Perhaps I should have said "recognized" or "detected" instead of "caught". Although I think at least one of those guys was traded for a couple of poor schmucks the Russkies caught off embassy grounds at an inopportune moment.
By the way, I usually DO read the article, though I can't recall whether I did in this particular case. Allow me my own acronym: LU. As in "Lighten Up". Apply liberally to clean off old, dust-encrusted sarcasm/irony detectors. I've used it myself with some success.
At least they caught their traitors eventually. The way I heard it, somebody in the U.S. Commander in Chief's office was outing their agents as recently as a year or two ago (cough Rove cough). And one has to wonder whether suffering the embarrassment of finding a bunch of spies in your intelligence agencies is better or worse than assuming you have none because you're too stupid to catch them.
Actually, there's ample evidence that the universe really does work that way. As long as there's a situation where more energy is pumped into a system than leaks out, such as occurs in the Sun-Earth model, spontaneous organization into complex systems occurs frequently. You can illustrate this yourself with a grid of lights and a few very simple on/off rules. The rules on the grid are analogous to naturally-occurring limitations to environmental processes.
Thanks for the info. As a dial-up dinosaur with firewall and updated anti-virus protection, I suspect I might not make the ideal candidate for abuse. Nevertheless, I'll pay more attention to keeping Windows updated in future.
I can't understand why anybody would allow a company to have free access to their OS. How much more likely are you to get nailed by an evil-doer if you wait a couple of days before installing an update to make sure there's no problem with it?
I look at all the bloat-ware Microsoft seems to believe I want or need on my system, add in all the stuff they want to install for their own reasons, and I have no intention whatsoever of allowing them unsupervised access. If you had some heirlooms in your house, would you hand over the keys to a cleaning agency with a record for occasional carelessness?
The worst thing about Vista (ignoring, for the moment, well-documented driver problems, the fact that it spends a significant amount of CPU time working for MSoft and its media buddies instead of you and the fact that I personally don't give a crap about eye candy) is that I'd have to buy a whole new computer to run it.
Fuck that.
And by the way, I moved from Millennium to XP Pro seamlessly. Two printers, a scanner, network card and TV card all worked flawlessly from the moment I installed it.
A buddy of mine who owns a successful computer company went back to the 64-bit version XP Pro after encountering many problems with Vista. He values his clients, and doesn't put it on their machines, either.
If the best you can say about an expensive new OS is that it's "not that bad", I wish you much joy of it. I'll stay with one that works.
They might do even better than 80% of the selling price. Right off the top of my head I can think of a couple of ways to ensure that getting paid for songs has nothing whatsoever to do with paying tax.
Every government in the free world lets artists starve in roach-infested dumps while they're trying to make it, then taxes them to death if they finally earn some real money.
I'd rather see an artist screw the government out of a few dollars than a record company screw them out of millions.
What's wrong with you? Hmm. Let's see...Ammonia...Polar (which has gotta mean snowy and white)...Got it! You're gay for Mr. Clean! Or straight for girl polar bears, maybe.
Forgive the somewhat scattered nature of this post. I'm REALLY pressed for time, and it's difficult to present a complex subject in simple terms without totally losing the point.
The problem is not with your facts but with their context. For one thing, we used to be guaranteed a level of anonymity by raw numbers. Technological advances are taking that away, but we still base our concept of what total lack of privacy would mean on our current situation. We still enjoy a level of protection we don't appreciate or value, and there are uses for all that information we casually dismiss that we haven't even dreamed of yet. Something simple: An RFID chip in your shopping basket can tell marketing specialists exactly where you spend time, and possession of all your personal information can rapidly reduce you to the status of prey. If you're too poor to afford the things you spend time looking at.....watch those lottery opportunities start appearing under your nose. That's a simple, non-threatening example. What will the situation be in 20 years, once you've given away your own right to privacy, and your children's, too? Do you really believe you can guard yourself against manipulation when it's entirely possible the manipulators will have a pretty good minute-by-minute picture of what you're actually feeling? Check out current published research on MRI scanning as an infallible lie detector. It works.
There's another problem, too. If data had equal value to all parties, you might be right. That's not the case, though. For example, a database management company can assemble lots of worthless little bits of information into a complete portrait of "You As A Shopper", "You As A Voter", etc. Then they can sell that information to people who are intent on manipulating you by means of marketing campaigns directed at the pre-teen kids they know you have.
Another example: I know you're a bit sloppy about taking home office supplies. What's that information worth? If your boss is one of those people who see things in black and white, it's potentially pretty valuable. If I want your job, it's pretty much priceless. If your boss is a live-and-let-live type, the information is probably worthless.
And by the way, some of the things you denigrate as mere "societal taboos" are actually fundamental social lubricants that allow us to live together without killing each other. In socio-biological terms, we're what some call a "tournament species". Check out the ramifications with respect to some of the "taboos" you regard as disposable. They aren't disposable, and we won't be taboo-free any time soon.
You question what information a person would surrender for millions of dollars. That's nonsense. Nobody would ever offer that. They'd simply find a way to steal it, then bribe,sorry, "lobby" elected officials to make that theft legal. For that matter, what did you get paid for supplying your postal code (zip code to Americans) the last time a WalMart cashier asked you for it? Nothing. You just became an unpaid part of a WalMart marketing survey. Thank you for your support. Your check is NOT in the mail.
I also have to confess to being old-fashioned in some ways. Stupid. Out-of-touch. A dinosaur, even. In some important respects, you see, I'm not for sale. Not at any price.
I have to agree that rts008's comment on Natalie Portman in Hot Grits is off topic. If some link can be found between "Natalie Portman" and "moon", however, that's an entirely different issue. One worth contemplating. At length.
Ah, my friend, I can see that your heart's in the right place. Unfortunately, there's a couple of things you missed. Bundling in this context is far more akin to what goes on in socialist and communist countries than anything that would be found in a truly free market.
Regardless of how it got there, Microsoft is a functional monopoly. This gives them enormous leverage when they choose to bundle a particular non-core application with their operating system. Then they enhance their already-formidable advantage by cheating. Microsoft was caught red-handed writing code into Windows that ensured it wouldn't play nicely with Word Perfect Suite. You don't remember Word Perfect? Not surprising. It was a competitor that exposed Word and Office for the crap that they were. In a free market, Word Perfect would have eaten them alive.
You need to remember that where you and I avoid naked hypocrisy, businesses and governments embrace it. When they're winning, it's all about how government should keep its hands off the so-called free market. When they're losing, you get to see a "Chrysler Moment", like when that company's CEO went to the government with his hand out and said, "We're so big, you don't dare let us fail". He raped the taxpayers right in their wallets to the tune of millions of dollars in grants and low interest loans.
I hope you take the trouble to check out some of the hidden subsidies and other dirty little secrets that abound in our so-called "free market". I think you'll be amazed.
I think people are being a bit too hard on Linux. For one thing, it hasn't been a viable choice for most people until recently. The lack of available software and the user-unfriendly interface made it a non-starter for that majority of the population who can barely operate their DVD player.
It's not quite time for Linux and Open Source yet, but that time is coming. It will be here when:
1. The next generation of Linux comes out.
Linux isn't quite user-friendly enough yet, but it's getting there fast. A lot of us who view the computer as a tool, not a hobby, have invested time and effort into learning to "work under the hood" enough to make Windows behave. We won't throw that knowledge away and re-learn a bunch of tricks for Linux until we have no other choice. I personally auditioned Ubuntu Feisty Fawn and decided I'll stay with XP Pro 'til the bitter end. My next OS will almost certainly be Linux, though.
2. Microsoft gets serious about stopping Windows piracy.
If you include grey areas, there's probably more illegal copies of Windows out there than legal ones. It's foolish to talk about free Linux versus expensive Windows when the real choice is between free legal Linux (which you've never used) and free illegal Windows (which looks and acts a lot like the outdated Windows OS you're using now). And let's face it, your odds of being penalized for using a pirated copy of Windows are about the same as your chances of getting into a three-way with Jessica Alba and Angelina Jolie.
3. Microsoft takes the next big step down the road towards Big Brother.
One of the major failings of Vista is how much of your computer's resources it spends trying to keep tabs on you and call home to report. The next logical step would be some kind of leased operating system that allows Microsoft to channel you towards certain companies and organizations that affiliate with it. Turning off Windows Update would not be an option. (A poorly-done version of what I mean can be found in the IPhone/AT&T arrangement).
If my only choice today was between buying Vista and a whole new computer to run it (my current box is a P3 that works just fine, thank you very much) and spending a few hours installing Linux (free) and appropriate software (free)...well, I'd already be sending Bill a "Kiss My Bum" letter and learning Ubuntu.
Please pull this out and wave it under my nose if I'm proven wrong but I would bet that Linux will be found on a really significant number of personal computers within 5 years. If Microsoft doesn't make some big changes, I see Linux and Apple snarling at each other over the smelly corpse of Vista Next Generation five - 10 years after that.
Pain is a feeling. It can be evaluated scientifically. mmmkay?
Read the science. When you're in a position to make an informed comment, I'll be very interested to hear what you have to say.
You might want to pay attention to what Dr. Cavoukian says. I've followed her public statements for quite a while, and she understands clearly what we're on the verge of throwing away by being casual about our privacy.
Just as an aside: You'll notice when you deal with privacy issues that many of the people who say, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what are you trying to hide?" usually have pretty rigid limits on what parts of their own lives are on public display. Powerful organizations and people have tools to limit what you learn about them. Average folks have only their rights under the constitution. You won't have them for long if you forget that as a law-abiding citizen living your life in a free society, it's your right not to be bothered by people sticking their nose in your business.
Slashdot Mirror
And lawyers. Couldn't we try some lawyers???
Perhaps I should have said "recognized" or "detected" instead of "caught". Although I think at least one of those guys was traded for a couple of poor schmucks the Russkies caught off embassy grounds at an inopportune moment. By the way, I usually DO read the article, though I can't recall whether I did in this particular case. Allow me my own acronym: LU. As in "Lighten Up". Apply liberally to clean off old, dust-encrusted sarcasm/irony detectors. I've used it myself with some success.
At least they caught their traitors eventually. The way I heard it, somebody in the U.S. Commander in Chief's office was outing their agents as recently as a year or two ago (cough Rove cough). And one has to wonder whether suffering the embarrassment of finding a bunch of spies in your intelligence agencies is better or worse than assuming you have none because you're too stupid to catch them.
Actually, there's ample evidence that the universe really does work that way. As long as there's a situation where more energy is pumped into a system than leaks out, such as occurs in the Sun-Earth model, spontaneous organization into complex systems occurs frequently. You can illustrate this yourself with a grid of lights and a few very simple on/off rules. The rules on the grid are analogous to naturally-occurring limitations to environmental processes.
I'm not so selfish that I require its use myself. I'd just hate to see such a lovely acronym go to waste.
It really tickles my funny bone to see these guys put one over on a group that typically has a slime of lawyers looking after that kind of thing.
Thanks for the info. As a dial-up dinosaur with firewall and updated anti-virus protection, I suspect I might not make the ideal candidate for abuse. Nevertheless, I'll pay more attention to keeping Windows updated in future.
Even as we speak, I'm working hard to register a domain for my "Foundation for Unattributable Common Knowledge".
I can't understand why anybody would allow a company to have free access to their OS. How much more likely are you to get nailed by an evil-doer if you wait a couple of days before installing an update to make sure there's no problem with it?
I look at all the bloat-ware Microsoft seems to believe I want or need on my system, add in all the stuff they want to install for their own reasons, and I have no intention whatsoever of allowing them unsupervised access. If you had some heirlooms in your house, would you hand over the keys to a cleaning agency with a record for occasional carelessness?
The worst thing about Vista (ignoring, for the moment, well-documented driver problems, the fact that it spends a significant amount of CPU time working for MSoft and its media buddies instead of you and the fact that I personally don't give a crap about eye candy) is that I'd have to buy a whole new computer to run it.
Fuck that.
And by the way, I moved from Millennium to XP Pro seamlessly. Two printers, a scanner, network card and TV card all worked flawlessly from the moment I installed it.
A buddy of mine who owns a successful computer company went back to the 64-bit version XP Pro after encountering many problems with Vista. He values his clients, and doesn't put it on their machines, either.
If the best you can say about an expensive new OS is that it's "not that bad", I wish you much joy of it. I'll stay with one that works.
"Russian Viagra and Penis Enlargement Spammer Murdered"
Let me guess. When police checked his e-mail looking for clues, the subject line of the top message in his Inbox said, "We Lett U KEEP St!ff Forever".
I guess some organizations employ more rigorous spam filters than others.
They might do even better than 80% of the selling price. Right off the top of my head I can think of a couple of ways to ensure that getting paid for songs has nothing whatsoever to do with paying tax.
Every government in the free world lets artists starve in roach-infested dumps while they're trying to make it, then taxes them to death if they finally earn some real money.
I'd rather see an artist screw the government out of a few dollars than a record company screw them out of millions.
What's wrong with you? Hmm. Let's see...Ammonia...Polar (which has gotta mean snowy and white)...Got it! You're gay for Mr. Clean! Or straight for girl polar bears, maybe.
Just trying to help.
Forgive the somewhat scattered nature of this post. I'm REALLY pressed for time, and it's difficult to present a complex subject in simple terms without totally losing the point.
The problem is not with your facts but with their context. For one thing, we used to be guaranteed a level of anonymity by raw numbers. Technological advances are taking that away, but we still base our concept of what total lack of privacy would mean on our current situation. We still enjoy a level of protection we don't appreciate or value, and there are uses for all that information we casually dismiss that we haven't even dreamed of yet. Something simple: An RFID chip in your shopping basket can tell marketing specialists exactly where you spend time, and possession of all your personal information can rapidly reduce you to the status of prey. If you're too poor to afford the things you spend time looking at.....watch those lottery opportunities start appearing under your nose. That's a simple, non-threatening example. What will the situation be in 20 years, once you've given away your own right to privacy, and your children's, too? Do you really believe you can guard yourself against manipulation when it's entirely possible the manipulators will have a pretty good minute-by-minute picture of what you're actually feeling? Check out current published research on MRI scanning as an infallible lie detector. It works.
There's another problem, too. If data had equal value to all parties, you might be right. That's not the case, though. For example, a database management company can assemble lots of worthless little bits of information into a complete portrait of "You As A Shopper", "You As A Voter", etc. Then they can sell that information to people who are intent on manipulating you by means of marketing campaigns directed at the pre-teen kids they know you have.
Another example: I know you're a bit sloppy about taking home office supplies. What's that information worth? If your boss is one of those people who see things in black and white, it's potentially pretty valuable. If I want your job, it's pretty much priceless. If your boss is a live-and-let-live type, the information is probably worthless.
And by the way, some of the things you denigrate as mere "societal taboos" are actually fundamental social lubricants that allow us to live together without killing each other. In socio-biological terms, we're what some call a "tournament species". Check out the ramifications with respect to some of the "taboos" you regard as disposable. They aren't disposable, and we won't be taboo-free any time soon.
You question what information a person would surrender for millions of dollars. That's nonsense. Nobody would ever offer that. They'd simply find a way to steal it, then bribe,sorry, "lobby" elected officials to make that theft legal. For that matter, what did you get paid for supplying your postal code (zip code to Americans) the last time a WalMart cashier asked you for it? Nothing. You just became an unpaid part of a WalMart marketing survey. Thank you for your support. Your check is NOT in the mail.
I also have to confess to being old-fashioned in some ways. Stupid. Out-of-touch. A dinosaur, even. In some important respects, you see, I'm not for sale. Not at any price.
Thanks for your attention.
I have to agree that rts008's comment on Natalie Portman in Hot Grits is off topic. If some link can be found between "Natalie Portman" and "moon", however, that's an entirely different issue. One worth contemplating. At length.
Ah, my friend, I can see that your heart's in the right place. Unfortunately, there's a couple of things you missed. Bundling in this context is far more akin to what goes on in socialist and communist countries than anything that would be found in a truly free market.
Regardless of how it got there, Microsoft is a functional monopoly. This gives them enormous leverage when they choose to bundle a particular non-core application with their operating system. Then they enhance their already-formidable advantage by cheating. Microsoft was caught red-handed writing code into Windows that ensured it wouldn't play nicely with Word Perfect Suite. You don't remember Word Perfect? Not surprising. It was a competitor that exposed Word and Office for the crap that they were. In a free market, Word Perfect would have eaten them alive.
You need to remember that where you and I avoid naked hypocrisy, businesses and governments embrace it. When they're winning, it's all about how government should keep its hands off the so-called free market. When they're losing, you get to see a "Chrysler Moment", like when that company's CEO went to the government with his hand out and said, "We're so big, you don't dare let us fail". He raped the taxpayers right in their wallets to the tune of millions of dollars in grants and low interest loans.
I hope you take the trouble to check out some of the hidden subsidies and other dirty little secrets that abound in our so-called "free market". I think you'll be amazed.
I think people are being a bit too hard on Linux. For one thing, it hasn't been a viable choice for most people until recently. The lack of available software and the user-unfriendly interface made it a non-starter for that majority of the population who can barely operate their DVD player.
It's not quite time for Linux and Open Source yet, but that time is coming. It will be here when:
1. The next generation of Linux comes out.
Linux isn't quite user-friendly enough yet, but it's getting there fast. A lot of us who view the computer as a tool, not a hobby, have invested time and effort into learning to "work under the hood" enough to make Windows behave. We won't throw that knowledge away and re-learn a bunch of tricks for Linux until we have no other choice. I personally auditioned Ubuntu Feisty Fawn and decided I'll stay with XP Pro 'til the bitter end. My next OS will almost certainly be Linux, though.
2. Microsoft gets serious about stopping Windows piracy.
If you include grey areas, there's probably more illegal copies of Windows out there than legal ones. It's foolish to talk about free Linux versus expensive Windows when the real choice is between free legal Linux (which you've never used) and free illegal Windows (which looks and acts a lot like the outdated Windows OS you're using now). And let's face it, your odds of being penalized for using a pirated copy of Windows are about the same as your chances of getting into a three-way with Jessica Alba and Angelina Jolie.
3. Microsoft takes the next big step down the road towards Big Brother.
One of the major failings of Vista is how much of your computer's resources it spends trying to keep tabs on you and call home to report. The next logical step would be some kind of leased operating system that allows Microsoft to channel you towards certain companies and organizations that affiliate with it. Turning off Windows Update would not be an option. (A poorly-done version of what I mean can be found in the IPhone/AT&T arrangement).
If my only choice today was between buying Vista and a whole new computer to run it (my current box is a P3 that works just fine, thank you very much) and spending a few hours installing Linux (free) and appropriate software (free)...well, I'd already be sending Bill a "Kiss My Bum" letter and learning Ubuntu.
Please pull this out and wave it under my nose if I'm proven wrong but I would bet that Linux will be found on a really significant number of personal computers within 5 years. If Microsoft doesn't make some big changes, I see Linux and Apple snarling at each other over the smelly corpse of Vista Next Generation five - 10 years after that.
Pain is a feeling. It can be evaluated scientifically. mmmkay? Read the science. When you're in a position to make an informed comment, I'll be very interested to hear what you have to say.
You might want to pay attention to what Dr. Cavoukian says. I've followed her public statements for quite a while, and she understands clearly what we're on the verge of throwing away by being casual about our privacy.
Just as an aside: You'll notice when you deal with privacy issues that many of the people who say, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what are you trying to hide?" usually have pretty rigid limits on what parts of their own lives are on public display. Powerful organizations and people have tools to limit what you learn about them. Average folks have only their rights under the constitution. You won't have them for long if you forget that as a law-abiding citizen living your life in a free society, it's your right not to be bothered by people sticking their nose in your business.