Don't bundle/anything/ other than what the user wanted with the download. Don't bundle toolbars, helper programs, utilities, assistants, or anything else you choose to call your advertising product.
Trust that is lost can't ever really be regained, especially on the Internet. The quick dollars gained came at the expense of the dollars in the long run. You need to start with an apology that acknowledges what was wrong along with a promise in plain English never to do it again.
Now, I didn't say anything about not running advertising on the pages. Advertising is what makes sites run, and anyone with any length of time in the industry understands their importance. Google style ads that aren't disruptive are generally respected and static graphical ads from companies like Microsoft and IBM must work as they have advertised here for years. The problem is if things get pushed too far and the content can't be read without irritation.
If the website isn't functional (loads within 1 second without distractions or intermission ads) than you site has gone over too far and the next visit and every visit thereafter will be filtered. We also understand how these things work on the back-end, know how to implement ABP, No Script, Ghostery and other things with advertising gets overbearing.
At this point it is up to the WebMasters to show that they understand "don't be evil". You can't do it with fine print though, for this audience, reads the fine print.
I have blatantly admonished the polygraph as being junk science online for close to 20 years now. I've pointed out how traitors from Ames to Snowden all passed the Polygraph with flying colors. I've also pointed out how there isn't a courtroom in this country that will accept the use of one. I've talked about how the scientific community considers them absolutely rubbish and no better than snake oil. I really can't think of a better way of how to illustrate that security theater is an active danger to this country than by citing the polygraph as example number 1.
It makes me wonder if I'm on this list of theirs too...
The problem is that some businesses think that they are entitled to a given business model and way of getting money. These companies are the ones that will inevitably fail because they can't take the risk of killing their own cash cow. History is littered with examples from Kodak to Polaroid and so on.
What I don't see though is people willing to site companies that are willing to sacrifice their sacred cows and look for news ways of doing things. I'm going to cite IBM which was once so synonymous with making personal computers that they were the very standard (PC or Mac - PC was/their/ thing) for the entire rest of the industry. Nowadays IBM is a software and services company that makes servers and mainframes primarily as a means by which to sell their services. Another company is Amazon which famously used to be a book company in it's earliest years before branching out into just about everything else. Amazon has also publicly committed to avoiding fat margins to force his business to be lean and competitive.
Entitlement gets you a footnote in the history books, refusing to be entitled keeps you in the Wall Street Journal. There is nothing more dangerous to a business than entitlements for they engender complacency and complacency engenders competitors to take your place.
In your house do you also provide the tinfoil hats when you drop off the cell phones? You could have a nick little rack setup with tinfoil hats on the bottom and chargers on the bottom. Of course your guest have to trust/you/ not to have chargers that tap their cell phones while they are in use. So many trust issues and so many conspiracies, where do you begin?
My point was fairly clear in that only academia could ever be in this position to begin with. I further used the opportunity to make a point about what a unique situation that was within society as a protected class effectively enjoyed by almost no else. I never took sides on the matter, I merely brought up the merits of the issues to spark debate.
Those that were careless with an axe to grind jumped the gun and got caught out. Sounds exactly like something an academic would do, doesn't it?
Are you even aware of the particulars of the script kiddie attack that Weev did to get that data? It wasn't published in any kind of manner where you could get it without prompting for it.
By your logic just because someone has something on a web server they are sharing it with everyone. Let me guess, you think credit cards and health records are fair game too?
Weev took advantage of a poorly secured access on their part. That is hardly the same thing as putting something on a peer to peer network. It's akin to saying that just because someone secured their house with screen doors that they were okay with people taking their contents.
Now you can fairly criticize AT&T for poor security, and you can certainly criticize Weev for taking their data and publicizing it, but try to keep the criticism grounded in reality, eh?
I take it you haven't actually read the blog with the inspired critiques? You also probably didn't catch that I worked in academia for years. You would probably be further surprised to learn that I took a significant pay cut from the private sector to do so. You were also oblivious to the fact that I openly left open the possibility that academia just might be right about this.
Instead you made an ass of yourself and started spouting nonsense in an attempt to make yourself sound an intellectual. Next time you might want to read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth.
Your advice is the best real world advise to their question. The poster should treat themselves as a problem to be solved. Solicit feedback and/listen/ to it - especially the feedback that makes you uncomfortable. Treat that as the next thing to tackle.
My point was about staff in academia feeling free to criticize their employer when no other field would dare. I didn't say a damn thing about the lawsuit in support of either side.
People commit these kinds of things in corporations and other institutions on a routine basis. I assure you that if you publicly call out a company for someone's fabricated resume that your just as likely to lose your job as the person that fabricated their resume. I certainly don't support fabricating resumes (in my profession the background check would never let you get away with it anyways), but the point is about publicizing this kind of thing for the world to see.
HR departments, especially in large organizations, deal with things like fabricated resumes every single day. They also have policies and procedures in place to ensure that the situation is dealt with with the least legal risk possible. I'm not disputing the merits of what the bloggers had to say, or their right to say it. What I'm saying is that these kinds of things are handled offline by the rest of the world for what many people would argue are very good reasons.
Your point on academic freedom does not countermand my point that this kind of self entitlement would only happen in academia.
Only in academia would faculty feel entitled to freely criticize their employer while expecting their employer to turn a blind eye. In any other field you would be canned on the spot for doing something like this. Possibly government employees in some departments would have similar attitudes?
Now you can argue that academia has it right and the rest of society has it wrong or you could call the faculty self entitled tenured representations of antiquity. Having worked in the private industry as well as some years in a very large University one could argue this either way.
Why don't we start with the fact that Hollywood was founded as it was about as far from New York and their IP laws about the movie industry as you could get in those days? Let's make sure we cover the theft of material from the public domain for corporate use too.
Don't forget to cover the MPAA's own history of corruption. The RIAA should not be forgotten either, they have a long history of ripping of artists and we need to make sure we educate people on that. We should have a special section on Hollywood accounting that covers how you have a billion dollar blockbuster that costs $100 million to make and officially loses money. Make sure that we cover how this works in the music industry too.
I also think it is important that people are educated on all of their rights that have been trampled and attempted to be circumvented by the **AA's and their like kind organizations overseas. By all means we should show the **AA's support of taking away your rights for a fair trial if your accused of copyright infringement. Don't forget to educate people on treaties and what they have done to take away your rights by treaty.
Don't forget to cover public domain and the history of extending how long something will last before being put into public domain. We also need to show how this has changed over the years. Libraries, those bastions of piracy! They have the audacity to lend IP without people paying for them fresh every single time, let's make sure we cover the history of trying to shut down libraries abilities to do lend things.
Bah, there Intellectual Property rights there and a worldwide reputation that's being infringed you know. The Silk Road was built on the work of the DPR and he deserves to be paid for his intellectual endeavors!
The new site is a cheap copycat fraud that fails to respect others rights. They threaten more clones like a game of whack a mole. No respect for intellectual property at all. How can you trust that kind of operation? Next thing you know the FBI will replace with front page with "It's a trap" and even the murders for hire will be fraudulent...
The thing is they are likely exactly correct about that. The thing go to do is to change the framework that guided the behavior to begin with. The only way to do that is to have a clearly defined right to privacy. Now the Fourth Amendment can be argued as granting the right to privacy, unfortunately it isn't that clear cut.
The second thing you have to do is put in another amendment that says the plain language of the constitution means what it says. Words like "Shall" and "Shall Not" mean what the dictionary says and get rid of the tens of thousands of loopholes that have already been drilled into the Constitution over the years. You see those loopholes set precedent that make any kind of right to privacy worth about as much as your right to free speech or to bear arms.
Until you create a clear Constitutional limit that "you shall not cross" and start doing things like removing the ambiguity from words like "shall" there is no legal standard to use as a hammer. That means the constitutional framework that might be used to stop this kind of thing is riddled with loopholes. Legislatures are very skilled at exploiting these loopholes to do end runs around Constitutional rights. That means your framework that could stop this kind of thing is worthless.
Want to stop this kind of thing from happening? Demand the removal of Constitutional ambiguity and embrace Constitutional constructionism.
Nokia's OS work was absolutely terrible, in fact it was so bad that it made what Microsoft had look good. The one thing Elop couldn't do was stick with the old Nokia way of doing things, it simply wasn't relevant in this time and age. The mistake Elop made was not in getting rid of Nokia's homegrown OS developments, it was in choosing Microsoft's developments to replace them.
Elop should have chosen to go with Android for the killer platform of the their OS with Nokia's hardware. Unfortunately for Nokia he went for the lethal platform of the Microsoft OS with Nokia's hardware. The result was the choosing of industry contacts that Elop had at Microsoft instead of going with Android and systematic destruction of billions of dollars in equity.
Elop can be counted on to make hard choices and get rid of losing platforms. Unfortunately he can also be counted on to make foolish choices to fill the void. Inevitably he will therefore be the next Microsoft CEO...
The thing is that things are now working the way they should be. That is were now criticizing the web site, the process, the contracts and learning lessons. This is how government is supposed to work. The republicans are going to town with criticizing the many faults of the website - which is perfectly fair and what they should have done to begin with. The Republicans never should have held the American public hostage to try and kill the ACA and they did tremendous damage to the economy by shutting down the government.
The Democrats meanwhile should be held accountable for an absolutely atrocious website and project that never would have passed even the most basic of reviews in the private world. The Republican criticisms of the website are pretty much well founded from what I have seen. If the Democrats had reached out to the private sector instead of designing the thing by political committee it could have been built to a much higher standard.
I'm not taking sides on this argument, what I am doing is saying that all government across the political spectrum should be held to this level of scrutiny and accountability. The long standing methods of bidding out government work have led to nothing but rampant fraud and inefficiencies that could never work anywhere except the federal government. Reform is needed, and if this website finally causes reform of government bidding and projects than it will have done more good than it ever meant too.
They are pointless when armies of wokers from India and other parts of the third world can blast through them by the thousands per day. These services are available for outsourcing just like any other service.
If you use something that kills of the weak members of a given entity over a period of time the result will be the surviving members will become strong. Darwinism is brutal and efficient like that whether you want it to be or not. In this case by over using antibiotics everywhere from handsoap to feed for cows we have resulted in the saturation of the environment. The result was inevitable and it really is a case of we did this to ourselves.
If memory serves Norway prohibits their use in all settings but hospitals and has healthier citizens as a result. It really does boil down to the classic George Carlin germs are good comedy bit. We need regular exposure to germs to become stronger and build healthier immune systems. The only thing were building is stronger and healthier bugs and weaker humans - there's something wrong with that.
Unfortunately it became a legend for all of the wrong reasons. Billions of dollars have been sunk into it over the years and many lawsuits have been filed over it demise by vendors desperate to get out of it or force another vendor to stay in it.
I'm sure someone has a comparison of how much money has been invested compared to how much money has been made in sales. I might be mistaken, but from what I've been reading from the beginning Itanium has never come close to breaking even for hardware or software sales. Certainly companies like HP and Oracle spent millions of dollars on their lawsuit trying to get out Itanium.
Itanium has always been nothing more than a desperate multi-billion dollar effort to break free from the chains of x86.
You could be phones for years and years. The problem was that they didn't bend back. The ability to bend back, that's what's important. That and the ability to bend that first time without breaking....
Vsat covers most of North America and parts of Central America, they even talk about covering part of the Atlantic Ocean. They do not cover the Indian Ocean or the Australian Outback - which are on the opposite side of the world! There are a minimal number of providers that offer coverage to that part of the world and they do not provide US rates!
How many times did I state that every country on earth does this kind of thing only to get labelled a troll by the naive tin foil hat crowd? I've said before and I'll say again that every country on earth spies to the greatest extent that their resources allows. This has been true since pre-history times. The naive acted outraged and pretended only a single party was responsible for such things.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't bundle /anything/ other than what the user wanted with the download. Don't bundle toolbars, helper programs, utilities, assistants, or anything else you choose to call your advertising product.
Trust that is lost can't ever really be regained, especially on the Internet. The quick dollars gained came at the expense of the dollars in the long run. You need to start with an apology that acknowledges what was wrong along with a promise in plain English never to do it again.
Now, I didn't say anything about not running advertising on the pages. Advertising is what makes sites run, and anyone with any length of time in the industry understands their importance. Google style ads that aren't disruptive are generally respected and static graphical ads from companies like Microsoft and IBM must work as they have advertised here for years. The problem is if things get pushed too far and the content can't be read without irritation.
If the website isn't functional (loads within 1 second without distractions or intermission ads) than you site has gone over too far and the next visit and every visit thereafter will be filtered. We also understand how these things work on the back-end, know how to implement ABP, No Script, Ghostery and other things with advertising gets overbearing.
At this point it is up to the WebMasters to show that they understand "don't be evil". You can't do it with fine print though, for this audience, reads the fine print.
I have blatantly admonished the polygraph as being junk science online for close to 20 years now. I've pointed out how traitors from Ames to Snowden all passed the Polygraph with flying colors. I've also pointed out how there isn't a courtroom in this country that will accept the use of one. I've talked about how the scientific community considers them absolutely rubbish and no better than snake oil. I really can't think of a better way of how to illustrate that security theater is an active danger to this country than by citing the polygraph as example number 1.
It makes me wonder if I'm on this list of theirs too...
The problem is that some businesses think that they are entitled to a given business model and way of getting money. These companies are the ones that will inevitably fail because they can't take the risk of killing their own cash cow. History is littered with examples from Kodak to Polaroid and so on.
What I don't see though is people willing to site companies that are willing to sacrifice their sacred cows and look for news ways of doing things. I'm going to cite IBM which was once so synonymous with making personal computers that they were the very standard (PC or Mac - PC was /their/ thing) for the entire rest of the industry. Nowadays IBM is a software and services company that makes servers and mainframes primarily as a means by which to sell their services. Another company is Amazon which famously used to be a book company in it's earliest years before branching out into just about everything else. Amazon has also publicly committed to avoiding fat margins to force his business to be lean and competitive.
Entitlement gets you a footnote in the history books, refusing to be entitled keeps you in the Wall Street Journal. There is nothing more dangerous to a business than entitlements for they engender complacency and complacency engenders competitors to take your place.
In your house do you also provide the tinfoil hats when you drop off the cell phones? You could have a nick little rack setup with tinfoil hats on the bottom and chargers on the bottom. Of course your guest have to trust /you/ not to have chargers that tap their cell phones while they are in use. So many trust issues and so many conspiracies, where do you begin?
My point was fairly clear in that only academia could ever be in this position to begin with. I further used the opportunity to make a point about what a unique situation that was within society as a protected class effectively enjoyed by almost no else. I never took sides on the matter, I merely brought up the merits of the issues to spark debate.
Those that were careless with an axe to grind jumped the gun and got caught out. Sounds exactly like something an academic would do, doesn't it?
I would love to see you try say that to a judge in a court of law with a straight face.
Are you even aware of the particulars of the script kiddie attack that Weev did to get that data? It wasn't published in any kind of manner where you could get it without prompting for it.
By your logic just because someone has something on a web server they are sharing it with everyone. Let me guess, you think credit cards and health records are fair game too?
Weev took advantage of a poorly secured access on their part. That is hardly the same thing as putting something on a peer to peer network. It's akin to saying that just because someone secured their house with screen doors that they were okay with people taking their contents.
Now you can fairly criticize AT&T for poor security, and you can certainly criticize Weev for taking their data and publicizing it, but try to keep the criticism grounded in reality, eh?
Interesting response with some merit put into your thoughts.
I take it you haven't actually read the blog with the inspired critiques? You also probably didn't catch that I worked in academia for years. You would probably be further surprised to learn that I took a significant pay cut from the private sector to do so. You were also oblivious to the fact that I openly left open the possibility that academia just might be right about this.
Instead you made an ass of yourself and started spouting nonsense in an attempt to make yourself sound an intellectual. Next time you might want to read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth.
Your advice is the best real world advise to their question. The poster should treat themselves as a problem to be solved. Solicit feedback and /listen/ to it - especially the feedback that makes you uncomfortable. Treat that as the next thing to tackle.
My point was about staff in academia feeling free to criticize their employer when no other field would dare. I didn't say a damn thing about the lawsuit in support of either side.
People commit these kinds of things in corporations and other institutions on a routine basis. I assure you that if you publicly call out a company for someone's fabricated resume that your just as likely to lose your job as the person that fabricated their resume. I certainly don't support fabricating resumes (in my profession the background check would never let you get away with it anyways), but the point is about publicizing this kind of thing for the world to see.
HR departments, especially in large organizations, deal with things like fabricated resumes every single day. They also have policies and procedures in place to ensure that the situation is dealt with with the least legal risk possible. I'm not disputing the merits of what the bloggers had to say, or their right to say it. What I'm saying is that these kinds of things are handled offline by the rest of the world for what many people would argue are very good reasons.
Your point on academic freedom does not countermand my point that this kind of self entitlement would only happen in academia.
Only in academia would faculty feel entitled to freely criticize their employer while expecting their employer to turn a blind eye. In any other field you would be canned on the spot for doing something like this. Possibly government employees in some departments would have similar attitudes?
Now you can argue that academia has it right and the rest of society has it wrong or you could call the faculty self entitled tenured representations of antiquity. Having worked in the private industry as well as some years in a very large University one could argue this either way.
Why don't we start with the fact that Hollywood was founded as it was about as far from New York and their IP laws about the movie industry as you could get in those days? Let's make sure we cover the theft of material from the public domain for corporate use too.
Don't forget to cover the MPAA's own history of corruption. The RIAA should not be forgotten either, they have a long history of ripping of artists and we need to make sure we educate people on that. We should have a special section on Hollywood accounting that covers how you have a billion dollar blockbuster that costs $100 million to make and officially loses money. Make sure that we cover how this works in the music industry too.
I also think it is important that people are educated on all of their rights that have been trampled and attempted to be circumvented by the **AA's and their like kind organizations overseas. By all means we should show the **AA's support of taking away your rights for a fair trial if your accused of copyright infringement. Don't forget to educate people on treaties and what they have done to take away your rights by treaty.
Don't forget to cover public domain and the history of extending how long something will last before being put into public domain. We also need to show how this has changed over the years. Libraries, those bastions of piracy! They have the audacity to lend IP without people paying for them fresh every single time, let's make sure we cover the history of trying to shut down libraries abilities to do lend things.
Anything else that we should educate people on?
Bah, there Intellectual Property rights there and a worldwide reputation that's being infringed you know. The Silk Road was built on the work of the DPR and he deserves to be paid for his intellectual endeavors!
The new site is a cheap copycat fraud that fails to respect others rights. They threaten more clones like a game of whack a mole. No respect for intellectual property at all. How can you trust that kind of operation? Next thing you know the FBI will replace with front page with "It's a trap" and even the murders for hire will be fraudulent...
The thing is they are likely exactly correct about that. The thing go to do is to change the framework that guided the behavior to begin with. The only way to do that is to have a clearly defined right to privacy. Now the Fourth Amendment can be argued as granting the right to privacy, unfortunately it isn't that clear cut.
The second thing you have to do is put in another amendment that says the plain language of the constitution means what it says. Words like "Shall" and "Shall Not" mean what the dictionary says and get rid of the tens of thousands of loopholes that have already been drilled into the Constitution over the years. You see those loopholes set precedent that make any kind of right to privacy worth about as much as your right to free speech or to bear arms.
Until you create a clear Constitutional limit that "you shall not cross" and start doing things like removing the ambiguity from words like "shall" there is no legal standard to use as a hammer. That means the constitutional framework that might be used to stop this kind of thing is riddled with loopholes. Legislatures are very skilled at exploiting these loopholes to do end runs around Constitutional rights. That means your framework that could stop this kind of thing is worthless.
Want to stop this kind of thing from happening? Demand the removal of Constitutional ambiguity and embrace Constitutional constructionism.
Nokia's OS work was absolutely terrible, in fact it was so bad that it made what Microsoft had look good. The one thing Elop couldn't do was stick with the old Nokia way of doing things, it simply wasn't relevant in this time and age. The mistake Elop made was not in getting rid of Nokia's homegrown OS developments, it was in choosing Microsoft's developments to replace them.
Elop should have chosen to go with Android for the killer platform of the their OS with Nokia's hardware. Unfortunately for Nokia he went for the lethal platform of the Microsoft OS with Nokia's hardware. The result was the choosing of industry contacts that Elop had at Microsoft instead of going with Android and systematic destruction of billions of dollars in equity.
Elop can be counted on to make hard choices and get rid of losing platforms. Unfortunately he can also be counted on to make foolish choices to fill the void. Inevitably he will therefore be the next Microsoft CEO...
The thing is that things are now working the way they should be. That is were now criticizing the web site, the process, the contracts and learning lessons. This is how government is supposed to work. The republicans are going to town with criticizing the many faults of the website - which is perfectly fair and what they should have done to begin with. The Republicans never should have held the American public hostage to try and kill the ACA and they did tremendous damage to the economy by shutting down the government.
The Democrats meanwhile should be held accountable for an absolutely atrocious website and project that never would have passed even the most basic of reviews in the private world. The Republican criticisms of the website are pretty much well founded from what I have seen. If the Democrats had reached out to the private sector instead of designing the thing by political committee it could have been built to a much higher standard.
I'm not taking sides on this argument, what I am doing is saying that all government across the political spectrum should be held to this level of scrutiny and accountability. The long standing methods of bidding out government work have led to nothing but rampant fraud and inefficiencies that could never work anywhere except the federal government. Reform is needed, and if this website finally causes reform of government bidding and projects than it will have done more good than it ever meant too.
They are pointless when armies of wokers from India and other parts of the third world can blast through them by the thousands per day. These services are available for outsourcing just like any other service.
If you use something that kills of the weak members of a given entity over a period of time the result will be the surviving members will become strong. Darwinism is brutal and efficient like that whether you want it to be or not. In this case by over using antibiotics everywhere from handsoap to feed for cows we have resulted in the saturation of the environment. The result was inevitable and it really is a case of we did this to ourselves.
If memory serves Norway prohibits their use in all settings but hospitals and has healthier citizens as a result. It really does boil down to the classic George Carlin germs are good comedy bit. We need regular exposure to germs to become stronger and build healthier immune systems. The only thing were building is stronger and healthier bugs and weaker humans - there's something wrong with that.
Unfortunately it became a legend for all of the wrong reasons. Billions of dollars have been sunk into it over the years and many lawsuits have been filed over it demise by vendors desperate to get out of it or force another vendor to stay in it.
http://www.eweek.com/servers/hp-to-seek-4-billion-in-damages-from-oracle-over-itanium/
http://news.cnet.com/Allies-pledge-10-billion-to-boost-Itanium/2100-1006_3-6031773.html
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/hudson_intel_plant_closing_wil.html
Unfortunately sales never came close to the billions of dollars that have been sunk into it, and it has been that way for years:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/28/itanium_04_sales/
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/02/hpearnings/
http://www.zdnet.com/photos/charts-mining-itanium/21115
I'm sure someone has a comparison of how much money has been invested compared to how much money has been made in sales. I might be mistaken, but from what I've been reading from the beginning Itanium has never come close to breaking even for hardware or software sales. Certainly companies like HP and Oracle spent millions of dollars on their lawsuit trying to get out Itanium.
Itanium has always been nothing more than a desperate multi-billion dollar effort to break free from the chains of x86.
You could be phones for years and years. The problem was that they didn't bend back. The ability to bend back, that's what's important. That and the ability to bend that first time without breaking....
Hogwash
http://www.vsat-systems.com/coverage-map/
Vsat covers most of North America and parts of Central America, they even talk about covering part of the Atlantic Ocean. They do not cover the Indian Ocean or the Australian Outback - which are on the opposite side of the world! There are a minimal number of providers that offer coverage to that part of the world and they do not provide US rates!
How many times did I state that every country on earth does this kind of thing only to get labelled a troll by the naive tin foil hat crowd? I've said before and I'll say again that every country on earth spies to the greatest extent that their resources allows. This has been true since pre-history times. The naive acted outraged and pretended only a single party was responsible for such things.