Kennedy has posted his side of the story here: http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.html
"Apologize? For what? Using a pen name when dealing with an overzealous reporter? Because that't the extend of the "deception" that everyone is so excited about. The company itself exists, has real clients and is profitable. Nothing they can say will change that or other facts, like:
* We have nearly 24,000 users at xpnet.com.
* We collect and analyze over 230 million system metrics records and over 13 billion process metrics records every week.
* We publish our findings and make all of our resources freely available to the IT industry.
People want to skewer me because they don't agree with my point of view. Microsoft wants to skewer me because I hurt sales. IDG wants to skewer me to cover their asses - because, as I pointed out to ZDNet/CNet, they knew about the Craig Barth ruse all along. And they did nothing.
If anyone needs to apologize, it's IDG - but not for the reasons they've stated. It was their hunger for page views that ultimately drove them to turn a blind eye.
Me? I just used a pseudonym in a few email exchanges and during a a couple of phone calls. The rest is all BS and posturing, and they (IDG & ZDNet) know it.
RCK"
To be fair you are over simplifying the issue. Not all theories are created equal and they become more or less equal as time goes on and they gain more or less support in the form of evidence. I think we'll all have to agree that there is much more support for the theory of gravitational attraction than the big bang theory.
actually, the screenshots in this powerpoint file show an advanced button - which is not present on the downloadable version. And, although the pdf has been deleted off of symantec's site, this link to google's cache gives details on creating simulation files - looks like it'd be cool to play with.
The comment above, however, makes no sense at all. That combined with it being mod'd up as 'funny' means it is likely a hoax.
For it's brief mention in your comment, WordPerfect 5 is much more sworn by today and enjoyed much more widespread use than Word 5. Those were the golden days - while WP was still king and before everyone switched to the word processor put out by that operating system company, what was it? - Microsoft?
Another thing worth mentioning is that was in the day's before suites really took off - when generally you bought a word processor by itself. Not packaged with a bunch of stuff you rarely used and matched with a bloated price. You would also buy the spreadsheet software separately and it was not uncommon to use products from two different vendors as standards - for example, WordPerfect and Lotus 123 were common standards.
If no litigation comes from the Univeritsy of Michigan's open resistance to the RIAA then I think there will be little reason for other universities to fear litigation. They really do not have a case against the universities themselves althought their case with the individuals is sound.
I doubt you have children, my friend, you would be wise to save your comments on parenting responsibilty until you do. I have 3. I enjoy my children very much - they take up a great deal of my time. It is not my children that aren't worth the time to prescreen dvds. Indeed they are and I do prescreen some. However, in most cases the movies themselves are not worth the added effort and we end up not watching many.
Why can't you tolerate my beliefs? Why are posts about killing morally conservative people and their children mod'd up as funny? What offends you so much about me not wanting to watch smut and violence in my own home? Is it my responsibility to decide what education my children need and where it will come from, or is it yours? Again, do you even have children?
And how do you figure prescreening is not required? How can you fast forward through a swearing scene that you don't know is there? I would argue that scenes depicting violence and sex can hit the screen with little indication or lead-in time as well. Why are you oposed to this? Isn't it indeed that you want to not only allow such material in public but also push your morality on my kids by oposing a technology made for viewing private videos on private property. What is there to opose? And why opose it? That we disagree in terms of morality is no answer. If you wanted you could invent/use a device to insert more nudity and violence in to private viewins of films in your own home for all I care - that is your business. But please - keep it to yourself.
I, for one, am excited about this technology and what it will do for my family because I don't always have the time to sit and watch a dvd myself before watching it with my kids, so that I can shut off the "bad parts." I would happily pay for a service that I could trust to prescreen these for me. Which is what this is.
As far as the "old religious farts" dieing off, I hate to dissapoint you, but I'm 22 years old.
...ah, I remember the days - when all my friends had ONE instant messenger, nobody had ever heard of IM spam. Then, alas, AOL bought out ICQ and it all went downhill from there.
It is funny sometimes to think back to the message posted on ICQ's website (remember mirabilis.com or something like that) when AOL bought them. Something to the effect of, "we are confident AOL will be a good steward of ICQ..." {sigh}
What happens is moderators can't find a "-1 I disagree with you" choice so they just pick one of the others available without thinking that maybe the reason there is no "-1 I disagree with you" is because the point of moderation isn't to mod down the comments that you disagree with - it is to get rid of pointless comments. The fact that the comment in question was on topic and spurred discussion makes it neither "troll" or "flamebait" as it has been labeled.
I agree with that! It is likely that Leahy's comments have little behind them. Most likely result is lengthy exploratory committees and possibly even some minor legislation. But think of all the/. voters he's just won over!!!
Isn't it true that most scenarios currently being considered by retailers involve removing/disabling the tags at checkout? If so, then how is this any more of a privacy concern than barcodes and credit card machines which are already in place?
OK - didn't realize that Linda Tripp was prosecuted, I guess I just assumed that since the tapes were released and they appeared to consider them as evidence that no charges were pressed.
There is probably truth to both sides. I think he probably was involved with the Department of Insurance, though I doubt they told him to install the keylogger. Looks like he got a little overzealous and the Department of Insurance is washing their hands of his activity.
How can "
federal" wiretapping laws vary from state to state? Either the laws he broke are federal laws and the so the charges are federal or they were state laws and the article should read "California wiretapping charges."
When is the last time you remember hearing about an indictment for actual wiretapping? Doesn't it seem like people get away with wiretapping regularly? I'm thinking about things like the illegally recorded phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Or does the law specify exemption if it is done for a good cause?
True - all things considered, the best thing the government ever did for the internet was recognize the need to privatize and get their hands off. Not that something great didn't stem from their efforts, but the internet is one of those things that falls in to a category that should not be a function of government.
When it comes to Microsoft - I think we've all got a love/hate relationship with them of sorts. I try to keep in mind that Microsoft is under constant attack as well. Sometimes I wonder if people just hate them because they win more, but companies like IBM and Novell are no angels. Take a look at all the comments and discussion on this thread and replace the word Microsoft with IBM everywhere it appears. I think that very well may have been the discussion at hand if IBM had not let Gates have software rights. Let's face it - it isn't that the individuals at IBM are more righteous than those at Microsoft - it's that Microsoft gives individuals more power that caters to their sinful nature because of it's market position, so that sometimes Microsoft needs to be reminded of what is unfair.
Not to mention this would have a horrible effect on any of us running our own self-serve linux boxen. Redhat might have to take sendmail off their list of applications installed by default if all email gets blocked that doesn't have a.mail domain associated with it.
I doubt many home users are going to cough up $2-3k!
Has anyone else noticed how hard it is to get smtp service these days? Go ahead, register a domain & pay for email service. If they offer smtp service at all they won't give it to you up front. They'll have you make a special request and then ask why you don't use your ISP's smtp service. DUH - my ISP is not going to let me send email from me@mydomain.com to anywhere! This proposes to make it even more difficult.
It really is nothing new for Microsoft to realize "regretfully" that they kind of missed the boat on some technology.
However, don't think that means they are going to bow out and watch from the side line. I remember when Gates made a similar comment about regretting not getting in on the browser market early enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Kennedy has posted his side of the story here: http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.html "Apologize? For what? Using a pen name when dealing with an overzealous reporter? Because that't the extend of the "deception" that everyone is so excited about. The company itself exists, has real clients and is profitable. Nothing they can say will change that or other facts, like: * We have nearly 24,000 users at xpnet.com. * We collect and analyze over 230 million system metrics records and over 13 billion process metrics records every week. * We publish our findings and make all of our resources freely available to the IT industry. People want to skewer me because they don't agree with my point of view. Microsoft wants to skewer me because I hurt sales. IDG wants to skewer me to cover their asses - because, as I pointed out to ZDNet/CNet, they knew about the Craig Barth ruse all along. And they did nothing. If anyone needs to apologize, it's IDG - but not for the reasons they've stated. It was their hunger for page views that ultimately drove them to turn a blind eye. Me? I just used a pseudonym in a few email exchanges and during a a couple of phone calls. The rest is all BS and posturing, and they (IDG & ZDNet) know it. RCK"
To be fair you are over simplifying the issue. Not all theories are created equal and they become more or less equal as time goes on and they gain more or less support in the form of evidence. I think we'll all have to agree that there is much more support for the theory of gravitational attraction than the big bang theory.
NASA's safety issues go beyond the Bush administration.
actually, the screenshots in this powerpoint file show an advanced button - which is not present on the downloadable version. And, although the pdf has been deleted off of symantec's site, this link to google's cache gives details on creating simulation files - looks like it'd be cool to play with.
The comment above, however, makes no sense at all. That combined with it being mod'd up as 'funny' means it is likely a hoax.
Does anybody else find it really funny that the guy is wearing black & white stripes?
about time we changed that mozilla logo to firefox, isn't it?
For it's brief mention in your comment, WordPerfect 5 is much more sworn by today and enjoyed much more widespread use than Word 5. Those were the golden days - while WP was still king and before everyone switched to the word processor put out by that operating system company, what was it? - Microsoft?
Another thing worth mentioning is that was in the day's before suites really took off - when generally you bought a word processor by itself. Not packaged with a bunch of stuff you rarely used and matched with a bloated price. You would also buy the spreadsheet software separately and it was not uncommon to use products from two different vendors as standards - for example, WordPerfect and Lotus 123 were common standards.
The process by which this was accomplished (parthenogenesis) does not naturally occur in mammals.
Nothing like stating the obvious.
If no litigation comes from the Univeritsy of Michigan's open resistance to the RIAA then I think there will be little reason for other universities to fear litigation. They really do not have a case against the universities themselves althought their case with the individuals is sound.
I doubt you have children, my friend, you would be wise to save your comments on parenting responsibilty until you do. I have 3. I enjoy my children very much - they take up a great deal of my time. It is not my children that aren't worth the time to prescreen dvds. Indeed they are and I do prescreen some. However, in most cases the movies themselves are not worth the added effort and we end up not watching many.
Why can't you tolerate my beliefs? Why are posts about killing morally conservative people and their children mod'd up as funny? What offends you so much about me not wanting to watch smut and violence in my own home? Is it my responsibility to decide what education my children need and where it will come from, or is it yours? Again, do you even have children?
And how do you figure prescreening is not required? How can you fast forward through a swearing scene that you don't know is there? I would argue that scenes depicting violence and sex can hit the screen with little indication or lead-in time as well. Why are you oposed to this? Isn't it indeed that you want to not only allow such material in public but also push your morality on my kids by oposing a technology made for viewing private videos on private property. What is there to opose? And why opose it? That we disagree in terms of morality is no answer. If you wanted you could invent/use a device to insert more nudity and violence in to private viewins of films in your own home for all I care - that is your business. But please - keep it to yourself.
I, for one, am excited about this technology and what it will do for my family because I don't always have the time to sit and watch a dvd myself before watching it with my kids, so that I can shut off the "bad parts." I would happily pay for a service that I could trust to prescreen these for me. Which is what this is.
As far as the "old religious farts" dieing off, I hate to dissapoint you, but I'm 22 years old.
...ah, I remember the days - when all my friends had ONE instant messenger, nobody had ever heard of IM spam. Then, alas, AOL bought out ICQ and it all went downhill from there.
It is funny sometimes to think back to the message posted on ICQ's website (remember mirabilis.com or something like that) when AOL bought them. Something to the effect of, "we are confident AOL will be a good steward of ICQ..." {sigh}
Time on your hands.
What happens is moderators can't find a "-1 I disagree with you" choice so they just pick one of the others available without thinking that maybe the reason there is no "-1 I disagree with you" is because the point of moderation isn't to mod down the comments that you disagree with - it is to get rid of pointless comments. The fact that the comment in question was on topic and spurred discussion makes it neither "troll" or "flamebait" as it has been labeled.
Isn't it true that most scenarios currently being considered by retailers involve removing/disabling the tags at checkout? If so, then how is this any more of a privacy concern than barcodes and credit card machines which are already in place?
OK - didn't realize that Linda Tripp was prosecuted, I guess I just assumed that since the tapes were released and they appeared to consider them as evidence that no charges were pressed.
There is probably truth to both sides. I think he probably was involved with the Department of Insurance, though I doubt they told him to install the keylogger. Looks like he got a little overzealous and the Department of Insurance is washing their hands of his activity.
When is the last time you remember hearing about an indictment for actual wiretapping? Doesn't it seem like people get away with wiretapping regularly? I'm thinking about things like the illegally recorded phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Or does the law specify exemption if it is done for a good cause?
True - all things considered, the best thing the government ever did for the internet was recognize the need to privatize and get their hands off. Not that something great didn't stem from their efforts, but the internet is one of those things that falls in to a category that should not be a function of government.
When it comes to Microsoft - I think we've all got a love/hate relationship with them of sorts. I try to keep in mind that Microsoft is under constant attack as well. Sometimes I wonder if people just hate them because they win more, but companies like IBM and Novell are no angels. Take a look at all the comments and discussion on this thread and replace the word Microsoft with IBM everywhere it appears. I think that very well may have been the discussion at hand if IBM had not let Gates have software rights. Let's face it - it isn't that the individuals at IBM are more righteous than those at Microsoft - it's that Microsoft gives individuals more power that caters to their sinful nature because of it's market position, so that sometimes Microsoft needs to be reminded of what is unfair.
It really is nothing new for Microsoft to realize "regretfully" that they kind of missed the boat on some technology.
However, don't think that means they are going to bow out and watch from the side line. I remember when Gates made a similar comment about regretting not getting in on the browser market early enough.
Other articles on this can be found here, here, here, here, and here.
Whatever. Check the link, I'm cool.