[抛砖引玉 每日一例]-- e-mail? grey mail... [2010-02-02]

霁月难逢UID: 2718354

KEY WORD:

1、电子邮件e-mail
2、即时信息Instant Message(IM)
3、社交网站Social Network Site(SNS)
4、交流communication
5、效率efficiency
6、科技technology

有关题目（ISSUE）：

151"High-speed electronic communications media, such as electronic mail and television, tend to prevent meaningful and thoughtful communication."

74"The most effective way to communicate an idea or value to large groups of people is through the use of images, not language."

215"The bombardment of visual images in contemporary society has the effect of making people less able to focus clearly and extensively on a single issue over a long period of time."

219"Now that computer technology has made possible the rapid accessing of large amounts of factual information, people are less likely than ever to think deeply or originally. They feel unable to compete with—much less contribute to—the quantity of information that is now available electronically."

155"Contemporary society offers so many ways of learning that reading books is no longer very important."

38"In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books."

233"Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning."

237"Computers and video technology can make facsimiles of original works such as paintings and historical documents available to everyone. The great advantage of this new technology is that it will enable anyone—not just scholars—to conduct in-depth research without having access to the original works."

66"As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate."

30"The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that everyone has more leisure time."

107"Instant communication systems encourage people to form hasty opinions and give quick replies rather than take the time to develop thoughtful, well-reasoned points of view."

206"People are too quick to take action; instead they should stop to think of the possible consequences of what they might do."

124"Instant foods, instant communication, faster transportation-all of these recent developments are designed to save time. Ironically, though, instead of making more leisure time available, these developments have contributed to a pace of human affairs that is more rushed and more frantic than ever before."

58"The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves."

159"The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds."

166"Over the past century, the most significant contribution of technology has been to make people's lives more comfortable."

196"Technology creates more problems than it solves, and may threaten or damage the quality of life."

129"Technology is a necessary but not always a positive force in modern life."

31"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."

69"Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"

88"Technologies not only influence but actually determine social customs and ethics."

114"Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of humanity is no better. War, violence, and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity."

77"People today are too individualistic. Instead of pursuing self-centered, separate goals, people need to understand that satisfaction comes from working for the greater good of the family, the community, or society as a whole."

116"With the growth of global networks in such areas as economics and communication, there is no doubt that every aspect of society—including education, politics, the arts, and the sciences—will benefit greatly from international influences."

Email花了20年才形成风气，但可能花不到一半的时间就会完全消失

　　汤姆·汉克斯和梅格·瑞安主演的《电子情书》，使Email在10年前成为了最时尚的通讯方式。中国人还给电子邮件起了个好听的名字“伊妹儿”。可如今，“伊妹儿”渐渐老去，已经逐渐演变成了“灰妹儿”(grey mail)。

　　伊妹儿变灰妹儿

　　英国肯特大学社会人类学的一项调查表明，电子邮件已经失去了以往的魅力，上百万的青少年已经不再把电子邮件作为主要的交流工具。为了交流更加迅速，越来越多的青少年开始转向使用即时信息(IM)和社交网站，而非电子邮件。

　　尽管目前全世界的Email信箱还是满满的，但是专家相信，它们正在衰亡。原因是它们速度过慢、不方便联系。主持这项研究的大卫·泽特林教授称，网民更愿意选择使用Facebook和Twitter，因为可以通过这类网站及时向所有朋友发布信息，节省了发送邮件和书写文本的时间。英国的著名宽带提供商 TalkTalk也做过一次调查，发现只有50%的英国青少年认为Email是交流的首选。但是，老一辈人还是很依赖Email的，98%年龄在65岁以上的人还在使用Email。也许这就是“伊妹儿”如今被叫做“灰妹儿”的原因吧。

　　20年成名，10年消失

　　Email不再受宠还有一个重要的原因是：太不流行了。肯特大学的戴维·萨汀教授说：“Email花了20年才形成风气。但可能花不到一半的时间就会完全消失。”专家推测，现在时髦的人喜欢“一次完成”的通讯方式。例如，在Twitter上的一则短讯，同时可以发给所有的好友看。

　　 “电子邮件最大的缺点就是又慢又不时尚，如果给朋友发送些相片要等上好久，如果是歌曲或视频那就更惨。可是在社交网站上就可以直接进入我的主页，随便浏览了。还有，电子邮件中那些垃圾邮件也很恼人。”伦敦大学学生约翰·邵普说。MSN、QQ、Twitter、Facebook……层出不穷的通讯软件既有电子邮件的通信功能，同时还有即时性，此外，各种视频、游戏、播放功能给使用者带来了很多娱乐效果。与它们相比，Email更像是步入不惑的中年人，和时尚流行渐渐脱节。

　　效率让Email说拜拜

　　“我最喜欢IM的原因是，你可以邀请第三方加入对话，就好像电话的多方通话功能一样，比起这些，Email显得好无聊、好沉闷。”在中国传媒大学大一学生张诗如看来，网络就像一个族群，发一条讯息，几分钟之内，感兴趣的人马上就会答复你，大大节省了复制、转发的时间。“这周要开圣诞舞会，我就把信息放在了MSN签名、开心网动态区、 Facebook留言板上，如今已经有70多人回复了。”

　　在现代科技的帮助下，时尚、快捷、简易才是现代人所追求的。“在过去的20 年中，Email成为人们在互联网上交流的主要模式，但这并不代表Email不会被代替。”TalkTalk的传媒总监马克·史密德告诉本报记者，在这个信息高速发展的社会，效率显得尤为重要。现在越来越多的人更倾向于一种快速简短的沟通方式。根据这一趋势，Email的未来并不乐观，很有可能在10年之后就会渐渐退出历史舞台。“比如，我只有在上班的时候才会去查邮件，那么你的采访就要耽误2天的时间，可在Facebook上，2分钟就解决了。”马克说。

http://world.people.com.cn/GB/10629377.html

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

强势沙发~~哦呵呵~

irvine666UID: 2575525

今天这个很不错，科技类都用的上

银落UID: 2632560

bela和草草都很强大。。

qisaimanUID: 2703629

我也贴一个吧。
Should we let Apple decide what we read? | Technology | guardian.co.uk Turn

Jeff Bezos unveiling Amazon's Kindle 2
A technology entrepreneur and advisor to the US Intelligence Community. Matthew
Burton was formerly an intelligence analyst for the US Department of Defense,
where he researched foreign censorship and propaganda. His technology writing
has appeared in the CIA's journal (Studies In Intelligence) and O'Reilly Media's
forthcoming "Open Government". His work to transform the intelligence community
has been featured in the New York Times.
On Wednesday, Apple is expected to unveil a product that will be, among other
things, a competitor to Amazon's Kindle. That will be a crucial test for Apple,
and for society. If the company lives up to its reputation for revolutionizing
media, this new product and its successors will one day replace physical books.
The test for Apple is in whether they try to control what we read. The test for
society is whether we let them.

We all know that this device will be strikingly beautiful, will feel good in our
hands, and will have some special touch that, like the iPod's white earbuds,
endows its users with an aura of cool. It will do so much more than display
books (reading will be sexy again!) that this simple feature may be lost among
the device's more advanced trappings.

But after fawning over it, we should ask how much freedom the device gives us,
and what it means for the future of reading: will the iSlate (as it's rumored to
be named) let us put our own ebooks onto it, or will it only show documents in
Apple's own proprietary format? Will we have to buy everything through Apple,
allowing them an eye into our reading preferences? And when we buy those books,
will Apple have the technical ability to remotely revoke our access to them? A
restrictive iSlate would allow Apple--or someone else--to abscond with your
entire library in the middle of the night, all without ever knocking on your
door. If the act of reading isn't safe, who cares if it's cool?

This ability to take away our books is a current reality, not a future prospect.
Kindle users discovered this last year when Amazon remotely deleted their copies
of Animal Farm and 1984. Even though customers were storing the books on their
own devices, those devices automatically deleted the books when Amazon removed
the titles from the Kindle store, like an army of drones taking orders from
their master. From day one, Apple has used similar technology to make sure that
a song or movie bought on iTunes can only be played on authorized devices. They
do this to protect the rights of artists and production companies.
But that was music. This is books. The stakes are higher. And the Kindle goes
further. Unlike the iPod, which allows you to play your own, non-revokable songs
and movies on your iPod in addition to the ones you bought through iTunes, the
Kindle is designed to only display books that Amazon can control. The same
technology that is ostensibly protecting books also jeopardizes our right to
read them. If the iSlate is similarly restrictive but as successful as its music
predecessor, we'll have surrendered final say over our bookshelves to companies
and governments.

Would Apple and Amazon really intentionally censor our books? This all seems
very far-fetched. Sure, Amazon did it already, but it actually had good reason
to: the publisher who originally provided those titles to Amazon did so
illicitly. The irony of the affected titles made the affair sound more
scandalous than it was. Amazon acknowledged that it was "stupid" of them and
later changed its system to keep such automatic deletions from happening again.
So it was all just a mistake. Book censorship happens in fictional dystopias, or
in real-life dictatorships. But here?

Don't discount it. For one, the Amazon fix only applies to cases similar to the
Orwell books; it simply prevents Amazon's system from acting on its own in such
cases. Amazon still has the power to seize books you've supposedly purchased.
Second, you're right to feel that our society wouldn't tolerate a government
seizure of books. But that's precisely because books are physical objects: to
seize them, someone must kick in our doors, and to destroy them, they must be
burned. Seizing books would be a lot easier for governments were it not
accompanied by such graphic displays of tyranny.

But what happens when technology allows books to be disposed of quietly,
cleanly, and without force? As a parallel, consider how outraged we'd be by
having our home phones removed, and being forced to place phone calls only from
approved "monitoring centers." We would violently resist such demands. But the
same government's use of warrantless wiretaps just years ago was met with public
ambivalence. Burning books? No way. But deleting books, or "filtering" them?
That's much more palatable.

What are the odds that we will reject a no-doubt beautiful iSlate just because
it won't read our own PDFs or Word documents? Our past record isn't good. We
seldom reject convenience in return for freedom: we tell FreshDirect what we
like to eat so we don't have to go shopping, let credit cards report our
spending habits so we don't have to carry cash, and use trackable subway cards
instead of fumbling with tokens.

Why do we give up so much for more convenience? Maybe it's because technology's
affordances are much more tangible than its pitfalls. We enjoy the convenience
of email and credit cards many times a day, and even though we assume the IT
staff is reading our messages and a consumer data firm is tracking our
purchases, we never actually see it happen.

Another reason could be that the digital world has muddied the concept of
ownership, introducing ambiguities and restrictions that we don't have the time
or the legal expertise to decipher. When you buy a book, there's no question
that the bound collection of paper, ink and glue is yours, and that nobody can
take it back from you. But the Kindle's Terms of Use is over 2,000 words of
legalese that most users will ignore. "I never imagined that Amazon actually had
the right, the authority or even the ability to delete something that I had
already purchased," said a customer who had his $.99 copy of 1984 yanked.
The fiasco hasn't fazed Kindle users, who are proving that the convenience of
carrying hundreds of books is what really matters to them. Christmas Day marked
a turning point for the Kindle: for the first time ever, Amazon sold more ebooks
than actual books. Clearly, we aren't going to be the ones who stand up for the
security of books.

So it's up to Apple, which could be a better steward of information freedom than
we have been. The company stopped selling restricted music files last January;
customers now have complete control over every song in their music library, even
those bought through iTunes. And again, they've never barred us from putting our
own files on the iPod, making those songs completely safe from any intrusion.
Will Apple do the same when it comes to books? Or will it follow Amazon's lead?
Apple's decision matters a lot more than Microsoft's, Sony's or Lenovo's, all of
whom revealed similar new products earlier this month. When Apple makes a
decision about digital media, entire industries--and the public at large--follow
their lead. As the iSlate goes, so will thought. Let's keep this in mind during
the hysteria of Wednesday's unveiling.




   

CinbladyyuUID: 2957697

素材还好吧，不是太有深度