This problem is all over the service industry and can probably be linked to both Americans' expectations of standard of living (I want TIVO too, some day), and corporate greed.
I personally blame this on the "me" mentality of most corporations and the bad decisions made in the early to mid 90s. (Yes, this problem started long before the Dot Com boom/bust.) In order to bring more money to me, I must throw my weight around, which costs a lot of money, but according to the current business model, I will be making all this money back in spades within ten years.
(Five years of speculation spending later:) Oh no! I am not making the money I thought I would! Something has to go. I can't sell off property without seriously alarming stockholders and other investors, and technology spending can only increase throughput and therefore profits. What's left? The people.
I've watched this happen first-hand. Service-oriented industries' upper management talking themselves into a position where the most reducable liability is the service!
In a way this makes sense, but in a kind of "fake an injury to get out of trouble" way. It's not a way that will help for long. And, imagine that, it doesn't.
Even if the rumors aren't true, this is no surprise. Even before WebTV and MSN (and MSNBC, and so on), Microsoft has planned to get into the telecom business. Don't believe me? Pick up a pre-revised copy of _The Road Ahead_ at your local used bookstore. There is at least one chapter about the future of Microsoft.
At one point there was a rumor that MS wanted to have a controlling investment in a communications satellite. I don't know what happened with that.
"Good for my business" can also be "monopolistic" and is often "manipulative". The valid points most people make about Microsoft is they give with one hand and take with the other. Or: They give with both hands, hang around and stop anyone else trying to help you out because only THEY are allowed to help you out, and because of that you owe THEM for all your independence and the better state of your life. And this is "good business move", but only for that business.
Shouldn't this be in front of "The People's Court".
Microsoft: But she invited me in! Mexico: I didn't say you could rifle through my things. Microsoft: I didn't rifle through your things! Mexico: Did too! I found my underwear in the bathroom and --
And so on. Maybe this demands a new class of "Reality Television": When Corporations Go Wrong. F/X would eat it up, put it on right after Son Of The Beach.
What ever the legal aspects are, there is a much simpler way to get rid of spyware - don't download the programs.
Until I started reading computer news sites more regularly, I didn't even know that these things were installing "spyware" on my machine. I just clicked-through on those EULAs, like 98% of everyone. The "just don't do that" argument needs to be prefaced with "you're doing that", which is what programs like AdAware help bring to light. I commend Salon for bringing it to the attention of less tech-hardened people. Even if anti-anti-spyware programs become more popular, the mentality behind AdAware has a better chance of reaching more people.
Can we have our Columbus Crew license plate before we get our Gen. William T. Sherman license plate? More people in the state probably know about the Crew than Gen. William T. Sherman. I think.
Er, I hope.
Well, they should. And confused motorists would think we were celebrating Ohio's Constant Road Construction, and that can't be a drawback. ("The Crew" is a construction crew. Get it?.)
To everyone else, don't mind me, I'm just showing my soccer (as in football) stripes.
The internet is not a "real society". It's a tool, a way to facilitate thoughts no more or less viable than the various postal services all over the world. It's not at all different than the telegraph.
I'm ignoring the potential of the computer, for now, because for the most part, a computer and a person can generally get the same kinds of things done. For the internet, that's interpreting signal and passing it along.
The notion that it "forces us to get over petty differences" is a fallacy. In some cases, it polarizes differences. If there was a choice between content that promises "All Views I Agree With 24 Hours A Day" and "Cultural Diversity, Even If It's Sometimes Repugnant", which do you think people would be more likely to choose?
Being of the "Cultural Diversity" crowd, I try harder to get others onto that mentality, but I'm more likely to read Slashdot than Salon for exactly the same "Closer To My Views" reasons.
And there are almost no uniquely American views on "free speech". We got ours from other countries. Not like we had our own pool of people to start with!
And I've yet to see anyone whining about the internet not being perfect. If it doesn't work, fix it.
Nah, the kids will just be in violation of the Toy Usage Agreement (TUA) on the back of the box that was assumed on opening the box. You know, the one that reads, "Should you violate the Agreement, LucasArts (or any agency working on behalf of LucasArts) reserves the right to reposess your toy." Using the toy you bought in any way you want is a privilege, not a right.
The PTUA (Proper Toy Use Alliance) will then be formed to go around offering to "discuss" proper toy use and its downfalls with parents, slapping them with audits, and threatening to sue if they don't comply with paying for the new toy license on toys they didn't bother saving the boxes on.
Elementary schools will eventually be forced to offer the infamous "Mattel Tax" and increase their requirements by $500 per student (passed on to the Tax Payer for public schools).
But no well-thinking business-oriented government would allow such a rediculous thing to happen, right?
And here I thought fandom is about flattery. (Geeks being really enthusiastic flatterers.) Is imitation no longer the most sincere form of flattery?
This is not an uncommon attitude among writers, though, and is much older than the woes the RIAA and SSSCA have been foisted on us. Found on Google a pretty nice list of new and old authors who have similar views: Endangered Fandoms.
Authors certainly have a right to defend their works, and this isn't as bad as many authors. Whatever, Lucas, oh, and I loved Howard the Duck.
I regret it. An interesting side-effect of people trying to maintain the old equality is forming and joining communities like Slashdot (discussion-oriented), Sourceforge (production-oriented) or Baen (product-oriented) in self-defense.
None of these things seem like a bad thing, though I do regret all the others who don't get the equal exposure they deserve. Google helps balance the scales, at least.
I'm not sure I agree with the gushing optimism of this guy. For instance, from the article:
The Internet is proving to be one of the most powerful amplifiers of speech ever invented.
While fundamentally, this is a good thing, it decreases the signal-to-noise ratio and makes it a) easier to hear only what you want and b) harder to find even that. This seems to imply that giving everyone in the world a bullhorn (and keep them from getting shot) is, in itself, a good thing.
And then we turn around and complain about child porn and hate-groups on the internet. It's part of the same thing. I'm just leery of the positive-only spin this article has.
Similarly: The Internet is becoming the repository of all we have accomplished as a society.... But no mention on having to work through the garbage. While I have confidence that societies will eventually pick the most accurate history, I can't imagine it would be easy.
I in no way think the article is wrong (I don't), just misleadingly in its enthusiasm.
They say "Mac", but they don't say whether it's MacOS 8/9 or MacOS X, or both. Curious Minds Want To Know.
Re:stronger and smarter - but how to get wiser?
on
The Next Generation
·
· Score: 1
Does it take more than a naked ape with superpowers to become a god? Heck no! Look at the gods (or even God) throughout the centuries. My favorite is Zeus turning into a golden shower to get someone pregnant. Is this wise? No. Is it human? Oh yes.
Gods represent the best in us and the worst of us.
If you want the review to be useful, from a Mac User standpoint it's a "What Computer Mags Think About Macintosh Computers" article veiled as a review for end-users. What consumers think is important, even to geeks.
And good luck using your computer without software.
I wonder if anyone has ever seen someone making copies of a newspapers, and giving them away to its friends.
Back in the mid- to late-1800s, this was done all the time by newspapers who then published these things as their own articles; it was the fastest way to get information from one part of the country to another. At one point, the US Government gave free postage to newspapers that sent a copy to other newspapers.
Interesting how the more common information is, the more people want to restrict it for their own profit.
Check out more fun Olde Newspaper Facts (and wonder at their implication of modern IP philosophy) at History Buff.
Re:why give katz such a hard time...
on
Dog Bites Website
·
· Score: 1
I'm embarassed that he considers this a news-worthy article. It's already been mentioned that it's fact-light, and thus it comes off more as pandering (thus exposing the advertising-over-information) than news.
While I don't care one way or another about Katz (though I don't particularly like his tone, even when I agree with his facts), I wouldn't want him being a Geek Ambasador to the rest of the world until he tones down the consistant self-promotion.
The more he self-promotes, the less credibility he has with me. And that doesn't seem to just be me.
Free publicity is popular and overused, but isn't it about time more people realized that popularity isn't always good? Sure, the man gets mindshare, but to what end?
"Katzbashing." The man apparantly overshadows many things he is trying to say. Unless his goal was to make us all talk about him, in which case his article is even worse than just an advertisement for his book.
Mm, yes, I'd love to try to sell things based on people's dislike for me.
"Hello, sir, would you like to see my book about the global ec--"
Slashdot Mirror
This problem is all over the service industry and can probably be linked to both Americans' expectations of standard of living (I want TIVO too, some day), and corporate greed.
I personally blame this on the "me" mentality of most corporations and the bad decisions made in the early to mid 90s. (Yes, this problem started long before the Dot Com boom/bust.) In order to bring more money to me, I must throw my weight around, which costs a lot of money, but according to the current business model, I will be making all this money back in spades within ten years.
(Five years of speculation spending later:) Oh no! I am not making the money I thought I would! Something has to go. I can't sell off property without seriously alarming stockholders and other investors, and technology spending can only increase throughput and therefore profits. What's left? The people.
I've watched this happen first-hand. Service-oriented industries' upper management talking themselves into a position where the most reducable liability is the service!
In a way this makes sense, but in a kind of "fake an injury to get out of trouble" way. It's not a way that will help for long. And, imagine that, it doesn't.
Even if the rumors aren't true, this is no surprise. Even before WebTV and MSN (and MSNBC, and so on), Microsoft has planned to get into the telecom business. Don't believe me? Pick up a pre-revised copy of _The Road Ahead_ at your local used bookstore. There is at least one chapter about the future of Microsoft.
At one point there was a rumor that MS wanted to have a controlling investment in a communications satellite. I don't know what happened with that.
"Good for my business" can also be "monopolistic" and is often "manipulative". The valid points most people make about Microsoft is they give with one hand and take with the other. Or: They give with both hands, hang around and stop anyone else trying to help you out because only THEY are allowed to help you out, and because of that you owe THEM for all your independence and the better state of your life. And this is "good business move", but only for that business.
Shouldn't this be in front of "The People's Court".
Microsoft: But she invited me in!
Mexico: I didn't say you could rifle through my things.
Microsoft: I didn't rifle through your things!
Mexico: Did too! I found my underwear in the bathroom and --
And so on. Maybe this demands a new class of "Reality Television": When Corporations Go Wrong. F/X would eat it up, put it on right after Son Of The Beach.
... Or maybe I watch too much television.
What ever the legal aspects are, there is a much simpler way to get rid of spyware - don't download the programs.
Until I started reading computer news sites more regularly, I didn't even know that these things were installing "spyware" on my machine. I just clicked-through on those EULAs, like 98% of everyone. The "just don't do that" argument needs to be prefaced with "you're doing that", which is what programs like AdAware help bring to light. I commend Salon for bringing it to the attention of less tech-hardened people. Even if anti-anti-spyware programs become more popular, the mentality behind AdAware has a better chance of reaching more people.
Can we have our Columbus Crew license plate before we get our Gen. William T. Sherman license plate? More people in the state probably know about the Crew than Gen. William T. Sherman. I think.
Er, I hope.
Well, they should. And confused motorists would think we were celebrating Ohio's Constant Road Construction, and that can't be a drawback. ("The Crew" is a construction crew. Get it?.)
To everyone else, don't mind me, I'm just showing my soccer (as in football) stripes.
-Thenomain (Off Topic And Proud)
The internet is not a "real society". It's a tool, a way to facilitate thoughts no more or less viable than the various postal services all over the world. It's not at all different than the telegraph.
I'm ignoring the potential of the computer, for now, because for the most part, a computer and a person can generally get the same kinds of things done. For the internet, that's interpreting signal and passing it along.
The notion that it "forces us to get over petty differences" is a fallacy. In some cases, it polarizes differences. If there was a choice between content that promises "All Views I Agree With 24 Hours A Day" and "Cultural Diversity, Even If It's Sometimes Repugnant", which do you think people would be more likely to choose?
Being of the "Cultural Diversity" crowd, I try harder to get others onto that mentality, but I'm more likely to read Slashdot than Salon for exactly the same "Closer To My Views" reasons.
And there are almost no uniquely American views on "free speech". We got ours from other countries. Not like we had our own pool of people to start with!
And I've yet to see anyone whining about the internet not being perfect. If it doesn't work, fix it.
Nah, the kids will just be in violation of the Toy Usage Agreement (TUA) on the back of the box that was assumed on opening the box. You know, the one that reads, "Should you violate the Agreement, LucasArts (or any agency working on behalf of LucasArts) reserves the right to reposess your toy." Using the toy you bought in any way you want is a privilege, not a right.
The PTUA (Proper Toy Use Alliance) will then be formed to go around offering to "discuss" proper toy use and its downfalls with parents, slapping them with audits, and threatening to sue if they don't comply with paying for the new toy license on toys they didn't bother saving the boxes on.
Elementary schools will eventually be forced to offer the infamous "Mattel Tax" and increase their requirements by $500 per student (passed on to the Tax Payer for public schools).
But no well-thinking business-oriented government would allow such a rediculous thing to happen, right?
And here I thought fandom is about flattery. (Geeks being really enthusiastic flatterers.) Is imitation no longer the most sincere form of flattery?
This is not an uncommon attitude among writers, though, and is much older than the woes the RIAA and SSSCA have been foisted on us. Found on Google a pretty nice list of new and old authors who have similar views: Endangered Fandoms.
Authors certainly have a right to defend their works, and this isn't as bad as many authors. Whatever, Lucas, oh, and I loved Howard the Duck.
I regret it. An interesting side-effect of people trying to maintain the old equality is forming and joining communities like Slashdot (discussion-oriented), Sourceforge (production-oriented) or Baen (product-oriented) in self-defense.
None of these things seem like a bad thing, though I do regret all the others who don't get the equal exposure they deserve. Google helps balance the scales, at least.
I'm not sure I agree with the gushing optimism of this guy. For instance, from the article:
The Internet is proving to be one of the most powerful amplifiers of speech ever invented.
While fundamentally, this is a good thing, it decreases the signal-to-noise ratio and makes it a) easier to hear only what you want and b) harder to find even that. This seems to imply that giving everyone in the world a bullhorn (and keep them from getting shot) is, in itself, a good thing.
And then we turn around and complain about child porn and hate-groups on the internet. It's part of the same thing. I'm just leery of the positive-only spin this article has.
Similarly: The Internet is becoming the repository of all we have accomplished as a society. ... But no mention on having to work through the garbage. While I have confidence that societies will eventually pick the most accurate history, I can't imagine it would be easy.
I in no way think the article is wrong (I don't), just misleadingly in its enthusiasm.
-Thenomain (NMI)
They say "Mac", but they don't say whether it's MacOS 8/9 or MacOS X, or both. Curious Minds Want To Know.
Does it take more than a naked ape with superpowers to become a god? Heck no! Look at the gods (or even God) throughout the centuries. My favorite is Zeus turning into a golden shower to get someone pregnant. Is this wise? No. Is it human? Oh yes.
Gods represent the best in us and the worst of us.
What do you expect from free? Er, mostly free.
If you want the review to be useful, from a Mac User standpoint it's a "What Computer Mags Think About Macintosh Computers" article veiled as a review for end-users. What consumers think is important, even to geeks.
And good luck using your computer without software.
I'm embarassed that he considers this a news-worthy article. It's already been mentioned that it's fact-light, and thus it comes off more as pandering (thus exposing the advertising-over-information) than news.
While I don't care one way or another about Katz (though I don't particularly like his tone, even when I agree with his facts), I wouldn't want him being a Geek Ambasador to the rest of the world until he tones down the consistant self-promotion.
The more he self-promotes, the less credibility he has with me. And that doesn't seem to just be me.
Free publicity is popular and overused, but isn't it about time more people realized that popularity isn't always good? Sure, the man gets mindshare, but to what end?
"Katzbashing." The man apparantly overshadows many things he is trying to say. Unless his goal was to make us all talk about him, in which case his article is even worse than just an advertisement for his book.
Mm, yes, I'd love to try to sell things based on people's dislike for me.
"Hello, sir, would you like to see my book about the global ec--"
"Oh my god, it's Katz!" *slam*
"Well, at least he knew my name."
I'd rather be anonymous.