Updates from Sander Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Sander 09:52 on January 20, 2012 Permalink |  

    Case study 

    Things I can research to get a better understanding of the case study:


    • How things are booked (what happens when things are booked on the web or over the phone)
    • Booking visualization systems (like the one’s cinema counters use, or the one in our case study papers)
    • How tickets are printed and made( different codes and stripe codes on the tickets themselves and how they are used to identify the ticket when the customer passes through a laser scanner)
    • Payment systems. Where the money is transferred and how cash purchases are logged.
    • Statistics keeping systems(Ticket sales and associated data
  • Sander 12:16 on December 8, 2011 Permalink |  


    Research recently done in Switzerland has resulted in the downloading and uploading of copyrighted materials being kept legal. Downloading has been legal in Switzerland for a while now, but the research brings out a few valid arguments for not banning piracy. Yet the ethical aspect of not making piracy illegal has, and most likely will be challenged. The prominence of non-tangible media has brought along a need for research in both the mind of the consumer as well as his purchasing habits.
    As the Swiss research points out, people who pirate copyrighted software are also the ones who spend the most money buying entertainment and interactive media, as well as going to concerts and so on.  This is a valid point, as well as a large misunderstanding on the part of the media producers. The idea that finding a way to decrease piracy is a valid method to increase profits, is in it’s essence, false. The understanding may be more truthful when dealing with actual tangible products. Like cars, for example. Yet when the property a company is making profit from is digital, this equation just doesn’t work. Yet another point that the Swiss research brought out, is that the piracy of software is complementary, not exclusive. The money used to buy software of all kinds is prognosed to say the same. As such, the amount of software bought as a result of making piracy illegal will not increase, it will stay the same.
    Another point that the Swiss bring out, is that piracy and free sharing is the modus operandi of the Internet and that the producers of media and software should not try to battle it, but rather to try and strive thanks to it. It is said that piracy is sort of a filter, thanks to which the good software thrives and the weak falls behind because nobody actually buys it. This is yet another valid argument. If the software is good enough, it will be bought enough times for a gigantic profit to be made. Another way is to provide some sort of benefits to legally owning a piece of software. Some added functionality, or top notch customer support will motivate your end-user to pay for your software even after he has pirated it. Many games can only be played in multiplayer when the game is purchased, for example. This gives ample motivation for people to buy software and is a good filter to see what software is actually good and what isn’t.
    Yet, even when considering this liberal way of thought, there are still people who just pirate because they want to, with no intention of supporting the developer or producer.  And there is indeed no denying that piracy is a form of theft, and as such, a criminal violation. So at its roots, the decision Switzerland made is still legalizing theft. It does not matter whether the product is tangible or not, it is still theft. The psychology of the thief might be different, but sadly there is no “middle way” to combat piracy. You’re either a thief or you aren’t, nobody can be a semi-thief. So the only choices are basically to make it illegal or keep it legal, because there can be no partial legalization of theft.
    The ethical issue of theft is more complex by an order of magnitude, due to the thing being stolen not actually being tangible. There is a great divide between the mindset of pirates and thieves, yet they have to be penalized in the same way. The arguments the Swiss research paper makes are valid, yet the choice of not banning piracy is still making theft legal. Yet the other choice would not completely be right as well. The hope is that developers of software will start thinking up new and new ways, not to combat piracy, but to make their products more and more enticing so that the end user would be more compelled to pay for their software.
    • Joel L 13:55 on December 13, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      “The idea that finding a way to decrease piracy is a valid method to increase profits, is in it’s essence, false”

      If piracy was not possible, people would buy things. (So no, it is not false).
      I would say the issue is with the (unsuccessful) methods used in trying to decrease piracy.

      You say that “that piracy and free sharing is the modus operandi of the Internet”. So do you think things should never change? “Free sharing (of other people’s work)” is not the same as free speech.

      Why is it bad to combat piracy? The aim should be to provide services people want and can easily pay for, not work around the premise that “everybody steals, now what?”

      • Sander 20:05 on December 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        The aim SHOULD indeed be providing services that people actually want to pay for, but what I’m trying to argue against is the idea of “1 less pirated copy = 1 more bought copy”. Combating piracy is not bad in anyway, it is still combating crime. But doing so under the pretense that the thing being stolen is even remotely similiar to something tangible. A sausage is indeed just a collection of molecules just as software is a collection of bits. But its not treated the same.
        It is difficult (NOT impossible) to percieve something you never actually have any physical contact with as something of equal value with a sausage. Especially when you can copy, share, and recreate anything an endless amount of times. All the contact you have with it is seeing a collection of pixels on your screens that are supposed to symbolize the same value that a box and a disk would have on your desk, they do not
        . A point in my essay was that when the product is good enough, people will still buy it, did I not make that clear?
        Free sharing is not like free speech, that much is true. Yet limiting file sharing could have very similiar implications.

        • Joel L 09:29 on December 16, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Still – if redistributing other people’s work is declared illegal, how does that have implications on free speech?

          Crime in the physical world is not illegal because it is “bad”, it is illegal because it harms people (etc).

          Content-producing corporations may argue that “pirated copy = money lost”, but this is because it’s their agenda, and most of the people are still gullible enough to believe it. But the fact that it is not a direct correlation, doesn’t make the argument invalid, and does not make stealing justified.

          If a county applies capital punishment for petty crimes, it is unacceptable for most people, but does still not make the crimes themselves acceptable.

          Are ideas worthless? Is the value of a book only in the amount of paper it is printed on?

    • Paavo Viilup 08:53 on December 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Answer Joel’s question!

      Anyway, isn’t a sausage also just an organised collection of molecules, just like a file is an organised collection of bits? And when I eat the sausage it’s as if it never existed!

  • Sander 15:06 on November 17, 2011 Permalink |

    Are computer specs important for the everyday user? 

    Yes, they are. But why? As most gamers would tell you that it would be for playing the latest videogames. Apple advertisements would have you believe that an extra powerful processor will make your computer usable. While all of these are true to some extent, yet is all this techological splendor really important to your average everyday Joe?
    On one hand, the fact that technological specs are central to the user experience is absolutely true. Computers are not like people, they do not evolve. Therefore, buying a computer which has specs suiting your need does make for a better user experience. User experience, in our times, can basically be defined as having a smooth loading, fast interface which  never crashes or fails. And in most cases the secret to providing this is having good technological specifications. By being aware of a product’s specifications and choosing exactly the right tool for what the user needs, the average Joe will enjoy his computer use much, much more.
    Yet how much is decided by a computer’s specifications in our modern times? Decidedly not much. We live in an age, where the evolution of technology is most probably reaching somewhat of a plateau. Specs don’t rule the playfield anymore, the GUI and the operating system do. So, in terms of the experience of the end user, having a smooth running and easy to use operating system may be of greater importance. As defined by apple, a good product is the meeting point of technology and innovation. In an age where the technology is highly developed, the focus turns to the innovation. More and more can be achieved by having a better OS. For example, the Apple iOS is capable of making even older phones run smoothly, whereas Android OS can crash even the most advanced of telephones. Therefore, picking the most innovative product may guarantee a better experience than a product with the best specifications. It just comes down to a user’s needs.
    As with most questions in the world, there is no definite answer. If the average Joe wants to run five copies of a new game at once, and play at a hundred FPS, then the specs are of course necessary. Yet for most people, who require usability from their products are not as dependent on the nitty-gritty of technical specifications.
    • Joel L 14:05 on December 3, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I’m a bit late to this party, but:

      “Apple advertisements would have you believe that an extra powerful processor will make your computer usable.” -> What alternate universe Apple ads have you been watching?

      “User experience, in our times, can basically be defined as having a smooth loading, fast interface which never crashes or fails.”
      No. Based on this definition, a super-fast-loading app that doesn’t help the user at all (ie. is useless) provides a great user experience.
      Or a text editor that – by design – doesn’t allow you to type certain (randomly selected) letters. Would be extremely frustrating and unusable in practice, but lovely based on these criteria.

      You use a “one one hand / on the other hand” structure, but the statements in the “on one hand” are incorrect, and the combination of the two is very confusing. One one hand, Hitler loved jews. Yet he wanted to kill them all.
      Godwin’s law.

    • Paavo Viilup 08:33 on December 4, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Furthermore, the “one the hand / on the other hand” is also stylistically faulty. It’s a classic really – the one hand is there, but the other one doesn’t really make an appearance at all.

      Otherwise, I do not really get the whole usability debate. You need optimally chosen hardware to support the chosen interface, but you don’t really need it?

  • Sander 12:38 on November 3, 2011 Permalink |

    Why make future vision videos 

    No doubt, many of us have seen the very futuristic videos from various technology manufacturers, like Microsoft, android, Nokia, HTC, and even Firefox. These videos can be of various different technologies. As the name “future vision” may suggest, the videos are usually of a vision of the future, but they might be of a certain product as well. All of these portray, to some extent, various technology which is not yet available, or even possible. Yet the question stands. Why are these videos made if the products portrayed in them are far from ever being released?
    The answer is simple. To dream. The future vision videos are somewhat like a statement of intent given to fans and brand loyalists. So, if the products advertised aren’t actually coming out for a veeeery long while, people can still get a good idea about where the company is headed and where its goals lie. For example, the future vision video made by Microsoft introduces their dream of integrating touch sensitive surfaces and 3d imaging\hologram to almost all facets of life, thus making technology more integrated with everyday activities like planning meetings, doing office work, or even cooking. Most times, these videos try and demonstrate how  tech can be integrated with daily activities and normal work process. This is perhaps an explanation to why these videos are published so freely. There are no new patentable tech ideas which could be compromised by publishing the video. And if there are any, they are probably already patented.
    This way, manufacturers can just make videos of their ideas and goals concerning the technology they want to make. This really has no negative impact, if it lets the design team keep working and the fans keep ogling and cool looking new tech.

  • Sander 11:36 on October 13, 2011 Permalink |  

    Why it is important to get an iPhone 4S(teve)? 

    With the recent passing of visionary and businessman Steve Jobs and the announcement of the new iPhone 4s, it would seem that the new phone is somewhat the relic of the late Jobs. Yet as with any reiteration of an Apple gadget, there is the question whether the new product has enough worthy improvements to consider it a must-buy product.
    From a more sentimental side, buying the iPhone 4S would be like honoring a great visionary of technology. People tend to assume that all the products that apple releases have been personally designed by Steve. This understanding might not completely be right, but buying an iPhone 4s, or for that matter any apple product, is helping support Jobs’ vision and his legacy. So some more sentimental fans of the fruit company might indeed indeed consider it important to buy the new phone on basis of helping out the company and supporting Steve’s vision.
    From a technological point of view, the new iPhone is a bit more of a discussion.  Purely on a technological basis, the phone is not that much of an improvement over the iPhone 4s. The 4s is indeed faster, or twice as fast as Apple would have you believe. The 4s does indeed have a better camera. Yet, there is no real breakthrough  in technology. With the iPhone 4, we were introduced to a phone which in its usability, design, and UI was and is magnitudes better than anything else on the market at the time. As with the iPhone 3Gs, the 4s just builds on the existing formula, which indeed is rather brilliant on its own. Still, this doesn’t give the iPhone 4s the merit to be called a must-have product.
    Most all products that Apple produces have their own merit and their own area, in which they are outstanding. Yet, some are more outstanding than others. The first iPod for example. Yet the new iPhone 4s holds no such amazement and wonder. Therefore, it cannot be called something truly groundbreaking. Just a great improvement on the last version of the iPhone.

    • Paavo Viilup 17:46 on December 6, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Finally some analysis! In the context of the other irony-spouting entries, this is like a calm lake of rationality.

    • Joel L 16:11 on December 7, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      By the way – Apple (as far as knowledgeable people say) plans products many years in advance, so even the next iPhone will be greatly influenced by Mr. Jobs.

  • Sander 05:53 on September 30, 2011 Permalink |

    On wednesday, we could have classes about the “soft side” of IT. Lets say, news, essays, discussions and cool stuff.
    This will help us start the week at a slow and comfortable pace.
    On thursday, we could practice coding and work on our project.
    Friday can be left free to do pretty much whatever we feel like.
    Also, we should make a class on saturday, where we sit down at home and play some videogames with eachother and have fun.

  • Sander 06:22 on September 23, 2011 Permalink |

    The new Facebook layout came to most users… 

    The new Facebook layout came to most users without a proper warning. The new features introduce new things which aren’t altogether too groundbreaking. Yet whilst using the site, they catch the eye almost immediately.

    The first thing, of course, would be the  the tiny profile picture icon on the top. This is a kind of insignificant in the big picture. In  fact, the top bar now resembles google+, because it has been made a bit thinner and more streamlined. This has no actual practical benefit other than making the site look more stylish and web 2.0. All in all, a tiny improvement which makes the site look cooler, which is certainly worth something.

    Secondly, there are new improvements in sorting posts and marking what is important. Now, each post has a “mark as top story” button on it, which Facebook claims, will result in similar stories being brought to the top of a user’s news feed. This can potentially be a really good improvement, since all of us may not want to know  someones grandmother’s cat had his second birthday. So the “Top story” feature may bring a lot more comfort into the life of the user.
    Thirdly, the chat bar on the right of the screen has been cut in half. The upper half is now a live news feed. This is both a bit bad and a bit good. Good, because it improves how fast things can be posted on Facebook, because if you click on any item in the news feed, a little dialog box pops up, where you can comment on things. Certainly a good improvement for people who power-browse on Facebook. Yet, on the other hand, it may seem like a really complex wall of text to novice users on the Internet, which may prove to be a bit matrix-y and confusing.
    There are probably more improvements, but these are the major ones. All in all, the improvements seem to make the site more useful and more comfortable to use. As well as more cool looking.  People might dispute the fact whether Facebook is taking innovations from other social networks, but everything seems to function well so far.

    Boiled goose.

  • Sander 11:38 on September 22, 2011 Permalink |

    Boiled go- 

    What mommy does.
    My mother does not really like to get involved in IT. She works as a manager at a country that deals with cleaning services. Her job consists of managing cleaning workers and janitors, so she does most of her work of the phone. The only remotely IT related thing is using excel files to check if all of her supplies have arrived and so on.What daddy does.
    My father works at a company which imports computer technology and other electronics. As such, the involvement of IT is pretty major. The company itself is rather big, so it spans most of the Baltic. This means that the products that any one retailer wants to buy are located in another country. To solve the problem of shipping, the company has a database spanning all the countries. If someone makes an order on a product which isn’t in local sotrage, the order is sent via the system (sometimes through several countries for safety reasons), and the wanted product is sent where needed

  • Sander 19:32 on September 15, 2011 Permalink |  

    New-age computing. 

    In our modern day of the Internet and touch screens, the evolution of technology gets faster and faster, not in small increments, but rather in magnitudes. Our Internet connections have gone from kilobits to gigabits, increasing nearly a thousand fold. We live in an age where we can access the Internet just about everywhere and access a seemingly unlimited store of information of all kinds. So what could possibly be the next step? It is most certain, that there will be one, so it is in no way a question of “if?”, but rather a question of “what?” and “when?”.
    Observing current trends, one might infer that the evolution of personal computing will inevitably kill the notion of the “desktop computer”. This is because of the progression of both tablet and cloud computing. Apple’s iPad has gained a massive amount of popularity and sparked quite a humongous trend in both the world and in the designs of rival companies, like dell or HP. Smaller, more personal computing solutions are favored, and the large home tower computers seem to be on the downfall. This is mainly because the limitation no longer lies with the technology. Most things can be made portable these days. In addition to that, most people no longer have any computing needs other than browsing the web and checking email. Those tasks can be done on any phone, so the need for a large PC is diminishing.
    Another rising trend in personal computing is cloud computing. The surfacing of web utilities like dropbox are a sign of that. Having a large harddrive is somewhat a thing of the past, because the amount of files that can only be kept on an HDD is getting smaller. Music and movies can be kept in the cloud via iTunes. Documents and files can be safely stored
    in the cloud using dropbox. Photos can be moved straight into online galleries. Due to this, the need for a large stationary harddrive has almost disappeared. Further diminishing the need for a personal PC.
    Judging by these two trends, it would seem that the notion of the “desktop” is becoming obsolete. Large home computers are being replaced by small portable tablets. Data storage is moving into the cloud. Taking both of these into consideration, the next age would be the age of the cloud, were a person’s workspace is portable and most of his data is stored in the cloud.
    Personally, I’m looking forward to an age where I have access to all my information on the move.
    • Paavo Viilup 06:56 on October 1, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think the fastest home Internet connection in Estonia is still measured in megabits (Starman’s 120 Mbit/s package), not gigabits. Also, I think in the future clouding everything will function better than it does. Storing a terabyte of music in the cloud is almost impossible currently, having it on a portable hard drive is a reality, however.

  • Sander 11:46 on September 7, 2011 Permalink |


    Things I know how to do well in ITGS:

    • The “soft” side of IT
    • Presenting and explaining the stuff I know
    • All things concerning social networking, mass media, apple products, animes, and various flavors of ice cream
    • Making bad jokes in class
    • Discussions

    Things I should learn more:

    • Coding and web design
Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc