Slashdot Mirror

A big problem is that even when they do allow pseudos, they seem to be re-prohibited arbitrarily and inconsistently. Maybe Google needs a Baby Belling so Mr. Left and Ms. Right of the Hand family can acquaint themselves.

(To follow up on this, I've still not visited YouTube since. Best of luck to Cerf, and I really do hope that real name issue is settled as he stated, but I didn't see evidence of that on YouTube and I increasingly feel it's too late for them to get me back. For their part, vimeo doesn't seem much better--they "encourage" real name use, and on the "DRM CHAIR" video's list of likes I saw very few users < 3y old without apparent real names--and LiveLeak has a big honking meebo/Google+ bar so they're either bought or want to be. Guess I'll have to hone my torrent release-fu.)

If, say, 2% of OSS developers are woman, it's not like bringing that figure up to 50% would mean there would be less developers, total. Quite the opposite: in an ideal case there would be almost twice as many contributors to open source, ergo, twice as much *working* code.

That is, get from this to this.

If, say, 2% of OSS developers are woman, it's not like bringing that figure up to 50% would mean there would be less developers, total. Quite the opposite: in an ideal case there would be almost twice as many contributors to open source, ergo, twice as much *working* code.

That is, get from this to this.

/WARNING: scoffers, "tin-foil hatters" and "don't make me thinkers" should skip this post. Closed minds need not apply.

Many have made the point here that Google can certainly sell my viewing habits as a persona to ad agencies and be just as effective in reaching my eyeballs/wallet without a wallet-name. My profile as a long-maintained pseudonymous writer contains a boatload more information on my viewing habits and pathways than my wallet name would (as I am extremely careful about the security of that data). So, they can sell me stuff; I still control my typist's wallet. There's also a huge difference between anonymous and pseudonymous. Those arguments have been made before and above.

A couple pieces of this puzzle can be set next to each other for contemplation:

1. Google is currently undergoing an FTC probe for antitrust violations concerning its dominance in the web-advertising market.

2. Put that piece next to the piece that shows Google's continuing handling of this issue in the face of a real groundswell of negative opinion and debate from a cross-section of users (including the security community) and the information coming from Skud (aka Robert Kirrily) about the database he is compiling of purged accounts and Googlers quitting their jobs over this issue.

3. The just-passed Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act aka the Data Retention Bill.

There's a pertinent paragraph in the above-linked article about PCIPA:

"The Constitution protects privacy against government intrusion, but it doesn't stop the government from forcing private companies to do its dirty work."

Is that happening? I don't know; I don't think it's "crazy-land" to ask questions about this latest "real names or nuthin'!" push. When the government tried to push Real ID (2006) many states said "no fscking way!" and killed that movement. This latest trend smells to me like it might be an end-run around that kind of resistance; after all, if people are offering their data (on condition of using a "free" service), why then, it's perfectly legal for the government to simply buy it as another customer.

So sure, call tin-foil hat on me; call crazy-nut. There's a lot of questions about this issue that aren't being asked because of the knee-jerk reaction of "there ain't no conspiracies anywheres!" crowd. Perhaps I need to re-brand that in today's terms and call it cronyism, collusion or #trending. I'm not a "true believer" but I do have serious questions about this all being about "marketing" and "ad sales."

Miso Susanowa

You're right. I'm a big believer in proper grammar and usage. If I were in charge, The Elements of Style would be waved around like Mao's Quotations. If someone gives me a paper to edit, I'll bring out my red pen and make damn well sure that all their commas follow the Harvard tradition. However, this is the internet we're talking on, you have to expect trolls. If people are going to troll, I'd much rather them yelling about grammar instead of hot grits. I think this blog of geek etiquette said it best: "Be conservative in what you generate and liberal in what you accept." It applies to grammar comments along with everything else in the world.

3) Lack of roadmap

Lack of roadmap, huh. Tell that to mozilla or open office or MySQL or Gnome or perl or
Fedora I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Of course, I prefer a different term than "roadmap" -- vaporware.

Here's my favorite argument against HTML email. (don't forget to view the source)

Here is a classic.

It just looks dumb in Mozilla, but you can use IE to truly experience the horror.

I believe this was originally designed as an object lesson that HTML email and usenet posts are a bad idea.

There is no author identified, but I'd love to know who came up with this one.

From the perl 6 roadmap, it looks like it'll be around this time next year. But those last couple bullets are just big "????"s.