...people on Long Island talk funny.
I know this, because my wife has been telling me that for years. Now that I haven't lived on LI for quite some time, whenever I speak with my family back home I can hear it. Everyone on that island needs speech therapy, not just the college girls.
I must have forgotten the/sarcasm tag at the end of my post.
The point is, netbooks and ultraportables don't have optical drives pretty much by definition. They don't come with them not because they're not necessary, but because they're netbooks and ultraportables. The author is using old news to support a disjoint claim.
I value the importance of privacy as much as any good Slashdot reader, but we're talking about an opt-in social network. If you want privacy, don't use the service that's already linked to everything else you do publicly on the Internet. Rather, get your privacy at one of the other, "more secure," social networking sites, like Facebook, or MySpace.
Better yet, eschew social networking altogether. Or, if you want an anonymous social network that plays by your rules, build one.
I don't like the sound of "standard default password." That's just asking for all sorts of trouble. How about changing the SSID to something like, "Starbux Network Password: freenet" This way the password is available without having to post signs, etc., and you don't have to worry about involving default passwords of any sort.
However, this is still a band-aid over the real problem. Facebook and the like should just get on the ball and enforce TLS.
Yes, I'm replying to myself rather than responding to every post.
I'm not trying to limit free speech. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with depictions of Muhammad. You have every right to your opinion. But what is lost in the message is that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not give you a blanket right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. But that's not even relevant. What is relevant is that this was a page on the Facebook site, a privately owned and operated company. Censoring their own website is not a violation of free speech. If you don't like the company's regulations, go somewhere else! I still may not agree with your form of protest, but I stand by your rights within what freedom of speech actually is (and not what one may think it is).
We invoke "freedom of speech" only when it suits us, often without knowing what it really means, and that's just wrong. I do believe that standing up for your rights - even when misguided - is better than inaction, because freedom of speech is important, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The vast majority of Muslims aren't the fundamentalist extremist terrorists you're describing. Is it really okay to insult an entire group of people for the sake of pissing-off a small portion of their population? Even if you think it is, are we really any better than they by using these tactics?
I'm going to say it again: this has nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression. This is people looking for an excuse to be bigoted while hiding under the guise of free speech.
What "honest opinions" do I want to prevent people from expressing? Do you really think most people were participating to express their opinions about Muhammad and Islam? People were being bigots, and that's Just Not Right. Facebook has no obligation to protect free speech. Even if they did, the idea of free speech isn't to protect people who want to be deliberate assholes. You have the right to bear arms, but you can't shoot someone simply because you don't like them. Why the double standard?
First and foremost, Facebook's T&Cs outranks free speech. It explicitly states:
You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
Draw Muhammad Day isn't about us standing up against terrorists. It isn't even about standing up against Islamic fundamentalists. It's about blatant bigotry. I'd venture to say most (if not close to all) people who participated did so out of pure hatred and with complete ignorance. This certainly violates Facebook's terms.
Fighting hateful behavior with more hateful behavior is sophomoric. While I really wish I could be defending free speech here, there has to be a point where I draw the line. If Draw Muhammad Day was a peaceful, public demonstration where people where drawing the prophet hugging pandas and sniffing roses, this post would be quite different. Unfortunately, that's not the case. People where being intentionally hurtful on a publicly-accessible, corporate-owned website. Facebook did the right thing.
The real stupid thing here is the idea that she should not be free to say what she wants.
I think this is a case of "it depends." I think, for one, we need to come to a consensus on what sort of privacy you should be able to expect on a social networking site. Should you consider it private communication or public? And even if it is private, there are certain situations where it doesn't matter. If you work for the public and say or do something - in private or not - which puts into question your integrity or ability to perform your job, you should have no expectation of privacy unless that privacy is protected by law (e.g., attorney-client privilege). This counts doubly if you intentionally friend your boss or another employee and still post such comments.
On the other hand, for example, if your boss was trawling the Web and finds your comments because Facebook has poor privacy practices, you communication should be protected.
You can not expect to take part in an online social networking site without ceding some bit of privacy. Otherwise, the "social networking" part of the deal is void (sociableness and privacy are antonyms, fwiw). Likewise, while the services may be provided to users free of monetary charges, there is a price to be paid, and that is privacy. Just because we don't have to break out our wallets to support these sites doesn't mean that someone doesn't have to. If Facebook can't make money off their users, they can't pay their bills. It's really that simple. In this respect, I agree with a small part of the article: we do need to expect, and accept, a certain amount of openness.
That said, we should expect the same from Facebook. It is our data after all, and Facebook has no business if it has no users. They should warn users well in advance of any changes that may affect privacy and provide clear tools to edit how our data is (or isn't) used. By default, security setting should be more restrictive. I shouldn't have to worry about my friends' privacy settings. I shouldn't have to worry about personally identifying information being leaked without my permission. In these respects, Facebook has failed miserably and it is not something that we should simply accept for the sake of innovation.
From TFA: "Using the Internet means a lot more than HTTP traffic!"
Maybe that's because the Web != the Internet? I know that the Web represents most of the active time many people spend on the Internet, but really? When did the two become synonymous?
How is Apple and different from Microsoft? Microsoft bundled IE with Windows. Apple disabled third-party syncing to iTunes, doesn't allow OSX to be installed on anything but their hardware, the iPhone is locked into iTunes, iPhone OS apps can only be written in an Apple-approved language, Google Voice was disabled/rejected, and on and on and on.
Now, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Apple's decisions (or Microsoft's, for that matter), only that Apple is no better than Microsoft when it comes to anti-competitive behavior. You can bet that if market share between MS and Apple were reversed, there would be some pretty serious consequences for Apple, and Windows would still have IE by default without MS having to offer alternative browsers.
Personally, I have no problem paying for the services I use (and a little here and there to help those in need is ok, too). The problem is, I pay income tax. Some of that money is going to the ISPs, etc. Then I pay state/local taxes which also partially fund ISPs. Then I pay additional taxes attached to my broadband/cable/telephone bill. Then there's the broadband bill itself. Oh, and my cable/telephone/wireless bills are increased because carriers can't afford broadband on its own.
So fine, I'm willing to pay extra taxes if it's going to significantly improve my broadband experience, but somewhere along the line I know I'm going to be [double | triple | quadruple | etc.] charged, and that's not right.
The problem with the Geek Squad is that Best Buy managers are often so far removed from what the Geek Squad is and how it should work that it becomes a poorly managed mess in many stores. This is the crux of the issues many people have with the Geek Squad.
The truth is that the optimization service is a good one for many people. Best Buy creates the specifics of the optimization service based on feedback from their customers and from the Geek Squad Agents who work on their computers. You must realize that for the majority of the Geek Squad's customers, a computer (tower) is a "router," Toshiba is "Toshibia," Linksys is "Linksky," Windows 7 is "Windows Veesta 7," and that's only if they know the difference between Windows and MS Office (which MANY do not). We're not talking about people with even passing computer knowledge. For these people, not having an icon for Internet Explorer or My Computer on their desktop (as is the case in many freshly-purchased machines) is akin to having a car with no steering wheel or pedals. The optimization service is designed to maximize the usability of a new computer for those customers who need it.
The optimization service takes some time (30 minutes to an hour) to complete. To save customers some time, the Geek Squad will "pre-optimize" a small percentage of their computers. In doing this, they are not violating any laws provided they leave any minimum available quantity (if stated in the weekly ad) unopened. If you attempt to purchase a computer and all they have left are pre-optimized units, they are required to sell you the computer at the normal retail price. They can not force you to pay the optimization fee. They do have the option, however, to restore the computer to factory defaults before they allow you to leave with it, and they do not have to give you an open-box discount. If employees are breaking these rules (laws) it is because of the poor management I referred to earlier, but it is certainly not company policy.
The real villains here are Microsoft and the computer manufacturers for not providing a consistent and customer-friendly experience for new computer buyers. Some of it comes from simply economics and marketing: manufacturers can reduce selling cost by including loads of trial software, not including MS Office and antivirus software, etc. The savings are then (misleadingly) passed to the customer. (I am sure, though, that Best Buy's enormous purchasing power has some say in what the manufacturers do, though.)
These stories get on my nerves. Best Buy's purpose, as with every business, is to make money. The Geek Squad makes Best Buy money by providing services to people who do not have the same skillset as many here on Slashdot do.
(Disclaimer: I worked at the Geek Squad for a few years after leaving a job as a network tech to afford me the opportunity to return to school.) Now, I'm not going to defend Best Buy/Geek Squad (I left for a reason, after all), but people aren't understanding the point of what the Geek Squad does, and what the Optimization service is.
The concept of the optimization is to prepare a new computer in such a way that someone with little to no computer experience can take their new machine home and not have to worry about certain things. For example:
Placing My Computer, My Documents, Internet Explorer and Recycle Bin on the Desktop.
Disables the shortcuts to enable StickyKeys, FilterKeys and ToggleKeys.
Disables automatic system restart after a system failure (BSOD).
Download all current critical Windows updates.
Uninstall unwanted trial software.
Disable unnecessary startup items.
Now, these might all seem trivial to you, but believe me when I say that way too many people came to the Geek Squad to complain about those exact things not being done. The target here should not be Best Buy, but the manufacturers who do a customer-unfriendly job of preparing new PCs for sale.
I suppose, though, it depends on the class. The way I see it, there's no substitute for actual participation. If the class you're talking about doesn't involve participation, then I don't see the harm (it then wouldn't be much different than an online course that many schools are offering). But if the course involves any participation, either institute an attendance policy, or start grading participation.
I've run into some problems with people who throw out resumes because of certifications. It's true that many certified people don't really know anything at all, but it's not good to make blanket decisions based on whether or not you're MS certified...
I, for one, had no certifications three years into being an IT manager for a telecommunications company, and none of our staff was certified either. However, part of the requirements for some business deals we were making at the time called for there to be someone on staff who held certain certs. I hammered out the MCSE, CCNA, and CCNP certs in a couple of months and voila, the deals were made.
At the time, I figured it couldn't hurt to have those certifications on my resume, especially with my work experience, but I couldn't have been more wrong. I had such a terrible time trying to get as much as an interview until I took the certifications off my resume. After that, I found a job in no time. I think the policy of dismissing resumes because of certifications is silly, but it is telling.
The problem with Vex is that it's primarily intended for highschool-aged people - or at least that's RadioShack's stand on it - and how many highschoolers are going to shell out > $300 for a robot kit?
This whole thing is made worse by the fact that RS will stop carrying Verizon at the end of the year in favor of Cingular. So now they'll be carrying that along with Spring and Nextel. Radio Shack works on the Good, Better, Best principle. But what do they have now? Bad, Terrible, and Really Really Shitty?
I'm only half-ticked. Sprint, contrary to what everyone else seems to think, has excellent phones and great service. Their customer support is the worst, though. They're perhaps the one company that would benefit from outsourcing their customer support. Their push-to-talk feature is hands down better than Nextels, too, fwiw.
Cingular, imho, is terrible. Rollover minutes are nowhere near as useful as Sprint's Fair & Flexible plans. Sprint's network is everywhere (and to top it off, they roam on Verizon's network...if you don't get service with Sprint or Verizon, you won't get service ANYWHERE). Cingular tries to win people over by offering flashy phones that wouldn't get good reception if you were plugged in to a cell tower.
And Nextel, well... Let's ignore the fact that business customers get prefferential treatment (find someone with a business accound and one with an individual account and see who gets better reception). 8 out of every 10 times I try to call a Nextel phone, it spends 5 minutes trying to locate it. And forget about the walkie-talkie. How many times do you have to push the button before it actually works?
The Sprint-Nextel merger makes absolutely no sense to me. People are flocking from Nextel to Sprint on the premise that, once the merger goes through, the Nextel PTT with work with Sprint's. News Flash: Nextel plans on supporting their network until AT LEAST 2010. If I had to predict the future, I'd say that Nextel will be the business unit, and Sprint will be the individual consumer unit. I've heard it rumored that Nextel wanted to dump everyone but business accounts, anyway. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
Slashdot Mirror
...people on Long Island talk funny. I know this, because my wife has been telling me that for years. Now that I haven't lived on LI for quite some time, whenever I speak with my family back home I can hear it. Everyone on that island needs speech therapy, not just the college girls.
I must have forgotten the /sarcasm tag at the end of my post.
The point is, netbooks and ultraportables don't have optical drives pretty much by definition. They don't come with them not because they're not necessary, but because they're netbooks and ultraportables. The author is using old news to support a disjoint claim.
Netbooks and ultraportables don't have optical drives? What's next, cellphones without mechanical number pads? How do people come up with this stuff?
I value the importance of privacy as much as any good Slashdot reader, but we're talking about an opt-in social network. If you want privacy, don't use the service that's already linked to everything else you do publicly on the Internet. Rather, get your privacy at one of the other, "more secure," social networking sites, like Facebook, or MySpace. Better yet, eschew social networking altogether. Or, if you want an anonymous social network that plays by your rules, build one.
How long until people get it right: pre-pubescent script kiddies?
That's not entirely true. WPA2 will prevent Firesheep from working provided the WPA2 traffic isn't being decrypted.
I don't like the sound of "standard default password." That's just asking for all sorts of trouble. How about changing the SSID to something like, "Starbux Network Password: freenet" This way the password is available without having to post signs, etc., and you don't have to worry about involving default passwords of any sort. However, this is still a band-aid over the real problem. Facebook and the like should just get on the ball and enforce TLS.
How often do we need to repeat the same story?
Yes, I'm replying to myself rather than responding to every post.
I'm not trying to limit free speech. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with depictions of Muhammad. You have every right to your opinion. But what is lost in the message is that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not give you a blanket right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. But that's not even relevant. What is relevant is that this was a page on the Facebook site, a privately owned and operated company. Censoring their own website is not a violation of free speech. If you don't like the company's regulations, go somewhere else! I still may not agree with your form of protest, but I stand by your rights within what freedom of speech actually is (and not what one may think it is).
We invoke "freedom of speech" only when it suits us, often without knowing what it really means, and that's just wrong. I do believe that standing up for your rights - even when misguided - is better than inaction, because freedom of speech is important, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The vast majority of Muslims aren't the fundamentalist extremist terrorists you're describing. Is it really okay to insult an entire group of people for the sake of pissing-off a small portion of their population? Even if you think it is, are we really any better than they by using these tactics?
I'm going to say it again: this has nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression. This is people looking for an excuse to be bigoted while hiding under the guise of free speech.
What "honest opinions" do I want to prevent people from expressing? Do you really think most people were participating to express their opinions about Muhammad and Islam? People were being bigots, and that's Just Not Right. Facebook has no obligation to protect free speech. Even if they did, the idea of free speech isn't to protect people who want to be deliberate assholes. You have the right to bear arms, but you can't shoot someone simply because you don't like them. Why the double standard?
Draw Muhammad Day isn't about us standing up against terrorists. It isn't even about standing up against Islamic fundamentalists. It's about blatant bigotry. I'd venture to say most (if not close to all) people who participated did so out of pure hatred and with complete ignorance. This certainly violates Facebook's terms.
Fighting hateful behavior with more hateful behavior is sophomoric. While I really wish I could be defending free speech here, there has to be a point where I draw the line. If Draw Muhammad Day was a peaceful, public demonstration where people where drawing the prophet hugging pandas and sniffing roses, this post would be quite different. Unfortunately, that's not the case. People where being intentionally hurtful on a publicly-accessible, corporate-owned website. Facebook did the right thing.
The real stupid thing here is the idea that she should not be free to say what she wants.
I think this is a case of "it depends." I think, for one, we need to come to a consensus on what sort of privacy you should be able to expect on a social networking site. Should you consider it private communication or public? And even if it is private, there are certain situations where it doesn't matter. If you work for the public and say or do something - in private or not - which puts into question your integrity or ability to perform your job, you should have no expectation of privacy unless that privacy is protected by law (e.g., attorney-client privilege). This counts doubly if you intentionally friend your boss or another employee and still post such comments.
On the other hand, for example, if your boss was trawling the Web and finds your comments because Facebook has poor privacy practices, you communication should be protected.
You can not expect to take part in an online social networking site without ceding some bit of privacy. Otherwise, the "social networking" part of the deal is void (sociableness and privacy are antonyms, fwiw). Likewise, while the services may be provided to users free of monetary charges, there is a price to be paid, and that is privacy. Just because we don't have to break out our wallets to support these sites doesn't mean that someone doesn't have to. If Facebook can't make money off their users, they can't pay their bills. It's really that simple. In this respect, I agree with a small part of the article: we do need to expect, and accept, a certain amount of openness.
That said, we should expect the same from Facebook. It is our data after all, and Facebook has no business if it has no users. They should warn users well in advance of any changes that may affect privacy and provide clear tools to edit how our data is (or isn't) used. By default, security setting should be more restrictive. I shouldn't have to worry about my friends' privacy settings. I shouldn't have to worry about personally identifying information being leaked without my permission. In these respects, Facebook has failed miserably and it is not something that we should simply accept for the sake of innovation.
From TFA: "Using the Internet means a lot more than HTTP traffic!"
Maybe that's because the Web != the Internet? I know that the Web represents most of the active time many people spend on the Internet, but really? When did the two become synonymous?
How is Apple and different from Microsoft? Microsoft bundled IE with Windows. Apple disabled third-party syncing to iTunes, doesn't allow OSX to be installed on anything but their hardware, the iPhone is locked into iTunes, iPhone OS apps can only be written in an Apple-approved language, Google Voice was disabled/rejected, and on and on and on. Now, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Apple's decisions (or Microsoft's, for that matter), only that Apple is no better than Microsoft when it comes to anti-competitive behavior. You can bet that if market share between MS and Apple were reversed, there would be some pretty serious consequences for Apple, and Windows would still have IE by default without MS having to offer alternative browsers.
Personally, I have no problem paying for the services I use (and a little here and there to help those in need is ok, too). The problem is, I pay income tax. Some of that money is going to the ISPs, etc. Then I pay state/local taxes which also partially fund ISPs. Then I pay additional taxes attached to my broadband/cable/telephone bill. Then there's the broadband bill itself. Oh, and my cable/telephone/wireless bills are increased because carriers can't afford broadband on its own. So fine, I'm willing to pay extra taxes if it's going to significantly improve my broadband experience, but somewhere along the line I know I'm going to be [double | triple | quadruple | etc.] charged, and that's not right.
The problem with the Geek Squad is that Best Buy managers are often so far removed from what the Geek Squad is and how it should work that it becomes a poorly managed mess in many stores. This is the crux of the issues many people have with the Geek Squad.
The truth is that the optimization service is a good one for many people. Best Buy creates the specifics of the optimization service based on feedback from their customers and from the Geek Squad Agents who work on their computers. You must realize that for the majority of the Geek Squad's customers, a computer (tower) is a "router," Toshiba is "Toshibia," Linksys is "Linksky," Windows 7 is "Windows Veesta 7," and that's only if they know the difference between Windows and MS Office (which MANY do not). We're not talking about people with even passing computer knowledge. For these people, not having an icon for Internet Explorer or My Computer on their desktop (as is the case in many freshly-purchased machines) is akin to having a car with no steering wheel or pedals. The optimization service is designed to maximize the usability of a new computer for those customers who need it.
The optimization service takes some time (30 minutes to an hour) to complete. To save customers some time, the Geek Squad will "pre-optimize" a small percentage of their computers. In doing this, they are not violating any laws provided they leave any minimum available quantity (if stated in the weekly ad) unopened. If you attempt to purchase a computer and all they have left are pre-optimized units, they are required to sell you the computer at the normal retail price. They can not force you to pay the optimization fee. They do have the option, however, to restore the computer to factory defaults before they allow you to leave with it, and they do not have to give you an open-box discount. If employees are breaking these rules (laws) it is because of the poor management I referred to earlier, but it is certainly not company policy.
The real villains here are Microsoft and the computer manufacturers for not providing a consistent and customer-friendly experience for new computer buyers. Some of it comes from simply economics and marketing: manufacturers can reduce selling cost by including loads of trial software, not including MS Office and antivirus software, etc. The savings are then (misleadingly) passed to the customer. (I am sure, though, that Best Buy's enormous purchasing power has some say in what the manufacturers do, though.)
The concept of the optimization is to prepare a new computer in such a way that someone with little to no computer experience can take their new machine home and not have to worry about certain things. For example:
Now, these might all seem trivial to you, but believe me when I say that way too many people came to the Geek Squad to complain about those exact things not being done. The target here should not be Best Buy, but the manufacturers who do a customer-unfriendly job of preparing new PCs for sale.
"'There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-that's all.'"
-Lewis Carroll (Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There)
I suppose, though, it depends on the class. The way I see it, there's no substitute for actual participation. If the class you're talking about doesn't involve participation, then I don't see the harm (it then wouldn't be much different than an online course that many schools are offering). But if the course involves any participation, either institute an attendance policy, or start grading participation.
I've run into some problems with people who throw out resumes because of certifications. It's true that many certified people don't really know anything at all, but it's not good to make blanket decisions based on whether or not you're MS certified...
I, for one, had no certifications three years into being an IT manager for a telecommunications company, and none of our staff was certified either. However, part of the requirements for some business deals we were making at the time called for there to be someone on staff who held certain certs. I hammered out the MCSE, CCNA, and CCNP certs in a couple of months and voila, the deals were made.
At the time, I figured it couldn't hurt to have those certifications on my resume, especially with my work experience, but I couldn't have been more wrong. I had such a terrible time trying to get as much as an interview until I took the certifications off my resume. After that, I found a job in no time. I think the policy of dismissing resumes because of certifications is silly, but it is telling.
The problem with Vex is that it's primarily intended for highschool-aged people - or at least that's RadioShack's stand on it - and how many highschoolers are going to shell out > $300 for a robot kit?
As the gas falls toward the black hole, it speeds up, creates friction, an releases the energy in the form of x-rays.
This whole thing is made worse by the fact that RS will stop carrying Verizon at the end of the year in favor of Cingular. So now they'll be carrying that along with Spring and Nextel. Radio Shack works on the Good, Better, Best principle. But what do they have now? Bad, Terrible, and Really Really Shitty? I'm only half-ticked. Sprint, contrary to what everyone else seems to think, has excellent phones and great service. Their customer support is the worst, though. They're perhaps the one company that would benefit from outsourcing their customer support. Their push-to-talk feature is hands down better than Nextels, too, fwiw. Cingular, imho, is terrible. Rollover minutes are nowhere near as useful as Sprint's Fair & Flexible plans. Sprint's network is everywhere (and to top it off, they roam on Verizon's network...if you don't get service with Sprint or Verizon, you won't get service ANYWHERE). Cingular tries to win people over by offering flashy phones that wouldn't get good reception if you were plugged in to a cell tower. And Nextel, well... Let's ignore the fact that business customers get prefferential treatment (find someone with a business accound and one with an individual account and see who gets better reception). 8 out of every 10 times I try to call a Nextel phone, it spends 5 minutes trying to locate it. And forget about the walkie-talkie. How many times do you have to push the button before it actually works? The Sprint-Nextel merger makes absolutely no sense to me. People are flocking from Nextel to Sprint on the premise that, once the merger goes through, the Nextel PTT with work with Sprint's. News Flash: Nextel plans on supporting their network until AT LEAST 2010. If I had to predict the future, I'd say that Nextel will be the business unit, and Sprint will be the individual consumer unit. I've heard it rumored that Nextel wanted to dump everyone but business accounts, anyway. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.