There's an argument you can make here that may encourage the spyware developers to stop using the drive-by installation features of IE and go back to requiring user intervention. You might think that that would be counter-productive to their aims, but I would disagree. If a user is required to click to install spyware, they are giving permission to the authors to install the spyware on their machine. Therefore any consequences of said software being installed (information theft, privacy invasion, etc) are soely the responsibility of the user. If that user is an administrator on the machine (and I'm thinking of Windows here), then they are giving the spyware access to every file on the machine.
In a lot of cases the EULA that nobody reads (and I'm just as guilty as the next guy of this) has language in it that gives the developers of the spyware pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they want. And since the user has agreed to it, there's no crime. Even if one were to file a civil suit, there would be no grounds; all the defendant company would have to do is point to the EULA (which the courts have determined are binding) and say "We made a good faith effort to inform the user of the conditions of the use of our software. If they chose not to read the contract they were agreeing to, we cannot be held responsible."
Blaming the victim? You bet I am. Then again, taking advantage of people's ignorance has never been criminal. If it were, AOL, WalMart, and most of Madison Avenue (and IMHO the Republican Party) would not exist.
I'll agree that a little basic education is a vital part of the solution to the spyware problem. (The others being dumping IE and software-based solutions like AdAware, Spybot, etc.)
However, the problem is that in a lot of cases the problem isn't ignorance, it's stupidity. (Please see my comment further up re: the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Earlier comment here )
Many (if not most) "average" computer users don't want to be concerned with how it works, just that it works, as other commenters on this article have stated. When they are confronted with a problem that prevents the computer from working in some way (eg loaded up with malware) that requires them to decide whether they're going to be stupid or ignorant, many (if not most) will choose stupid each time, mostly out of laziness.
In other situations, there are institutional blocks to user education, in a misguided attempt to coddle the users into thinking that they don't require any further training. In other words, if we make the users go to training classes on these problems, they will interpret it as IT telling them that they're stupid. (Leaving alone the fact that in a lot of situations, the user won't go to the training anyway; the example that I'm thinking of is in higher education, where the professors won't tolerate any implication that there's something that they don't know.)
It's my opinion that lots of wasted man-hours (in IT) and lost productivity (by the users) could be prevented if the users could be told that they're stupid once in a while. That would make IT unpopular, but since when is the main function of IT to be liked? IMHO the main function of IT is to keep the systems running. If doing so ruffles some feathers, so be it. A little BOFH goes a long way.
But he doesn't much about the inner workings of his computer. Is he a lazy, uniformed moron?
Uninformed, clearly. Lazy, that's tougher. It would depend on if he's a) sought out the information or b) asked someone in the know for the information. Moron? That's a matter of opinion.
My personal definition of stupidity makes a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. An ignorant person doesn't know a given fact or possess a given skill. A stupid person is aware that they don't know something, doesn't care, and makes no effort to learn. Ignorant people can be educated. You can't cure stupid.
Fortunately, you can charge them obscene amounts of money to fix things that, if they put in the slightest effort, they could learn to fix for themselves. I have no problem gouging the living hell out of someone who can't be bothered to fire a synapse. Spyware prevention and removal requires no special training, certification or equipment.
Yes it is IT's fault. They let users have privilages[sic] sufficient to install programs, leading to viruses.
Ok, then whose fault is this:
IT: We need to implement $securityrule. CEO: No. IT: But it will prevent $securityproblem. CEO: No. IT:...
Or this:
IT: $User violated a security rule. They should be reprimanded. CEO: No, we don't want to piss them off. IT: But it was in the employee handbook, and they signed a statement saying they'd follow the rule. CEO: Get back to work, shouldn't you have a microchip to renoberate or something?
If it were a buffer overflow in a JPEG I wouldn't blame IT.
You're in a very small minority of people who actually have a working knowledge of network security. Everyone else blames IT for everything from global warming to their coffee getting cold. The mantra is "Don't understand it? It's not important. Blame IT."
Except when IT isn't allowed to implement sane usage policies (locked down machines, automatically expiring passwords, actually making users have different passwords than one company-wide password for everyone), because management doesn't want the users to complain.
Because, as we all know, having users that don't complain is MUCH more important than having a secure network.
In many states debit cards are afforded the same protection as credit cards (i.e. you have the right to dispute a charge, and you are only responsible for the first $50 of any fraudulent charge.) IMHO it's a lot safer to carry a debit card than cash.
Federal stormtroopers burned an entire congregation in Waco, Texas, eight years ago.
Yes. Yes they did. There is quite a bit that doesn't make sense about what happened in Waco. I'd be more inclined to give the fibbies the benefit of the doubt than I think you would, but your point is definitely valid here. The only thing that I feel I can say about that is the system isn't perfect. A hollow comment, I know. And the whole incident is definitely cause for alarm and closer oversight into the FBI's activities; which one could argue has occurred ad continues to occur.
It's a fact. Their religion was considered "unacceptable" and they were exterminated.
However, I have to take issue here. There's a big difference between a raid gone horribly wrong and an extermination. I'm sure you can argue that there was no accident involved, that the raid was conducted on a pretense with the sole intent to murder every man woman and child in the compound, but I have a hard time believing that. Maybe I'm just too naive.
Just a year ago, we narrowly escaped imposition of a brutal military dictatorship which would have outlawed Christianity entirely. This is no joke. Secret documents were leaked and have found their way into the patriotic resistance underground. This material has been widely disseminated. No one is fooled.
That's a pretty inflammatory accusation. I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence of this "brutal military dictatorship". Otherwise, you'll have to agree this sounds way too paranoid to be true.
You've missed the point. It is insane and unjust that I am subject to the same laws as a citizen of Massachusetts. Let them have their laws -- but let me have mine.
I think you'd agree there are certian elements of "common law" that can apply regardless of jurisdiction. Eg murder, theft, assault, etc etc. You're using a pretty broad brush here. And speaking as a citizen of Massachusetts, I'd agree we have some pretty dumb laws:)
This is called "freedom": We all get to live as we choose.
So if I choose to smoke marijuana, have 4 wives, and sleep with 13 year old girls, I should be able to do that? Unlikely. We get to live as the majority chooses.
Irrelevant. I choose not to live alongside certain people. They affect my property values and my quality of life.
Are your rights to not have your property values go down more important than their rights to live where they choose? If you don't respond to any of my other questions, please answer this one, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around your logic here.
That is correct. We have devoted our "lives, liberties, and sacred honor" to limiting the power of the central government. This will again be a free nation only when power is excercised at the local level, for the benefit of the community.
And yet you applaud the central government's actions to remove this person from Free Republic's forums. I don't follow your logic.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free.
Who is to judge what an "inferior student" is? You? Me? The Gov.. oh, nevermind. I'm all for expelling violent students, but until every family can afford to send their children to private schools, public education remains a right for every citizen. That being said, IMHO secondary schools in this country should be flunking every third student for failure to pass the required curriculum. Not because they're different or disabled, but because they're lazy. There is a difference.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
Last I checked, "Federal stormtroopers" weren't raiding churches, temples, synagogues(sp, I'm an ignorant goyim) etc. Perhaps you're referring to school prayer? I would point you again to the Constitution you hold so dear, which guarantees the separation of church and state. Public prayer has no place in the public schools. If your child wants to pray silently they are certianly able to do that. Allowing public prayer during a government sponsored program is a tacit endorsement of one religon, with the implication that the government doesn't endorse the others. Sure, this seems extreme, but what happens when Susie, whose parents are Pagan, wants to pray to the Goddess? Not so simple when you're talking about anything other than "Christianity". As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
Last time I checked there were any number of excellent faith-based schools operating freely within the borders of the U.S. The government doesn't seem to be too concerned about it.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
You are free. Free to turn the TV off if you don't like what you see. Free to write to that program's advertisers and protest the content. And you're also free to choose any number of additional options for entertainment.
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
If you've got a problem with the way the laws are written, write your duly elected representative. If he/she decides that your opinions and views are worthy of legislation, and the majority of voters agree with them, then the law will be passed. If they don't, it won't. That's the way the system works.
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Their money's just as green as yours is.
I note that you use Karl Marx's term "antithesis" to make your argument.
It may surprise you to know I've never read Marx. "Antithesis" was the appropriate word for what I was attempting to express, the opposite of another idea, or "thesis".
Leftist UN internationalism is anathema to a free man. The liberals are nibbling away at our national sovereignty, piece by piece, and UN "police actions" are the thin end of the wedge.
Ok, now you're critically off topic. This started out as a debate over a troll being removed from a message board. Somehow it's evolved into the "UN-Liberal-Fascist Stormtrooper" conspiracy. Time to change the tinfoil in your hat, there, Sparky.
Buddy, look around. It's been more than 200 years since anyone in this country earned the rights you claim to have won for yourself by virtue of your political beliefs.
As I understand it the core tenet of conservatism is the freedom to live one's life free from governmental interference. Being told to defend a nation or a Constitution you may or may not believe in seems to be the antithesis of this concept.
If you're a true believer Conservative as you claim to be, I'm confused as to why you aren't repudiating the court's granting of the injunction, as it interferes with one of the core freedoms in your precious Constitution. Oh, wait, that's right, the free speech in question was Liberal and we can't have those leftie freaks saying whatever they want, now can we?
That being said, I agree that the FR had the right to seek legal relief from this pattern of abuse. As a dyed-in-the-wool New England liberal, I chafe at the restriction of free speech in this case, but my bleeding heart stops short of telling someone they MUST allow whoever they want access to their web site, simply because it's on the Net. My position here is "My system, my rules. You don't like it, don't load the page."
Wait until you get out of college. The sad fact is 99% of the employers out there will screw over the employee at the drop of a hat if it'll make them money. I'm finding the advice offered to be pretty accurate here, especially the "get it in writing" item. If someone is sincere when they make a promise (of a raise, options, promotion etc after a certian amount of time) then they'll have no problem writing it down and signing their name to it. If they refuse, and try to make you feel like you're being unreasonable by asking for it in writing, let them know politely that it's for your protection as well as theirs, and if they refuse, then you can assume they were never serious about giving you what they offered in the first place.
What struck me about this interview was the reply to the "embrace and extend" question, which Mr. Miller nicely obfuscated by replying with the non sequitur "First of all, I think it is worth pointing out that standards, on their own, are not substantial enough to fully solve customer requirements."
If MS thinks it knows what's best for a certian protocol, programming language, or technology, let them reply to the RFC's like everyone else! Seems to me they're sidestepping the whole standards process by just declaring "We have more users therefore we know best what our customers want, and if it screws over some non-customers, too fscking bad, they should buy our products like everyone else. We know better."
He then goes on to talk about POSIX. What about IMAP, Kerberos, Java, etc? Way to not answer the question! Seems MS only supports technology that they develop or that they can bastardize. Granted, that's capitalism in action, and not despicable in and of itself, but you can't do that and then turn around and talk about providing "the best user experience for the largest majority of users" or some other similar PR dreck.
The problem with MS isn't that they're a giant monopolistic megalomaniacal monolith of a company, the problem is that they deny it.
I've been following this case with appropriate concern for a while now. While I no longer use Hotmail for a variety of reasons (the most significant of which is performance issues) this seems to set a dangerous precedent.
What do you folks think about setting up a "honey pot" style information-gathering effort using Hotmail or $passportService? For example, send a PowerPoint presentation depicting a proposal for some potentially lucrative business plan that MS could co-opt?
Conversely, has anyone out there in/. land been able to determine if MS read their email?
There's a lot of chicken littling (is that a verb now?) going on here but not too many hard-and-fast facts. Even so much as a legal opinion from an IP lawyer would be useful.
Not always. In some states (Massachusetts being one) debit cards' users are afforded the same protection under the law as 'ordinary' credit cards, i.e. you can only be held liable for the first $50 of a fraudulent transaction.
MA gets a lot of things wrong in terms of government intervention but this is one case where IMHO it's a good idea.
OSX has something called "Classic" which basically runs a Mac OS 9.1 machine as a process within OSX. It's a bit like Mac on Linux running on Yellow Dog Linux, it's not emulation, it's native instructions. It's a bit of a pig but works suprisingly well. Even my Handspring Visor can talk to it over USB (despite Classic's poor access to the hardware.)
As a bonus, if Classic locks, you can go into Terminal.app and kill it without rebooting:) A definite plus. It shows up as TrueBlueEnviron in a process list.
MS isn't responsible for User Head Gap. If the user is dumb enough not to read the box when it pops up, this gives their tech support one more opportunity to tell them "If you READ the SCREEN you will find the answer to your question is there."
I dream of a world where tech support reps can say this to the idiots that call. Without being fired, that is. $deity forbid someone should be TOLD when they're being dense. They might actually (gasp) LEARN from the experience.
But the Blue Man Group's shows are some of the best use of multiple media I've seen. They use video, scrolling LED message boards, video tape, backlighting, electronic music, public address systems, water baloons.. It's quite the experience.
The fault there lies with management who, over your reccomendations, selected these consultants for no good reason other than the ISP liked them.
Moving to a frac T is a signifigant jump in complexity. Perhaps they should have (gasp) HIRED someone full time to maintain it? Would be lots lots cheaper in the long run.
Too bad most companies have a vision only slightly longer than the end of their eyelashes.
Folks, look around you. I've worked for several consulting companies. They will sell you out for the cost of a latte at the drop of a hat. The clients wouldn't need to hire you if they were willing to pay for the employees (at a substantial savings, hourly) to tell them what you tell them. Their being cheap and short sighted is not your fault. Most employees enjoy no more job security than the average consultant these days, and are fired as readily when it fits some executive asshole's whim. Corporate America is all about screwing the little guy.
Sometimes the little guys (consultants) need to screw them back. Any big company that *could* hire a full time employee to handle a need but goes with the quick and dirty method of hiring a temp (which is really what most consultants are) deserves whatever it gets.
I know from personal experience that Massachusetts is an 'at will' employment state. You can be fired for no reason whatsoever. I was let go from a position whose objectives were literally impossible to acheive (50,000 customers, ONE billing representative.) No cause is required. I was told, to my face, and in writing, "We don't have to tell you. You should know." Consultation with an attorney confirmed the fact that you can be fired in this state for breathing too often, or any similarly trumped up reason, or no reason at all. The flip side is that you can walk into your manager's office and say "I quit, effective right now" and when they scream about the project you're leaving undone you can look them in the eye and say "Too bad, you should have treated me better."
Slashdot Mirror
There's an argument you can make here that may encourage the spyware developers to stop using the drive-by installation features of IE and go back to requiring user intervention. You might think that that would be counter-productive to their aims, but I would disagree. If a user is required to click to install spyware, they are giving permission to the authors to install the spyware on their machine. Therefore any consequences of said software being installed (information theft, privacy invasion, etc) are soely the responsibility of the user. If that user is an administrator on the machine (and I'm thinking of Windows here), then they are giving the spyware access to every file on the machine.
In a lot of cases the EULA that nobody reads (and I'm just as guilty as the next guy of this) has language in it that gives the developers of the spyware pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they want. And since the user has agreed to it, there's no crime. Even if one were to file a civil suit, there would be no grounds; all the defendant company would have to do is point to the EULA (which the courts have determined are binding) and say "We made a good faith effort to inform the user of the conditions of the use of our software. If they chose not to read the contract they were agreeing to, we cannot be held responsible."
Blaming the victim? You bet I am. Then again, taking advantage of people's ignorance has never been criminal. If it were, AOL, WalMart, and most of Madison Avenue (and IMHO the Republican Party) would not exist.
I'll agree that a little basic education is a vital part of the solution to the spyware problem. (The others being dumping IE and software-based solutions like AdAware, Spybot, etc.)
However, the problem is that in a lot of cases the problem isn't ignorance, it's stupidity. (Please see my comment further up re: the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Earlier comment here )
Many (if not most) "average" computer users don't want to be concerned with how it works, just that it works, as other commenters on this article have stated. When they are confronted with a problem that prevents the computer from working in some way (eg loaded up with malware) that requires them to decide whether they're going to be stupid or ignorant, many (if not most) will choose stupid each time, mostly out of laziness.
In other situations, there are institutional blocks to user education, in a misguided attempt to coddle the users into thinking that they don't require any further training. In other words, if we make the users go to training classes on these problems, they will interpret it as IT telling them that they're stupid. (Leaving alone the fact that in a lot of situations, the user won't go to the training anyway; the example that I'm thinking of is in higher education, where the professors won't tolerate any implication that there's something that they don't know.)
It's my opinion that lots of wasted man-hours (in IT) and lost productivity (by the users) could be prevented if the users could be told that they're stupid once in a while. That would make IT unpopular, but since when is the main function of IT to be liked? IMHO the main function of IT is to keep the systems running. If doing so ruffles some feathers, so be it. A little BOFH goes a long way.
But he doesn't much about the inner workings of his computer. Is he a lazy, uniformed moron?
Uninformed, clearly. Lazy, that's tougher. It would depend on if he's a) sought out the information or b) asked someone in the know for the information. Moron? That's a matter of opinion.
My personal definition of stupidity makes a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. An ignorant person doesn't know a given fact or possess a given skill. A stupid person is aware that they don't know something, doesn't care, and makes no effort to learn. Ignorant people can be educated. You can't cure stupid.
Fortunately, you can charge them obscene amounts of money to fix things that, if they put in the slightest effort, they could learn to fix for themselves. I have no problem gouging the living hell out of someone who can't be bothered to fire a synapse. Spyware prevention and removal requires no special training, certification or equipment.
Yes it is IT's fault. They let users have privilages[sic] sufficient to install programs, leading to viruses.
...
Ok, then whose fault is this:
IT: We need to implement $securityrule.
CEO: No.
IT: But it will prevent $securityproblem.
CEO: No.
IT:
Or this:
IT: $User violated a security rule. They should be reprimanded.
CEO: No, we don't want to piss them off.
IT: But it was in the employee handbook, and they signed a statement saying they'd follow the rule.
CEO: Get back to work, shouldn't you have a microchip to renoberate or something?
If it were a buffer overflow in a JPEG I wouldn't blame IT.
You're in a very small minority of people who actually have a working knowledge of network security. Everyone else blames IT for everything from global warming to their coffee getting cold. The mantra is "Don't understand it? It's not important. Blame IT."
Except when IT isn't allowed to implement sane usage policies (locked down machines, automatically expiring passwords, actually making users have different passwords than one company-wide password for everyone), because management doesn't want the users to complain.
Because, as we all know, having users that don't complain is MUCH more important than having a secure network.
In many states debit cards are afforded the same protection as credit cards (i.e. you have the right to dispute a charge, and you are only responsible for the first $50 of any fraudulent charge.) IMHO it's a lot safer to carry a debit card than cash.
"Goyim" is the plural. I'm no linguist,
:)
I think you're right about that. My bad.
Federal stormtroopers burned an entire congregation in Waco, Texas, eight years ago.
Yes. Yes they did. There is quite a bit that doesn't make sense about what happened in Waco. I'd be more inclined to give the fibbies the benefit of the doubt than I think you would, but your point is definitely valid here. The only thing that I feel I can say about that is the system isn't perfect. A hollow comment, I know. And the whole incident is definitely cause for alarm and closer oversight into the FBI's activities; which one could argue has occurred ad continues to occur.
It's a fact. Their religion was considered "unacceptable" and they were exterminated.
However, I have to take issue here. There's a big difference between a raid gone horribly wrong and an extermination. I'm sure you can argue that there was no accident involved, that the raid was conducted on a pretense with the sole intent to murder every man woman and child in the compound, but I have a hard time believing that. Maybe I'm just too naive.
Just a year ago, we narrowly escaped imposition of a brutal military dictatorship which would have outlawed Christianity entirely. This is no joke. Secret documents were leaked and have found their way into the patriotic resistance underground. This material has been widely disseminated. No one is fooled.
That's a pretty inflammatory accusation. I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence of this "brutal military dictatorship". Otherwise, you'll have to agree this sounds way too paranoid to be true.
You've missed the point. It is insane and unjust that I am subject to the same laws as a citizen of Massachusetts. Let them have their laws -- but let me have mine.
I think you'd agree there are certian elements of "common law" that can apply regardless of jurisdiction. Eg murder, theft, assault, etc etc. You're using a pretty broad brush here. And speaking as a citizen of Massachusetts, I'd agree we have some pretty dumb laws
This is called "freedom": We all get to live as we choose.
So if I choose to smoke marijuana, have 4 wives, and sleep with 13 year old girls, I should be able to do that? Unlikely. We get to live as the majority chooses.
Irrelevant. I choose not to live alongside certain people. They affect my property values and my quality of life.
Are your rights to not have your property values go down more important than their rights to live where they choose? If you don't respond to any of my other questions, please answer this one, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around your logic here.
That is correct. We have devoted our "lives, liberties, and sacred honor" to limiting the power of the central government. This will again be a free nation only when power is excercised at the local level, for the benefit of the community.
And yet you applaud the central government's actions to remove this person from Free Republic's forums. I don't follow your logic.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free.
Who is to judge what an "inferior student" is? You? Me? The Gov.. oh, nevermind. I'm all for expelling violent students, but until every family can afford to send their children to private schools, public education remains a right for every citizen. That being said, IMHO secondary schools in this country should be flunking every third student for failure to pass the required curriculum. Not because they're different or disabled, but because they're lazy. There is a difference.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
Last I checked, "Federal stormtroopers" weren't raiding churches, temples, synagogues(sp, I'm an ignorant goyim) etc. Perhaps you're referring to school prayer? I would point you again to the Constitution you hold so dear, which guarantees the separation of church and state. Public prayer has no place in the public schools. If your child wants to pray silently they are certianly able to do that. Allowing public prayer during a government sponsored program is a tacit endorsement of one religon, with the implication that the government doesn't endorse the others. Sure, this seems extreme, but what happens when Susie, whose parents are Pagan, wants to pray to the Goddess? Not so simple when you're talking about anything other than "Christianity".
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
Last time I checked there were any number of excellent faith-based schools operating freely within the borders of the U.S. The government doesn't seem to be too concerned about it.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
You are free. Free to turn the TV off if you don't like what you see. Free to write to that program's advertisers and protest the content. And you're also free to choose any number of additional options for entertainment.
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
If you've got a problem with the way the laws are written, write your duly elected representative. If he/she decides that your opinions and views are worthy of legislation, and the majority of voters agree with them, then the law will be passed. If they don't, it won't. That's the way the system works.
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Their money's just as green as yours is.
I note that you use Karl Marx's term "antithesis" to make your argument.
It may surprise you to know I've never read Marx. "Antithesis" was the appropriate word for what I was attempting to express, the opposite of another idea, or "thesis".
Leftist UN internationalism is anathema to a free man. The liberals are nibbling away at our national sovereignty, piece by piece, and UN "police actions" are the thin end of the wedge.
Ok, now you're critically off topic. This started out as a debate over a troll being removed from a message board. Somehow it's evolved into the "UN-Liberal-Fascist Stormtrooper" conspiracy. Time to change the tinfoil in your hat, there, Sparky.
Actually, no, I don't. I probably should.
And why was this modded down off-topic? Posting a warning of an (IMHO) deceptive inappropriate link is off-topic?
Buddy, look around. It's been more than 200 years since anyone in this country earned the rights you claim to have won for yourself by virtue of your political beliefs.
As I understand it the core tenet of conservatism is the freedom to live one's life free from governmental interference. Being told to defend a nation or a Constitution you may or may not believe in seems to be the antithesis of this concept.
If you're a true believer Conservative as you claim to be, I'm confused as to why you aren't repudiating the court's granting of the injunction, as it interferes with one of the core freedoms in your precious Constitution. Oh, wait, that's right, the free speech in question was Liberal and we can't have those leftie freaks saying whatever they want, now can we?
That being said, I agree that the FR had the right to seek legal relief from this pattern of abuse. As a dyed-in-the-wool New England liberal, I chafe at the restriction of free speech in this case, but my bleeding heart stops short of telling someone they MUST allow whoever they want access to their web site, simply because it's on the Net. My position here is "My system, my rules. You don't like it, don't load the page."
Beware goatse.cx-style link above.
Guess I should have known better than to click on a link posted by an AC.
Wait until you get out of college. The sad fact is 99% of the employers out there will screw over the employee at the drop of a hat if it'll make them money. I'm finding the advice offered to be pretty accurate here, especially the "get it in writing" item. If someone is sincere when they make a promise (of a raise, options, promotion etc after a certian amount of time) then they'll have no problem writing it down and signing their name to it. If they refuse, and try to make you feel like you're being unreasonable by asking for it in writing, let them know politely that it's for your protection as well as theirs, and if they refuse, then you can assume they were never serious about giving you what they offered in the first place.
6 months ago. Granted, there's an O'Reilly book now. But the peer to peer "revolution" has been around for years.
Sorry JonKatz, can't go along with you on this one.
What struck me about this interview was the reply to the "embrace and extend" question, which Mr. Miller nicely obfuscated by replying with the non sequitur "First of all, I think it is worth pointing out that standards, on their own, are not substantial enough to fully solve customer requirements."
If MS thinks it knows what's best for a certian protocol, programming language, or technology, let them reply to the RFC's like everyone else! Seems to me they're sidestepping the whole standards process by just declaring "We have more users therefore we know best what our customers want, and if it screws over some non-customers, too fscking bad, they should buy our products like everyone else. We know better."
He then goes on to talk about POSIX. What about IMAP, Kerberos, Java, etc? Way to not answer the question! Seems MS only supports technology that they develop or that they can bastardize. Granted, that's capitalism in action, and not despicable in and of itself, but you can't do that and then turn around and talk about providing "the best user experience for the largest majority of users" or some other similar PR dreck.
The problem with MS isn't that they're a giant monopolistic megalomaniacal monolith of a company, the problem is that they deny it.
I've been following this case with appropriate concern for a while now. While I no longer use Hotmail for a variety of reasons (the most significant of which is performance issues) this seems to set a dangerous precedent.
/. land been able to determine if MS read their email?
What do you folks think about setting up a "honey pot" style information-gathering effort using Hotmail or $passportService? For example, send a PowerPoint presentation depicting a proposal for some potentially lucrative business plan that MS could co-opt?
Conversely, has anyone out there in
There's a lot of chicken littling (is that a verb now?) going on here but not too many hard-and-fast facts. Even so much as a legal opinion from an IP lawyer would be useful.
Not always. In some states (Massachusetts being one) debit cards' users are afforded the same protection under the law as 'ordinary' credit cards, i.e. you can only be held liable for the first $50 of a fraudulent transaction.
MA gets a lot of things wrong in terms of government intervention but this is one case where IMHO it's a good idea.
OSX has something called "Classic" which basically runs a Mac OS 9.1 machine as a process within OSX. It's a bit like Mac on Linux running on Yellow Dog Linux, it's not emulation, it's native instructions. It's a bit of a pig but works suprisingly well. Even my Handspring Visor can talk to it over USB (despite Classic's poor access to the hardware.)
:) A definite plus. It shows up as TrueBlueEnviron in a process list.
As a bonus, if Classic locks, you can go into Terminal.app and kill it without rebooting
MS isn't responsible for User Head Gap. If the user is dumb enough not to read the box when it pops up, this gives their tech support one more opportunity to tell them "If you READ the SCREEN you will find the answer to your question is there." I dream of a world where tech support reps can say this to the idiots that call. Without being fired, that is. $deity forbid someone should be TOLD when they're being dense. They might actually (gasp) LEARN from the experience.
But the Blue Man Group's shows are some of the best use of multiple media I've seen. They use video, scrolling LED message boards, video tape, backlighting, electronic music, public address systems, water baloons.. It's quite the experience.
Moving to a frac T is a signifigant jump in complexity. Perhaps they should have (gasp) HIRED someone full time to maintain it? Would be lots lots cheaper in the long run.
Too bad most companies have a vision only slightly longer than the end of their eyelashes.
Folks, look around you. I've worked for several consulting companies. They will sell you out for the cost of a latte at the drop of a hat. The clients wouldn't need to hire you if they were willing to pay for the employees (at a substantial savings, hourly) to tell them what you tell them.
Their being cheap and short sighted is not your fault. Most employees enjoy no more job security than the average consultant these days, and are fired as readily when it fits some executive asshole's whim. Corporate America is all about screwing the little guy.
Sometimes the little guys (consultants) need to screw them back. Any big company that *could* hire a full time employee to handle a need but goes with the quick and dirty method of hiring a temp (which is really what most consultants are) deserves whatever it gets.
I know from personal experience that Massachusetts is an 'at will' employment state. You can be fired for no reason whatsoever. I was let go from a position whose objectives were literally impossible to acheive (50,000 customers, ONE billing representative.) No cause is required. I was told, to my face, and in writing, "We don't have to tell you. You should know." Consultation with an attorney confirmed the fact that you can be fired in this state for breathing too often, or any similarly trumped up reason, or no reason at all. The flip side is that you can walk into your manager's office and say "I quit, effective right now" and when they scream about the project you're leaving undone you can look them in the eye and say "Too bad, you should have treated me better."