers said, and which many of the Founding Fathers held to be true. Benjamin Franklin once said, "He who would give up the slightest freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." It is impossible for the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution to be guarded too jealously.
Therefore, I would say that government wiretapping, except that which is done via the permission of a carefully-considered court order, is patently illegal in any and all cases. This is because of the fact, established by the men who founded this country, that the Constitution is the final arbiter of what laws are correct and what laws are not. The Fourth Amendment, and other provisions for privacy in the Constitution, therefore, are the last word on whether or not the CALEA and the PATRIOT Act are even permissible in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)