Slashdot Mirror

Now should I complete the whoring and post a cut and paste?

naaa....

TechTV is owned by Vulcan Inc., the Bellevue, Washington-based investment organization of Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen.

Hmmm... is TechTV objective? Do they also have Apple and Open Source programming?

The Screen Savers also feature a lot of Microsoft bits. But they throw a lot of other bits in there too. They did a week of shows mostly dedicated to Linux. They do "alteratips" which are tips for mostly MacOS X and Linux (although, like the Windows tips, they're pretty light-weight). They do on-air help calls for Linux and Mac issues on occasion. The show hosts occasionally grumble about Microsoft and its faults (technical and political/marketing). Tux appears in the background often. OSX's strengths are lauded. Linux is often portrayed as an OS people already enjoy, and the viewer might like to try out too. And for their daily tech news, they often quote articles from Slashdot.

Of course, that's not to say all of TechTV is as enlightned. Sometimes TechTV Live and Cyber Crime have articles with viewpoints and/or quotes that make me cringe.

In all, Paul Allen seems to have a fairly wide focus despite his involvement in Microsoft. And TechTV seems to harbor an environment that allows a reflection of a wide degree of the IT industry.

It's a cable station devoted to computers, internet, and hour long paid infomercials in the middle of the day. Way back when it was nice and all, showed some pretty cool stuff, now the only thing worth watching is when they show E3 coverage, all the rest is Chris Parillo demonstrating how to click on the "Start" button.

--Travis

I wrote it here before, read the tip at the bottom of this page. It involves hex-editing a DLL.

I wonder how long we can still do that until MS decides to extend Windows File Protection to protect MS Office and prevent you from making any changes.. "Bad user! Your modifications have been undone! This is my computer! Stop trying to do anything else or I'll DMCA you!

Talk about fucked up, hey? MS removes the attachment feature because users are too fucking stupid to realize they shouldn't trust all emails with attachment. I use Outlook 2000 (I don't run untrusted attachments, and double-clicking a vbs file opens it in Notepad on my PC) and no way I'm upgrading to Office XP. But there is a way around it involving hex-editing a particular DLL and changing the banned extensions to "LOL", "OMG", etc (More about it at the bottom of this page)..

This reminds me of one of my favorite parts of the Libera Manifesto (which refuses to load at the moment):
"There is such a thing as a free lunch, but don't forget to tip your waiter."

Lockergome is one site that has shown that advertising can work if done well.

My two cents.

Text-based adds definately do work, and work quite well at that. The email newsletter Lockergnome is supported by mostly text-based adds (and a few banners now and then). Even in this tech downturn or economic slump or whatever you wanna call it, Lockergnome is growing rapidly. To see how Lockergnome's advertising works, look at their advertising page. There are some interesting comments about web-based advertising, and how Lockergnome makes it work.

Text-based adds definately do work, and work quite well at that. The email newsletter Lockergnome is supported by mostly text-based adds (and a few banners now and then). Even in this tech downturn or economic slump or whatever you wanna call it, Lockergnome is growing rapidly. To see how Lockergnome's advertising works, look at their advertising page. There are some interesting comments about web-based advertising, and how Lockergnome makes it work.

Microsoft has been compiling a massive database of names, registration codes, product keys, and linking them with data pulled from e-mail addresses stored in Outlook, Outlook Express, etc. as well as the serial numbers that can now be easily obtained from any Pentium-III CPU.

Microsoft has been coordinating their efforts clandestinely with other software manufacturers and predict law enforcement will be to a point where they can finally enforce copyright and anti-piracy laws by around 2005.

Also, I actually know a great deal about the laws regulating telemarketers (although certainly not as much as you probably have probably learned in the course of your research). A useful link you might want to put online as your site progresses is for the free Enigma software (which I first read of on Lockergnome which is just a little program that helps you keep track of and respond to telemarketers, letting you quote relevant laws.

The main problem you seem to have with my comment is, I believe, the same that several others have had - with my third point. Unfortunately, I think it may be a misunderstanding, because I did not quote the original article thoroughly enough before responding to it. When I said "no, no, no," I was responding to the question about whether "such behavior" could be "combatted." But if you go back to the original article, you'll see that Cliff was writing about whether laws like those that protect you from phone harassment (from pranksters instead of telemarketers) could also be used against DDOS attackers. I definitely don't think that's a good idea. And I greatly fear that the guaranteed protections of free speech will become dangerously entangled with computer code (indeed, they already are), which could provoke unfortunate unexpected consequences for both programmers and law enforcement.

Finally, one last point about something you wrote: "doesn't realize that the First Amendment and all the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court deal with INDVIDUALS and that telemarketers are calling on the behalf of a corporation/company. The activities of a company CAN be and ARE regulated, including what they CAN and CANNOT SAY."

I'm sorry to say you are incorrect. The distinction is not between individuals and corporations. There are no special rules on companies, or other corporate bodies. In fact, the word "corporate body" is redundant - the word "corporation" etymologically means "body," because a corporation is treated like a single person, rather than a mere association of individuals. Congress cannot make special laws restricting the speech of corporations.

However, Congress can make laws restricting the actions of individuals and corporations - and the Supreme Court has ruled in cases since about the days of WWI that certain things that are literally "speech" are actually actions - such as yelling fire in a crowded theather - and can thereby be regulated. The regulations and restrictions placed on telemarketers are not placed on their freedom of speech, but rather on their freedom to take certain "actions." If you were an individual (and not a corpoation) soliciting for money over the phone during restricted times of day, I bet you could be punished the same way a corporation would be.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. And I very much look forward to watching your telemarketing pages progress.

Yours,
A. Keiper
Washington, D.C.