At least you aren't forced to have one of those cards in order to buy your groceries. Sure, I may pay a little bit extra but at least my information isn't for sale. All they know is that someone bought some coffee and toilet paper and not what household.
``It'd be interesting to learn how they are publicising this to customers.''
Were you born yesterday? They won't publicize this at all. The average consumer will be lucky to find it in the six pages of crap that gets stuffed into their phone bill. And if they do find something that looks a little odd, they won't know what it means because of the obtuse language these announcements employ.
``you generally have to check or uncheck a little box when you're registering for things to stop or allow affiliates receiving info about you these days anyway''
You mean like the people who were signed up with that major ISP who opted out only to find that the ISP had changed the policy and automatically opted everyone back in again? And without informing their customers? How many affiliates received their email addresses (and God knows what else) before they found out that their opt-out had been changed without notification?
You must not have a job or a life if you have the time to visit the web site of every company that you do business with to check up on the privacy policies and ensure that you haven't been opted back in. How often should I check? Daily? And how many people will get your private info when the policy changes five minutes after you've opted out again.
If someone tells a company that they don't want their information sold or revealed, that should be it. Consumers should not have to play this little game of ``How about now? No? OK.... pause... OK, how about now? No?... pause... OK, then how about now?''
I recall reading or hearing that either the S60 or the S80 was the last true Volvo and that everything else has a lot of design input and direction from Ford. Perhaps that's where the decision to use Windows 98 came from. (``Hey it's four years old! All of the bugs must be worked out by now, eh?'') Heck I barely trust Win98 to run the system (for now, needed to get into network at work) that's sitting on my desk. I can't even imagine trusting it in a mobile application unless it was some silly trip computer.
``I love my 740 wagon...''
We have a 240 wagon that's still going strong. We're close to rolling over the odometer for the second time and I expect we'll see the third before we finally replace it. I'm doubting that too many of the newer Volvos will last as long. Still see a lot of 240s on the road, though.
``In the book it is clear that it is not technology that is the cause of oppression but rather human nature which must be actively subverted to achieve a more equitable society''
And just like a loaded gun in the hands of a homicidal maniac, there are some of today's technologies that seem to bring out the worst in politicians. Hmm... how do we employ that technology to keep the politicians and bureaucrats in check. (They seem to find all sorts of ways around sunshine laws, after all.)
``1.) an MIT writer,''
If I recall, the author was from UCal/Berkeley. And I was surprised that MIT press didn't catch the technical gaffes in the article.
Eighteen years ago, the technology to bring us to something like Orwell wrote about wasn't quite there. Now it is -- or nearly is -- and we have reason to worry about Orwell's vision. (Though I'm not all that comfortable using the word ``vision'' as it normally connotates something a lot more positive than what we could get if we're not vigilant.)
And, while I usually think highly of the articles I read in T.R., I have to disagree with this one. First, because I think the author doesn't look deeply enough into those technological advances that he says are liberating. The average citizen may be the first to adopt these new devices but when government takes notice and starts implementing systems or programs around them watch out. For example, small/inexpensive cameras were a boon to ordinary people when it allowed them to monitor their front door or the baby sitter that might be abusing their kids. Now the government is taking more pictures and videos than they can possibly analyze; so many that they now want to use computer systems to scan them to look for certain individuals. How many times was your picture taken today?
Second, look at the top of the T.R. column. ``Technology for Presidents''. Hah, no wonder the tone of the article seemed like nothing more than happy talk. Yep, just go on with all your homeland defense measures. And don't worry about those folks that warn their Orwellian implications. They don't count if it's Democracy(tm) that employs those measures.
Third, he screwed up about the GPS receivers being used in Desert Storm being available at Radio Shack. That might be true today but it wasn't back during Desert Storm. There were commercial C/A-only GPS receivers available back then but they were mostly marine units and weren't the sort of thing that you'd want to be shlepping around the desert. There were some handheld LORAN receivers available back then (maybe at Radio Shack, I can't remember) which came in handy as the Arabian peninsula and surrounding areas had very good LORAN-C coverage. I heard stories of soldiers -- when they found that they'd be advancing across the desert -- asking their wives to run down to the PX to buy one and have it shipped via ASAFP Express to their spouse. All those oil tankers had to use something to stay inside the lines and if it was good enough for them, it ought get you across the desert without too much trouble. Crimeny, where'd he get his facts.
No... call me cynical. Most of that donation will go to the schools where the politicians' kids go. And to a handful of rural schools where support for the president is weak. Wanna bet?
``...the letter from the MS President/Peru indicated that the local software industry
would be HURT if the gov't''
{emphasis mine]
Oh, well, there's an unbiased viewpoint for you.
So by software industry, Microsoft means companies that sell services for Microsoft products. IMHO, those folks would only temporarily be affected by a switch. MS system wouldn't disappear overnight. The local service community would still have jobs supporting the existing system, they'd be able to learn new skills related to OSS, and they'd be able to support the new systems. Where's the problem? This sort of change in technology and required skills happens all the time.
Great. Someone managed to convince the Peruvian president that having the internet in their schools will make their country a better place to live. I wonder what Peru will be like if this donation makes the Peruvian legislature decide to adopt Microsoft software as the sole product used on the government. Well, personally, I think it won't be anything good.
One doesn't have to read too many education-related journals to find studies that indicate that introducing high-technology solutions into schools rarely produces the end result touted by the people who push for it. The problems in education are hardly due to a lack of high-tech. But that doesn't stop companies like Microsoft who see a donation as a tax-free means of indoctrinating future customers.
In the long run, I suspect that it'll pretty much kill any software industry that Peru might now have or hope to have. (Perhaps an ulterior motive on MS's part, eh?). The country will wind up spending a fortune on keeping current with new Microsoft products. Money that would have been much better spent on improving other things in Peru. Then, some years from now, the Peruvian government will be asking themselves why things aren't any better than they were in 2002. Maybe they'll come to the realization that they would have been much better off listening to Dr. Nunez, adopting a technology that would have put the country in a much better position to develop a local industry (one that could have possibly resulted in creating jobs exporting software and/or services to neighboring countries), and helping themselves than the course they did follow of taking the easy way out and accepting Microsoft's self-serving generocity. All for the immediate gratification of having a PC in the classroom with software created by the richest man in the world. (For some bureaucrats this is, apparently, a feeling that's better than sex.)
It's the old ``Give a man a fish...'' concept. This donation doesn't help Peru do anything more than (eventually) send money to the MS (for upgrades, etc.) and to be consumers instead of creators.
Note: Before anyone slams me for being anti-Microsoft (true as that may be;-) ), it's more of a case of being anti-sleazy-corporation. I know of other large corps that go through these motions of wanting to help out in the third-world through programs like this MS donation and it's all a sham. When you listen closely to what they propose (and you won't hear it in a press release ; someone would catch on.), you find that what they're really after is getting XYZ Corp. seen as a nice bunch of people who the locals will eventually turn to when they finally have enough money to spend. There's no altruism there at all; it's all PR directed toward increasing market share. After you hear a couple of these presentations it makes you sick.
``I hope that price is correct - the real danger is that MS makes the media center dirt cheap - you can't afford NOT to have one.''
I hope he's right about that cost too. Combine that with the recent story about the TV networks wanting to place ads on the bottom part of the screen during the broadcasts and you'll have people turning off their TVs in HUGE numbers. Who'll need a Microsoft Media Center then?
Besides, if I had $1000-$2000 to spend on entertainment hardware, a set top box wouldn't even be on my list. Hell, I'm down to about 4-5 hours per week of TV anyway. (Now rented movies are another thing altogether:-) ) What benefit would anyone's set top box provide to me?
``This seems eerily similar to that settlement involving 'free' software to public schools.''
Yep. It's free until the BSA comes knocking in a year or so.
These donations seem a bit too much like those sales pitches for DSL that tell you ``only $19.95 a month' And then, very quitely, ``after the first two months regular prices apply. Other restrictions apply.'' Accepting a donation from Microsoft is, I think, a good indication that you're either: a) soft in the head, b) a natural born sucker, or c) both a) and b).
``However, in some respects, I believe this is illegal..''
IMHO, this is the same as the dumping of steel or grain (or whatever) by some company into a foreign company to stifle the development of domestic competition. I'm not sure if it's illegal per se but if Microsoft were a foreign company and tried this stunt in the U.S., it'd probably trigger an import tariff being assessed to their software. {\sarcasm But it's OK if an American company does it to another country}.
Does Peru have much of a domestic software industry that could complain about this? Probably not. Or at least not one with enough money to combat this latest MS tactic.
I suspect that the real problem has turned out to be soccer.
For a long time, if you weren't the big enough for football in the Fall, you went out for cross country. Nowadays, high schools have soccer in the Fall to compete with the cross country programs. Which of the two sports, cross country or soccer, will ol' dad -- who's still disappointed that his boy didn't grow up to be halfback material -- be encouraging junior to take up? And which one's more likely to have high school girls cheering on the sidelines? (We never got cheerleaders to even show up until they found out we were ranked sixth in the state.)
McDonalds might be something of a problem because it's crap food but when I was running it took a hell of a lot of calories to do the mileage we would be putting in (sometimes up to 20 miles a day during the season and usually a dozen or so in the off season). A cross country runner was basically a calorie-to-speed converter. A Big Mac doesn't hurt so bad when it's a smaller proportion of the other food you were eating just to keep yourself going (lots of carbs and fruit).
``a copy for the car, or the kids, or the portable CD player, has to go out and "license" multiple copies."
I just hope she doesn't give the record companies ideas.''
This is already pretty much their official position. The RIAA thinks you're pirate if you burn a copy of a CD to play in the car. Any recording of a CD distributed by one of their members is contributing to the destruction of their industry. Hell, even loaning a CD to a friend is taboo according to what you see printed on most major label CDs.
What the record companies are failing to realize is that they will eventually make it such a hassle that their potential customers will find silence far preferable to having to deal with the restrictions that are placed on listening to music. Who will they blame for the falloff in sales then?
Announce a workshop on the day before (what is for the people who would be most affected by the outcome of the workshop) a four day weekend to virtually guarantee that few, if any, people are going to hear about it or have the time to compose any meaningful input.
Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't publicly announce the workshop until July 12th.
This smacks of the ``let's sneak it through when they're not looking'' tactic that the mayor of Chicago and his political cronies pulled in Illinois when they pushed through a bill to authorize a major airport expansion on Christmas Eve because they knew that few people would catch on.
``the Shroud of Turin may have been an earlier example (substantially earlier) of photography using ingredients as basic as egg-white for treating cloth (the photopaper) and urine for developing it.''
Now while I'm wondering how someone decided that oysters were edible, I can wonder how someone figured out 2000 years ago that urinating on an egg-white soaked cloth would produce an recognizable image. I know that things like gun cotton and Bakelite were discovered by accident but this egg-white thing I'm finding a bit hard to believe. But I would sure like to see a Mel Brooks bit on that historic moment.
``Microsoft aren't [sic] a security company. They're a company that writes an Operating System. Perhaps they should stop trying to dominate the market and continue on building their line of OSes.''
Haven't we all wondered what Microsoft could have accomplished if they'd directed all the brain power devoted to screwing over their competitors to something more useful? Like a better product with world-class stability and security?
``One of the articles stated "If it's as buggy as the rest of Microsoft's code, can we really trust it?" And that's what I'm happy to agree with.''
Hear, hear! That's what makes me somewhat skeptical that Palladium will ever be adopted. Microsoft's reputation has accumulated an awful lot of tarnish for the computer press to begin having the reaction that is has in the past few days. Normally, they'd be hailing this as the greatest thing since <fill-in-the-blank>. But who trusts Microsoft with anything (product, partnerships, etc.) any more?
(For some reason, thogh, part of me thinks that, if Palladium is widely dismissed, Microsoft will begin whining ``Well, don't go blaming us for these viruses. We offered you Palladium...'' Uh, yah right.)
Slashdot Mirror
At least you aren't forced to have one of those cards in order to buy your groceries. Sure, I may pay a little bit extra but at least my information isn't for sale. All they know is that someone bought some coffee and toilet paper and not what household.
Were you born yesterday? They won't publicize this at all. The average consumer will be lucky to find it in the six pages of crap that gets stuffed into their phone bill. And if they do find something that looks a little odd, they won't know what it means because of the obtuse language these announcements employ.
You mean like the people who were signed up with that major ISP who opted out only to find that the ISP had changed the policy and automatically opted everyone back in again? And without informing their customers? How many affiliates received their email addresses (and God knows what else) before they found out that their opt-out had been changed without notification?
You must not have a job or a life if you have the time to visit the web site of every company that you do business with to check up on the privacy policies and ensure that you haven't been opted back in. How often should I check? Daily? And how many people will get your private info when the policy changes five minutes after you've opted out again.
If someone tells a company that they don't want their information sold or revealed, that should be it. Consumers should not have to play this little game of ``How about now? No? OK. ... pause ... OK, how about now? No? ... pause ... OK, then how about now?''
But you'd still get pestered with all the damned phone calls.
'nuff said.
I recall reading or hearing that either the S60 or the S80 was the last true Volvo and that everything else has a lot of design input and direction from Ford. Perhaps that's where the decision to use Windows 98 came from. (``Hey it's four years old! All of the bugs must be worked out by now, eh?'') Heck I barely trust Win98 to run the system (for now, needed to get into network at work) that's sitting on my desk. I can't even imagine trusting it in a mobile application unless it was some silly trip computer.
We have a 240 wagon that's still going strong. We're close to rolling over the odometer for the second time and I expect we'll see the third before we finally replace it. I'm doubting that too many of the newer Volvos will last as long. Still see a lot of 240s on the road, though.
Shoot! I had a good comeback for that post... until you had to come along with an even lower User #.
And just like a loaded gun in the hands of a homicidal maniac, there are some of today's technologies that seem to bring out the worst in politicians. Hmm... how do we employ that technology to keep the politicians and bureaucrats in check. (They seem to find all sorts of ways around sunshine laws, after all.)
If I recall, the author was from UCal/Berkeley. And I was surprised that MIT press didn't catch the technical gaffes in the article.
Oh, please, please, Intel, have it broadcast this using a clip of Vincent Price from the end of the original `The Fly': `Help me! Help me!'
Whew. Imagine if they'd been as financially successful as a certain Seattle-area businessman.
Eighteen years ago, the technology to bring us to something like Orwell wrote about wasn't quite there. Now it is -- or nearly is -- and we have reason to worry about Orwell's vision. (Though I'm not all that comfortable using the word ``vision'' as it normally connotates something a lot more positive than what we could get if we're not vigilant.)
And, while I usually think highly of the articles I read in T.R., I have to disagree with this one. First, because I think the author doesn't look deeply enough into those technological advances that he says are liberating. The average citizen may be the first to adopt these new devices but when government takes notice and starts implementing systems or programs around them watch out. For example, small/inexpensive cameras were a boon to ordinary people when it allowed them to monitor their front door or the baby sitter that might be abusing their kids. Now the government is taking more pictures and videos than they can possibly analyze; so many that they now want to use computer systems to scan them to look for certain individuals. How many times was your picture taken today?
Second, look at the top of the T.R. column. ``Technology for Presidents''. Hah, no wonder the tone of the article seemed like nothing more than happy talk. Yep, just go on with all your homeland defense measures. And don't worry about those folks that warn their Orwellian implications. They don't count if it's Democracy(tm) that employs those measures.
Third, he screwed up about the GPS receivers being used in Desert Storm being available at Radio Shack. That might be true today but it wasn't back during Desert Storm. There were commercial C/A-only GPS receivers available back then but they were mostly marine units and weren't the sort of thing that you'd want to be shlepping around the desert. There were some handheld LORAN receivers available back then (maybe at Radio Shack, I can't remember) which came in handy as the Arabian peninsula and surrounding areas had very good LORAN-C coverage. I heard stories of soldiers -- when they found that they'd be advancing across the desert -- asking their wives to run down to the PX to buy one and have it shipped via ASAFP Express to their spouse. All those oil tankers had to use something to stay inside the lines and if it was good enough for them, it ought get you across the desert without too much trouble. Crimeny, where'd he get his facts.
Overall, I give the article a thumbs down.
No... call me cynical. Most of that donation will go to the schools where the politicians' kids go. And to a handful of rural schools where support for the president is weak. Wanna bet?
Oh, well, there's an unbiased viewpoint for you.
So by software industry, Microsoft means companies that sell services for Microsoft products. IMHO, those folks would only temporarily be affected by a switch. MS system wouldn't disappear overnight. The local service community would still have jobs supporting the existing system, they'd be able to learn new skills related to OSS, and they'd be able to support the new systems. Where's the problem? This sort of change in technology and required skills happens all the time.
Great. Someone managed to convince the Peruvian president that having the internet in their schools will make their country a better place to live. I wonder what Peru will be like if this donation makes the Peruvian legislature decide to adopt Microsoft software as the sole product used on the government. Well, personally, I think it won't be anything good.
One doesn't have to read too many education-related journals to find studies that indicate that introducing high-technology solutions into schools rarely produces the end result touted by the people who push for it. The problems in education are hardly due to a lack of high-tech. But that doesn't stop companies like Microsoft who see a donation as a tax-free means of indoctrinating future customers.
In the long run, I suspect that it'll pretty much kill any software industry that Peru might now have or hope to have. (Perhaps an ulterior motive on MS's part, eh?). The country will wind up spending a fortune on keeping current with new Microsoft products. Money that would have been much better spent on improving other things in Peru. Then, some years from now, the Peruvian government will be asking themselves why things aren't any better than they were in 2002. Maybe they'll come to the realization that they would have been much better off listening to Dr. Nunez, adopting a technology that would have put the country in a much better position to develop a local industry (one that could have possibly resulted in creating jobs exporting software and/or services to neighboring countries), and helping themselves than the course they did follow of taking the easy way out and accepting Microsoft's self-serving generocity. All for the immediate gratification of having a PC in the classroom with software created by the richest man in the world. (For some bureaucrats this is, apparently, a feeling that's better than sex.)
It's the old ``Give a man a fish...'' concept. This donation doesn't help Peru do anything more than (eventually) send money to the MS (for upgrades, etc.) and to be consumers instead of creators.
Note: Before anyone slams me for being anti-Microsoft (true as that may be ;-) ), it's more of a case of being anti-sleazy-corporation. I know of other large corps that go through these motions of wanting to help out in the third-world through programs like this MS donation and it's all a sham. When you listen closely to what they propose (and you won't hear it in a press release ; someone would catch on.), you find that what they're really after is getting XYZ Corp. seen as a nice bunch of people who the locals will eventually turn to when they finally have enough money to spend. There's no altruism there at all; it's all PR directed toward increasing market share. After you hear a couple of these presentations it makes you sick.
Just goes to show yah how ``innovative'' Microsoft is. Rehashing old Apple ideas.
Middle-click anarchist. Two-button mice stink.
I hope he's right about that cost too. Combine that with the recent story about the TV networks wanting to place ads on the bottom part of the screen during the broadcasts and you'll have people turning off their TVs in HUGE numbers. Who'll need a Microsoft Media Center then?
Besides, if I had $1000-$2000 to spend on entertainment hardware, a set top box wouldn't even be on my list. Hell, I'm down to about 4-5 hours per week of TV anyway. (Now rented movies are another thing altogether :-) ) What benefit would anyone's set top box provide to me?
Yep. It's free until the BSA comes knocking in a year or so.
These donations seem a bit too much like those sales pitches for DSL that tell you ``only $19.95 a month' And then, very quitely, ``after the first two months regular prices apply. Other restrictions apply.'' Accepting a donation from Microsoft is, I think, a good indication that you're either: a) soft in the head, b) a natural born sucker, or c) both a) and b).
As you should when offered drugs: Just Say No.
IMHO, this is the same as the dumping of steel or grain (or whatever) by some company into a foreign company to stifle the development of domestic competition. I'm not sure if it's illegal per se but if Microsoft were a foreign company and tried this stunt in the U.S., it'd probably trigger an import tariff being assessed to their software. {\sarcasm But it's OK if an American company does it to another country}.
Does Peru have much of a domestic software industry that could complain about this? Probably not. Or at least not one with enough money to combat this latest MS tactic.
Oh, yes!
That's so much easier for the average person to understand.
Those attempts to run ``/MSADC/root.exe'' directed toward Apache servers? I must have seen several dozen of those this week alone. (Heh heh heh)
I suspect that the real problem has turned out to be soccer.
For a long time, if you weren't the big enough for football in the Fall, you went out for cross country. Nowadays, high schools have soccer in the Fall to compete with the cross country programs. Which of the two sports, cross country or soccer, will ol' dad -- who's still disappointed that his boy didn't grow up to be halfback material -- be encouraging junior to take up? And which one's more likely to have high school girls cheering on the sidelines? (We never got cheerleaders to even show up until they found out we were ranked sixth in the state.)
McDonalds might be something of a problem because it's crap food but when I was running it took a hell of a lot of calories to do the mileage we would be putting in (sometimes up to 20 miles a day during the season and usually a dozen or so in the off season). A cross country runner was basically a calorie-to-speed converter. A Big Mac doesn't hurt so bad when it's a smaller proportion of the other food you were eating just to keep yourself going (lots of carbs and fruit).
This is already pretty much their official position. The RIAA thinks you're pirate if you burn a copy of a CD to play in the car. Any recording of a CD distributed by one of their members is contributing to the destruction of their industry. Hell, even loaning a CD to a friend is taboo according to what you see printed on most major label CDs.
What the record companies are failing to realize is that they will eventually make it such a hassle that their potential customers will find silence far preferable to having to deal with the restrictions that are placed on listening to music. Who will they blame for the falloff in sales then?
Announce a workshop on the day before (what is for the people who would be most affected by the outcome of the workshop) a four day weekend to virtually guarantee that few, if any, people are going to hear about it or have the time to compose any meaningful input.
Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't publicly announce the workshop until July 12th.
This smacks of the ``let's sneak it through when they're not looking'' tactic that the mayor of Chicago and his political cronies pulled in Illinois when they pushed through a bill to authorize a major airport expansion on Christmas Eve because they knew that few people would catch on.
Now while I'm wondering how someone decided that oysters were edible, I can wonder how someone figured out 2000 years ago that urinating on an egg-white soaked cloth would produce an recognizable image. I know that things like gun cotton and Bakelite were discovered by accident but this egg-white thing I'm finding a bit hard to believe. But I would sure like to see a Mel Brooks bit on that historic moment.
Haven't we all wondered what Microsoft could have accomplished if they'd directed all the brain power devoted to screwing over their competitors to something more useful? Like a better product with world-class stability and security?
Hear, hear! That's what makes me somewhat skeptical that Palladium will ever be adopted. Microsoft's reputation has accumulated an awful lot of tarnish for the computer press to begin having the reaction that is has in the past few days. Normally, they'd be hailing this as the greatest thing since <fill-in-the-blank>. But who trusts Microsoft with anything (product, partnerships, etc.) any more?
(For some reason, thogh, part of me thinks that, if Palladium is widely dismissed, Microsoft will begin whining ``Well, don't go blaming us for these viruses. We offered you Palladium...'' Uh, yah right.)