A number of articles have been posted in various places around the web about the problem of viewing native screen resolutions in Ubuntu when it's run in Parallels as a virtual machine. I'd like to offer my synthesis of the problem, as I noticed that some users had given up. Basically, I had to experiment and assemble a few 'pieces' in order to activate the native screen resolution of my MacBook, in order to 'conquer' the default maximum setting of 1024x768 pixels.
The whole process is run within Ubuntu - you shouldn't need to try to access any of the settings within your virtual machine:
(1) Applications > System Tools > Terminal
(2) sudo gedit /etc/X11/xorg.config &
(3) Enter your administrator password
(4) The xorg.config file will open in the text editor
(5) Scroll down in the file until you locate Section "Monitor"
(6) Edit the horizontal and vertical refresh rates which, by default, are inadequate for higher resolution monitors. I used the following settings:
Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Generic Monitor"
Option "DPMS"
HorizSync 28-64
VertRefresh 43-87
EndSection
(7) Now, scroll down to the next section: Section "Screen" and enter the native resolution of your monitor before each instance of lower screen resolutions. I used the following settings for my MacBook, but for a 15" MacBook Pro you'd use, for example 1440x900
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Default Screen"
Device "Generic Video Card"
Monitor "Generic Monitor"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Depth 1
Modes "1280x800" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 4
Modes "1280x800""1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1280x800" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 15
Modes "1280x800" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1280x800" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x800" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
EndSection
(8) Now save your config file. Most users would also recommend that you create a backup of your original config file, in the event that you can't boot back into the OS and wind up in the command line.
(9) System > Logout > Restart
(10) In my case, as soon as I rebooted the OS (inside parallels) it instantly started displaying in my native screen resolution. Otherwise, use System > Preferences > Screen Resolution to manually select your screen res.
Good luck. I offer no guarantees that the method is foolproof, but this workflow is what I would have liked to have found on help forums in order to avoid the convoluted process I had to go through ;-)
Jonathan.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Welcome to the Angsternet?
Call me naive, but "I sense a disturbance in the Force" on the Internet. However, whether you feel it or not is entirely dependent upon what you've seen, heard, and experienced on/about the web lately.
I opened up an online paper this morning to discover that a father of two had hanged himself on a videochat inside an 'insults' chatroom. Personally, I don't know why anyone who think that throwing around "humorous" insults at other people would be amusing - I mustn't possess the gene for that kind of 'entertainment?'
However, my thoughts on this topic began earlier this weekend when I noticed that a "guest editor" on YouTube was introducing all sorts of strange, negative, angst-driven material. I can certainly appreciate that documenting people's depression and 'hard times' can an 'art form,' but when it's unmoderated, condoned, encouraged, and let loose in the wild the psycholinguistic affect can be devastating.
When YouTube began, pretty much anything you posted was appreciated by its then-small audience. However, it's been increasingly developing into a scolding, judgmental playground where people find it 'amusing' to deride and criticize others... and, subsequently, it's developed a "big city mentality" where you can run and hide if you make mistakes, and just "switch crowds" if you seriously offend someone.
This seriously disturbs me. I have long been an advocate for utilizing the potential of such an amazing tool, but it seems like the democracy and open-minded spirit that originally drove the YouTube community is losing its way. This weekend one of the amusing users that I subscribed to a while back was "featured" on the front page of the site, but then she received torrents of abuse and criticism. I then followed her subsequent decline - she started making bleary-eyed "rants," as she was obviously harrowed by the experience. I've tried to encourage her, but of course, she's publicly putting on a brave face, and trying to act like none of this affected her. I beg to differ. This is dangerous territory - people are starting to script messages for other users like, "Why don't you just die, b***ch!" No matter how resilient you are, this can't be a positive experience for any human.
I composed a message to YouTube staff this afternoon:
"I am an educator, but I'm also a general user of YouTube. Over the past
week the featured videos (and where they're linked to) have plummeted into
depressing and unncecessarily weird avenues that are just going to spark
more dissent against YouTube by people who don't understand what it can
do. I teach in Asia, and I use YouTube as an educational tool, but there
are many schools across the US where YouTube has been completely banned.
I'm worried that the direction that the feature section is taking, and the
lack of ACTUAL good conduct in many areas of YouTube are going to be a
tipping point that creates even more oppositional sentiment for the site.
So is it just about controversy and revenue, or are the people in charge
actually concerned about the fact that the "mood" on YouTube might
actually affect the "mood" in wider society... that's the kind of power
the site has, so I'm pleading with the editors to not abuse it.
Don't be evil!"
...I love the potential of YouTube, but I definitely don't want to become part of what I've started to refer to as 'The Angersternet.' If a fruit store sells you enough rotten apples, then no matter how good it was in the past, you're going to decide to shop elsewhere.
I opened up an online paper this morning to discover that a father of two had hanged himself on a videochat inside an 'insults' chatroom. Personally, I don't know why anyone who think that throwing around "humorous" insults at other people would be amusing - I mustn't possess the gene for that kind of 'entertainment?'
However, my thoughts on this topic began earlier this weekend when I noticed that a "guest editor" on YouTube was introducing all sorts of strange, negative, angst-driven material. I can certainly appreciate that documenting people's depression and 'hard times' can an 'art form,' but when it's unmoderated, condoned, encouraged, and let loose in the wild the psycholinguistic affect can be devastating.
When YouTube began, pretty much anything you posted was appreciated by its then-small audience. However, it's been increasingly developing into a scolding, judgmental playground where people find it 'amusing' to deride and criticize others... and, subsequently, it's developed a "big city mentality" where you can run and hide if you make mistakes, and just "switch crowds" if you seriously offend someone.
This seriously disturbs me. I have long been an advocate for utilizing the potential of such an amazing tool, but it seems like the democracy and open-minded spirit that originally drove the YouTube community is losing its way. This weekend one of the amusing users that I subscribed to a while back was "featured" on the front page of the site, but then she received torrents of abuse and criticism. I then followed her subsequent decline - she started making bleary-eyed "rants," as she was obviously harrowed by the experience. I've tried to encourage her, but of course, she's publicly putting on a brave face, and trying to act like none of this affected her. I beg to differ. This is dangerous territory - people are starting to script messages for other users like, "Why don't you just die, b***ch!" No matter how resilient you are, this can't be a positive experience for any human.
I composed a message to YouTube staff this afternoon:
"I am an educator, but I'm also a general user of YouTube. Over the past
week the featured videos (and where they're linked to) have plummeted into
depressing and unncecessarily weird avenues that are just going to spark
more dissent against YouTube by people who don't understand what it can
do. I teach in Asia, and I use YouTube as an educational tool, but there
are many schools across the US where YouTube has been completely banned.
I'm worried that the direction that the feature section is taking, and the
lack of ACTUAL good conduct in many areas of YouTube are going to be a
tipping point that creates even more oppositional sentiment for the site.
So is it just about controversy and revenue, or are the people in charge
actually concerned about the fact that the "mood" on YouTube might
actually affect the "mood" in wider society... that's the kind of power
the site has, so I'm pleading with the editors to not abuse it.
Don't be evil!"
...I love the potential of YouTube, but I definitely don't want to become part of what I've started to refer to as 'The Angersternet.' If a fruit store sells you enough rotten apples, then no matter how good it was in the past, you're going to decide to shop elsewhere.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Online adult behavior in the Brave New World
I'll make this brief, although I don't want to lose this thought, as I feel like a new tide is coming in, and somebody should at least speculate: lately I've noticed that some adult/professional behavior is starting to reflect the behavior of kids online... adults who "duck and weave" online in order to avoid conversation or confrontation. Interaction is changing, and not necessarily for the better. We teach 'netiquette' to children (the etiquette of interacting on the web), but then those who we know well in professional circles may become so absorbed in this "kids' world" that they start to emulate their behaviors, and believe that they're acceptable.
I honestly don't believe that I'm offensive online, but as with everything in life, maybe I'm on a different 'track' to you, or maybe I'm not willing to buy into your personal crusade, because my chosen focus lies elsewhere. In the pursuit of 'optimization' or whatever other nominalization you might choose to use as an excuse for poor behavior on the Internet, are you actually succumbing to poor behavior, and justifying it with the laws of the 'wild west?' This might seem lofty or 'police like,' but are we changing the rules of interaction to suit ourselves, and to further our own causes, whilst losing our humanity in the process?
If you have a process or a project that you wish to further I can fully respect that, but if you start ducking away and using an "I can't see you, and you can't see me" methodology, aren't we just playing the kinds of games that we can play with children who haven't developed beyond the "here and now" and concrete thinking?
I honestly don't believe that I'm offensive online, but as with everything in life, maybe I'm on a different 'track' to you, or maybe I'm not willing to buy into your personal crusade, because my chosen focus lies elsewhere. In the pursuit of 'optimization' or whatever other nominalization you might choose to use as an excuse for poor behavior on the Internet, are you actually succumbing to poor behavior, and justifying it with the laws of the 'wild west?' This might seem lofty or 'police like,' but are we changing the rules of interaction to suit ourselves, and to further our own causes, whilst losing our humanity in the process?
If you have a process or a project that you wish to further I can fully respect that, but if you start ducking away and using an "I can't see you, and you can't see me" methodology, aren't we just playing the kinds of games that we can play with children who haven't developed beyond the "here and now" and concrete thinking?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Internet Apotheosis: a strangely familiar theme reemerges
I usually reserve thoughts on social networking issues for my "Tangent" blog, which is located on LiveJournal's servers, but it seems to have been down for at least 48 hours, so I'm wondering if LJ has become a victim of the fickle hordes, who've flocked to MySpace, Xanga, Facebook & co. Ahem - people in glass Blogspots shouldn't throw stones! Regardless, I'm pursuing an issue that I started looking at here:
"Selling Kudos: the psychology of baiting with virtual crumbs"
http://virtualjonathan.livejournal.com/2405.html
I've run across "Getting Rich off Those Who Work for Free" (Justin Fox, Time, March 5, 2007) twice now: first online, and then flipping through the print version. The article focuses upon the "gift economy" of contributors to Wikipedia, open-source software (Linux, Firefox), Digg, Flickr, YouTube... and the list goes on. My argument was that web sites are baiting users with "virtual crumbs," eg. token rewards like hit stats and award badges on their sites... things that cost these sites nothing. In the meantime, while users provide free content for these sites the cash is pouring AWAY from the content creators: advertising revenue increases for the websites, investors pour more money into infrastructure, staffing, and R&D... and eventually the goal of the majority of these companies is to go public, or to sell the the whole bundle off at massive profits: systems, staff, user base AND a cache of user-created content.
This is all called the "Carr-Benkler" wager in tech/journalist circles at present. Benkler is a Yale law professor, and Carr is a business writer. Their debate is whether this "gift economy" model can continue to operate, and at which point it will become monetized. However, this is not my focus for writing this.
We find ourselves in familiar territory in terms of what humans have been battling for eons: the struggle for power, fame, and wealth. Increasing numbers are posting videos to YouTube in search of fame, and possible propulsion into commercial wealth. One prime example is the comedy duo Barats and Bereta, who were two students studying at a Jesuit college in the US, who discovered that YouTube was a powerful launchpad into a commercial career as comedy developers. Now they have a network TV deal, and the sheep are lining the hallways of YouTube in droves in search of the same kind of success.
However, is it too late for most to achieve the same kind of success? Has YouTube become too much of an 'American Idol' for the lowest common denominator to ever break through unless they're essentially talented, original, and work well with production teams in order to attract the attention of the masses? As 'early adaptors' they utilized the technology intelligently and profited.
Millions of teens dream of becoming the next Michael Jordan, Britney Spears (OK, not so much at the moment), Justin Timberlake, LonelyGirl, or whatever "dream" they have of ultimate commercial fame. However, the majority of their efforts and contributions are currently being cannibalised by corporations, and they'll never see anything in return for their efforts. I have a cynical outlook on all of this, because anything that ultimately leads to massive fame and fortune is eventually going to be swallowed by the bellies of the corporations. There are extremely brief windows for innovators to break these rules, but once the window closes everything is back to 'business as usual' in the entertainment industry to develop a commercially viable following.
So, what can we do with this information? Direct the strategy back at the target market/most succeptible (ie. teenagers) in order to cannibalize their disposable cash...and time? The answer for most of us may be quite simple: work hard at specializing in a field with an enduring 'shelf-life' and continue to upskill in it, while upgrading our skills in peripheral technologies and strategies.
My suggestion is to continue to teach people about how to deconstruct the media, so that they can continue to focus upon core values and work ethics. There are literally millions of virtual hallways to get lost in every day, but where are the 'guiding lights' in the information age? I fear that we're losing ourselves in our own achievement - the creation of this fantastic communication network, but it's become its own "Babel." We know that we can connect the world, but many people still seem to be stumbling around in drunken wonder at this achievement.
It's time to refocus. We've created the machine, but now what are we going to do with it? Is 'it' controlling us, or are we controlling it?
"Selling Kudos: the psychology of baiting with virtual crumbs"
http://virtualjonathan.livejournal.com/2405.html
I've run across "Getting Rich off Those Who Work for Free" (Justin Fox, Time, March 5, 2007) twice now: first online, and then flipping through the print version. The article focuses upon the "gift economy" of contributors to Wikipedia, open-source software (Linux, Firefox), Digg, Flickr, YouTube... and the list goes on. My argument was that web sites are baiting users with "virtual crumbs," eg. token rewards like hit stats and award badges on their sites... things that cost these sites nothing. In the meantime, while users provide free content for these sites the cash is pouring AWAY from the content creators: advertising revenue increases for the websites, investors pour more money into infrastructure, staffing, and R&D... and eventually the goal of the majority of these companies is to go public, or to sell the the whole bundle off at massive profits: systems, staff, user base AND a cache of user-created content.
This is all called the "Carr-Benkler" wager in tech/journalist circles at present. Benkler is a Yale law professor, and Carr is a business writer. Their debate is whether this "gift economy" model can continue to operate, and at which point it will become monetized. However, this is not my focus for writing this.
We find ourselves in familiar territory in terms of what humans have been battling for eons: the struggle for power, fame, and wealth. Increasing numbers are posting videos to YouTube in search of fame, and possible propulsion into commercial wealth. One prime example is the comedy duo Barats and Bereta, who were two students studying at a Jesuit college in the US, who discovered that YouTube was a powerful launchpad into a commercial career as comedy developers. Now they have a network TV deal, and the sheep are lining the hallways of YouTube in droves in search of the same kind of success.
However, is it too late for most to achieve the same kind of success? Has YouTube become too much of an 'American Idol' for the lowest common denominator to ever break through unless they're essentially talented, original, and work well with production teams in order to attract the attention of the masses? As 'early adaptors' they utilized the technology intelligently and profited.
Millions of teens dream of becoming the next Michael Jordan, Britney Spears (OK, not so much at the moment), Justin Timberlake, LonelyGirl, or whatever "dream" they have of ultimate commercial fame. However, the majority of their efforts and contributions are currently being cannibalised by corporations, and they'll never see anything in return for their efforts. I have a cynical outlook on all of this, because anything that ultimately leads to massive fame and fortune is eventually going to be swallowed by the bellies of the corporations. There are extremely brief windows for innovators to break these rules, but once the window closes everything is back to 'business as usual' in the entertainment industry to develop a commercially viable following.
So, what can we do with this information? Direct the strategy back at the target market/most succeptible (ie. teenagers) in order to cannibalize their disposable cash...and time? The answer for most of us may be quite simple: work hard at specializing in a field with an enduring 'shelf-life' and continue to upskill in it, while upgrading our skills in peripheral technologies and strategies.
My suggestion is to continue to teach people about how to deconstruct the media, so that they can continue to focus upon core values and work ethics. There are literally millions of virtual hallways to get lost in every day, but where are the 'guiding lights' in the information age? I fear that we're losing ourselves in our own achievement - the creation of this fantastic communication network, but it's become its own "Babel." We know that we can connect the world, but many people still seem to be stumbling around in drunken wonder at this achievement.
It's time to refocus. We've created the machine, but now what are we going to do with it? Is 'it' controlling us, or are we controlling it?
Friday, March 09, 2007
TESMC Podcast Channel
Welcome to the TESMC podcast channel for teachers studying "Teaching ESL Students in Mainstream Classes" at SAS in Shanghai. Open up iTunes and click "Add to iTunes" to get automatic downloads of our audio and video programs.
Download iTunes here if you don't already have it!
If you're playing a video, then once the video has downloaded into the PODCAST section of iTunes, click on the program, and it will start playing in a small box on the bottom left hand side. Click INSIDE the box, and it will pop up in FULL SIZE.
Note: these video podcasts are not designed to transfer to a video iPod. They will only play inside iTunes.
Click here to get your own player.
Download iTunes here if you don't already have it!
If you're playing a video, then once the video has downloaded into the PODCAST section of iTunes, click on the program, and it will start playing in a small box on the bottom left hand side. Click INSIDE the box, and it will pop up in FULL SIZE.
Note: these video podcasts are not designed to transfer to a video iPod. They will only play inside iTunes.
Click here to get your own player.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Thoughts on "acceptable misuse" language policies on the web
Software and web sites are fundamentally driven by the underlying language/code that provides either the operating system or a web browser with instructions. If there are errors in spelling or syntax within the code, then the computer will reject the intent of the message/instruction, and refuse to execute the wish of the programmer. Writing works in much the same way, but with a much more unpredictable audience. Unlike linguistic parsing within a computer (which offers second chances to rewrite code if the message doesn't get through the first time), a human user may actually tolerate errors, but a human audience also has the capacity to walk away from the writer's work permanently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
