The Internet Taliban strike again. Anything they don't like, any opinions they don't like, they physically attack. Are they so dim that they can't see their 'fight for internet freedom' is based on bringing to the internet the threat of attack and the imposing of fear on dissenters? Do they believe their actions are any different than religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan burning down schools?
Here's a tip for the hackers/crackers: even if your beliefs and opinions are hypothetically 100% correct, if you use threats to impose your opinion, you will lose, because no sensible person will want to be associated with you.
"Apart from an overly-grand sense of importance in the two Great Wars" That is a fairly large part of it. Beyond that, nostalgia and trivia are embraced as history and culture. Live outside Canada for a while, then meet Canadians just off the plane and it will be apparent. Off the top of my head: Summit Series; Arrow; Naismith; Shuster; Pearson; cried from the rooftops, but most people don't understand the caterwauling.
"Now, they've demonstrated that not only are they paranoid about anything looking slightly strange, but they also don't have any idea how to investigate it."
Taking this thread even further off topic: Unfortunately, the version of history taught to Canadians is heavily skewed and makes Canada into the center of the universe, so when Canadians remember their history lessons, it's a version of history most people in the world have never heard of.
it only matters to them because it matters to you
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
"More disturbingly, my story got Dugg twice, with the second wave hitting 15,500 votes, and today I found out it had simply disappeared from Digg. How long until the long arm of the MPAA gets to my own site (run in Ecuador) and the rest of them holding the processing key? How long will we let rampant censorship go on, in the name of economic interest?"
The MPAA only has power because they are given power by so many people, including those who claim to be opposed to them. The more you want corporate-provided entertainment, the more power you give the MPAA - supply and demand. Why is the crack so important? The crack is only as important as the product, and how important are these products? In the big picture of your life and all the things you can or cannot do, all the things you may or may not accomplish before you are dead, how important is Spiderman 2 or A Weekend at Bernie's or a Family Ties box set? Is a puppet show the most important thing in your life? Why?
How long will the pointless rebellion go on, in the name of trivial entertainment for the masses? Pick a fight that matters and apply your talents effectively.
"And the purported benefit of dvorak is that it's more ergonomic. This results in it being a little faster, but it's not the point."
I seem to recall that the point of dvorak was that it was faster, then that claim was subsequently discredited with force. When did an ergonomic benefit become its selling point? Has this claim of a physical health benefit been tested?
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening?' Iacocca writes. 'Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder.'
Iacocca backed Bush in 2000, switched to Kerry for 2004.
This article seems to be incomplete. The comments noted in the closing of the article are presented and left hanging, despite being very important to the topic.
'I don't know why oil is being suggested for computer cooling instead of accepted dielectric fluids," says Garimella, who is not familiar with Very-PCs plans. "The idea itself seems the same as using dielectric fluids and the latter are clean, non-toxic and ozone-friendly.
Tom Halfhill, an expert with electronics industry publication Microprocessor Report, says the solution is far from ideal. "There are a number of exotic ways to cool electronics, all the way up to vats of liquid helium," he told New Scientist "However, a better solution is to avoid generating all that heat in the first place. Heat is wasted power. Heat is inefficiency. Reducing the power consumption of processors and other components is more desirable than exotic cooling."'
All the Ts are crossed and each i has been dotted; it's just a matter of days until my patent will be issued, covering interstellar alien/human interaction. I'm going to be rich! Rich beyond my wildest dreams!
Even within broadcast radio, do you really think that everyone who has ever cut a royalty deal all pays the exact same fee? Which universe do you do business in? I want to buy my groceries and gasoline there. Stop being so naive. Thinking like that will be the death of online radio. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that one pimply kid with an internet radio show run out of her parents' basement has a greater potential audience and market than an entire broadcast radio empire? Accept that internet radio is different, identify where it is stronger than broadcast radio and use those strengths.
"Just because an action favors the big guy doesn't make it free-market, white-collar criminals just like to say it does." Just because an action favours the big guy doesn't make it a crime.
"The fact that a conventional radio station pays a flat fee to broadcast a song regardless of the number of listeners is my issue. We are not talking about selling concert tickets we are talking about broadcasting."
Sure, but we are talking about different forms of broadcasting with different types of audience and different advantages and disadvantages. Apples and oranges are not priced equally.
"My point about free market is that the people "in the biz" can create their own stations. They would actually have an advantage as they would have access to the artists for interviews and other exclusive content."
What does that have to do with anything? They're free to do that but choose not to. I would guess they believe the disadvantages of doing that outweigh the advantages, or else they would. So...?
"An album, CD, tape, or mp3 is the product you sell. A radio station playing music is advertising the product.
Are the stories published in a newspaper or magazine merely advertising for the writers? What about talk radio Is that content merely advertising for the commentators? What are they selling? Are journalists and writers getting rich by touring the world and performing at stadiums? Are sports broadcasts merely advertising for the sports teams?
Content draws listeners, and the station must pay for content to attract listeners. A regular listening audience allows the sale of advertising time. What is the difference between paying a journalist, a comedian or a composer for content?
Why does this discrimination exist? Where is the outrage against copyright control over the written word, or photography, or works of art? Why can't one radio station merely re-broadcast the news report of their competitor on a thirty second delay (but with their own advertising) and save lots of money on staff and resources? Would it be acceptable in your world for every network to sponge off one network to broadcast pro sports?
Aren't composers and the companies which back them financially worthy of being paid for their time and effort? The people who write software code get a salary, so why not the people who write music? It seems that if it's not popular entertainment (games, movies, music, please stand up), then copyright is not a problem around here.
Please don't start with the "fat-cat music biz scoundrel ripping off innocent musician" argument, because it's so full of cliché that I'll retch if I hear it one more time. Lots of people make bad business choices every day, either because they're naive, stupid, have bad luck or all three. People get ripped off too, often for the same reasons. Rock stars are heroes and have a public outlet, and so they can cry their woes from rooftops and their sob stories are embraced by the masses. Boohoo for them, but their plight should be exceptionally low on the list of priorities for world revolution.
Stating that music content on a radio station (broadcast or online) is merely advertising to encourage the purchase of the same entertainment product is just plain wrong. It is a factor in the equation, not the entire equation.
"If it is truely a free market, then you would create your own station and compete instead of demanding extra money from the successful."
You're confusing "free to make choices" over "free to do anything I want". The copyright holder can demand more money, but a station doesn't have to accept. They can find different content and not have to pay that copyright holder. Or they can continue paying, but find ways of generating higher revenue. If enough stations reject the copyright holder's costs, then maybe the cost will come down, or maybe the copyright holder will be stubborn and put themselves out of business. If enough stations acquiesce and find ways to make more money, then the business risk has paid off for the holder. This is rather simple stuff.
You are right - they are attempting to adapt by doing the things you spell out. They perceive a problem and they are reacting and adapting to resolve the perceived problem. They are not doing nothing. Complaining about Big Bad Business really is the easy way out and holding onto the hope that you can continue to do nothing. Stop projecting your fears onto their actions.
You claim that the broadcast radio business model is the same as internet radio. It's very easy to disprove that, but more importantly, if you are basing all your opinions on that perceived similarity, then therein lies your problem; you can't see the differences, and if you can't see diffferences, you can't differentiate between strengths and weaknesses. If you are involved in internet radio, identify your strengths and apply them. Fix your weaknesses. Adapt and survive.
It's show-biz, people. Biz=business. Welcome to capitalism, the free-market economy, etc., etc.
We'll go a lot farther spending less time on conspiracy theories suggesting Big Bad Biz wants to run The Innocent Little Guy out of town, and spending more time on adapting and coming up with real-world solutions to real-world problems. Read a book on basic business principles and apply some of the ideas held therein.
One thing which I would be glad to see less of in Wikipedia articles is the "cultural uses" of people, things or ideas; basically, references to appearances in movies or video games. Unfortunately, too often I've found fictional information mixed in with real-world information (which I believe is unacceptable), or there can appear to be too much emphasis on video game references and not enough on reality (which I believe makes Wikipedia look immature and affects its credibility).
On one occasion I removed such a cultural reference from an article only to see it reinstated a few days later, and I removed it again. For that particular article, I suspect the time committment vs emotional committment will determine whether the info stays or goes.
When America goes off to war in far-off lands, it is not a vast fleet of US Navy vessels carrying the mountains of food and equipment to foreign shores. The material goods are transported by civilian cargo companies which the government hires, and the cargo goes on plain old civilian container ships.
If the government needs to hire a civilian company to haul cargo to space, what is wrong with that? If it is more efficient, then I believe it is a better arrangement.
The more "normal" space travel becomes, the more people are going to have to let go of the notion that space travel is only for government agencies, and let go of the assumption that government space agencies must be more advanced than civilian companies in all areas of space technology.
I know zilch about Linux and its various versions, but I'm curious about it. I'm sure there are many dedicated programmers working on Linux, but how many true interface designers are involved? The programmers contribute to the reliability and efficiency of the software underpinnings, but it is the interface which makes software easy or challenging to use.
First, the too-late advice: get everything in writing before accepting one job and resigning from another. Ask a lot of questions. Uprooting and relocating for a new job is no laughing matter, and you should make an effort to avoid unexpected surprises. This story reads as if the surprise was sprung before relocating, so it's far from a "nightmare" scenario, but it's still bad.
As in many situations in life, having a clear idea of how much bullshit you will accept is important. Whether it is a new job across the state or the other side of the planet, always know where your bullshit line is and be prepared to walk away if they cross it. Before you get on the plane, hope for the best but accept that you may have to eat thousands in travel and relocation costs in a worst-case scenario. Walking away will set you back, but if they're in a situation where they need to do long-distance hiring, then it is probably in their best interest to try and keep you around.
In employment there is little that is as bad as being shafted on a long-distance relocation. Be thankful if you discovered this discrepancy before going through the stress of relocation. Nasty surprises sometimes await until after relocating and starting the new job, and that's when it really gets into living through nightmare scenarios.
I'm curious about the efficiency of charging batteries with this technology. Batteries are already have an inherent level of inefficiency, so it seems to me that potentially adding another layer of energy loss to battery-powered gadgets is unfortunate and disappointing at best, environmentally irresponsible and a choice to contribute to the spoiling of Earth at worst.
"Likewise, if I need to estimate the length of the room and I don't have a measuring device, do you know how I do it? I walk, one foot in front of the other, and see how many steps it takes. My feet are each just about 1 foot long, and it works pretty reliably."
Likewise, if I need to estimate the length of the room and I don't have a measuring device, do you know how I do it? I walk, one foot in front of the other, and see how many steps it takes. My feet are each just about a third of a meter long, and it works pretty reliably.
They do claim these are true stories. I can attest for at least one of them. The 1996 silly-sad tale of the lawyer jumping against the windows in the skyscraper office where he worked was in many Toronto news sources at the time. Where this event occurred is a very busy area, so there were plenty of witnesses.
It was later that same year when I heard of the Darwin awards, as someone mentioned that this well-known story was nominated.
"Society isn't open because there are too many closed minds."...and the writer of this article is a fine example of a closed mind.
"Then came what some people like to call 'Web 2.0'. On that wave of "let's pretend we've upgraded the Internet, LOL" came the social-networking websites... along with those terrible pages of drivel people like to call 'blogs'. It became cool to talk about mundane things and show other people what had been happening in your life. In essence, all the chat room goers had something to do once again."
"My name is Steve Kerrison. I don't have a FaceBook account, or a MySpace login. I do have a blog, but it's work-related."
Obviously the writer has some very strong negative feelings about "Web 2.0", and so he's painting everything involved with it with the same brush. It's a horrible article which doesn't really say anything except that this guy prefers keeping secrets and believes everyone else should too.
People with closed minds will judge people by their online content (and by their clothes, their hair, their car), and that is unavoidable; everybody judges everybody to some degree. It might be argued that some people could judge people simply because they have online content, regardless of its nature.
This article stresses that we should cater to the close-minded set such as Kerrison, without considering that as time goes on it is the open-minded set who will be taking over. It wasn't too long ago that long hair on a guy could cost him a job opportunity, even for mundane jobs (I faced this in the late 80s/early 90s). Times change, and former long-hairs are doing the hiring now. All those people for whom it is perfectly natural to have blogs and myspace pages today, and who are perfectly comfortable with an elevated level of publicity about their lives, will become the new norm before long; there will be new criteria for what could cost you a job opportunity. Keeping the emphasis on catering to the closed-minded set will only delay this change.
Slashdot Mirror
The Internet Taliban strike again. Anything they don't like, any opinions they don't like, they physically attack. Are they so dim that they can't see their 'fight for internet freedom' is based on bringing to the internet the threat of attack and the imposing of fear on dissenters? Do they believe their actions are any different than religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan burning down schools?
Here's a tip for the hackers/crackers: even if your beliefs and opinions are hypothetically 100% correct, if you use threats to impose your opinion, you will lose, because no sensible person will want to be associated with you.
"Apart from an overly-grand sense of importance in the two Great Wars"
That is a fairly large part of it. Beyond that, nostalgia and trivia are embraced as history and culture. Live outside Canada for a while, then meet Canadians just off the plane and it will be apparent. Off the top of my head: Summit Series; Arrow; Naismith; Shuster; Pearson; cried from the rooftops, but most people don't understand the caterwauling.
"Now, they've demonstrated that not only are they paranoid about anything looking slightly strange, but they also don't have any idea how to investigate it."
We don't like long-hairs around here, hippy.
"Also that we remember our histories lessons"
Taking this thread even further off topic: Unfortunately, the version of history taught to Canadians is heavily skewed and makes Canada into the center of the universe, so when Canadians remember their history lessons, it's a version of history most people in the world have never heard of.
"More disturbingly, my story got Dugg twice, with the second wave hitting 15,500 votes, and today I found out it had simply disappeared from Digg. How long until the long arm of the MPAA gets to my own site (run in Ecuador) and the rest of them holding the processing key? How long will we let rampant censorship go on, in the name of economic interest?"
The MPAA only has power because they are given power by so many people, including those who claim to be opposed to them. The more you want corporate-provided entertainment, the more power you give the MPAA - supply and demand. Why is the crack so important? The crack is only as important as the product, and how important are these products? In the big picture of your life and all the things you can or cannot do, all the things you may or may not accomplish before you are dead, how important is Spiderman 2 or A Weekend at Bernie's or a Family Ties box set? Is a puppet show the most important thing in your life? Why?
How long will the pointless rebellion go on, in the name of trivial entertainment for the masses? Pick a fight that matters and apply your talents effectively.
"And the purported benefit of dvorak is that it's more ergonomic. This results in it being a little faster, but it's not the point."
I seem to recall that the point of dvorak was that it was faster, then that claim was subsequently discredited with force. When did an ergonomic benefit become its selling point? Has this claim of a physical health benefit been tested?
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening?' Iacocca writes. 'Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder.'
Iacocca backed Bush in 2000, switched to Kerry for 2004.
This article seems to be incomplete. The comments noted in the closing of the article are presented and left hanging, despite being very important to the topic.
'I don't know why oil is being suggested for computer cooling instead of accepted dielectric fluids," says Garimella, who is not familiar with Very-PCs plans. "The idea itself seems the same as using dielectric fluids and the latter are clean, non-toxic and ozone-friendly.
Tom Halfhill, an expert with electronics industry publication Microprocessor Report, says the solution is far from ideal. "There are a number of exotic ways to cool electronics, all the way up to vats of liquid helium," he told New Scientist "However, a better solution is to avoid generating all that heat in the first place. Heat is wasted power. Heat is inefficiency. Reducing the power consumption of processors and other components is more desirable than exotic cooling."'
All the Ts are crossed and each i has been dotted; it's just a matter of days until my patent will be issued, covering interstellar alien/human interaction. I'm going to be rich! Rich beyond my wildest dreams!
Even within broadcast radio, do you really think that everyone who has ever cut a royalty deal all pays the exact same fee? Which universe do you do business in? I want to buy my groceries and gasoline there. Stop being so naive. Thinking like that will be the death of online radio. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that one pimply kid with an internet radio show run out of her parents' basement has a greater potential audience and market than an entire broadcast radio empire? Accept that internet radio is different, identify where it is stronger than broadcast radio and use those strengths.
"And what, exactly, IS the big difference between the business models we're talking about here? Enlighten me."
Holy smokes. Well, here's one place where you can pick up a hint.
"Just because an action favors the big guy doesn't make it free-market, white-collar criminals just like to say it does."
Just because an action favours the big guy doesn't make it a crime.
"The fact that a conventional radio station pays a flat fee to broadcast a song regardless of the number of listeners is my issue. We are not talking about selling concert tickets we are talking about broadcasting."
Sure, but we are talking about different forms of broadcasting with different types of audience and different advantages and disadvantages. Apples and oranges are not priced equally.
"My point about free market is that the people "in the biz" can create their own stations. They would actually have an advantage as they would have access to the artists for interviews and other exclusive content."
What does that have to do with anything? They're free to do that but choose not to. I would guess they believe the disadvantages of doing that outweigh the advantages, or else they would. So...?
"An album, CD, tape, or mp3 is the product you sell.
A radio station playing music is advertising the product.
Are the stories published in a newspaper or magazine merely advertising for the writers? What about talk radio Is that content merely advertising for the commentators? What are they selling? Are journalists and writers getting rich by touring the world and performing at stadiums? Are sports broadcasts merely advertising for the sports teams?
Content draws listeners, and the station must pay for content to attract listeners. A regular listening audience allows the sale of advertising time. What is the difference between paying a journalist, a comedian or a composer for content?
Why does this discrimination exist? Where is the outrage against copyright control over the written word, or photography, or works of art? Why can't one radio station merely re-broadcast the news report of their competitor on a thirty second delay (but with their own advertising) and save lots of money on staff and resources? Would it be acceptable in your world for every network to sponge off one network to broadcast pro sports?
Aren't composers and the companies which back them financially worthy of being paid for their time and effort? The people who write software code get a salary, so why not the people who write music? It seems that if it's not popular entertainment (games, movies, music, please stand up), then copyright is not a problem around here.
Please don't start with the "fat-cat music biz scoundrel ripping off innocent musician" argument, because it's so full of cliché that I'll retch if I hear it one more time. Lots of people make bad business choices every day, either because they're naive, stupid, have bad luck or all three. People get ripped off too, often for the same reasons. Rock stars are heroes and have a public outlet, and so they can cry their woes from rooftops and their sob stories are embraced by the masses. Boohoo for them, but their plight should be exceptionally low on the list of priorities for world revolution.
Stating that music content on a radio station (broadcast or online) is merely advertising to encourage the purchase of the same entertainment product is just plain wrong. It is a factor in the equation, not the entire equation.
"If it is truely a free market, then you would create your own station and compete
instead of demanding extra money from the successful."
You're confusing "free to make choices" over "free to do anything I want". The copyright holder can demand more money, but a station doesn't have to accept. They can find different content and not have to pay that copyright holder. Or they can continue paying, but find ways of generating higher revenue. If enough stations reject the copyright holder's costs, then maybe the cost will come down, or maybe the copyright holder will be stubborn and put themselves out of business. If enough stations acquiesce and find ways to make more money, then the business risk has paid off for the holder. This is rather simple stuff.
You are right - they are attempting to adapt by doing the things you spell out. They perceive a problem and they are reacting and adapting to resolve the perceived problem. They are not doing nothing. Complaining about Big Bad Business really is the easy way out and holding onto the hope that you can continue to do nothing. Stop projecting your fears onto their actions.
You claim that the broadcast radio business model is the same as internet radio. It's very easy to disprove that, but more importantly, if you are basing all your opinions on that perceived similarity, then therein lies your problem; you can't see the differences, and if you can't see diffferences, you can't differentiate between strengths and weaknesses. If you are involved in internet radio, identify your strengths and apply them. Fix your weaknesses. Adapt and survive.
"New Royalty Rates Could Kill Internet Radio"
- or internet radio can adapt and survive.
It's show-biz, people. Biz=business. Welcome to capitalism, the free-market economy, etc., etc.
We'll go a lot farther spending less time on conspiracy theories suggesting Big Bad Biz wants to run The Innocent Little Guy out of town, and spending more time on adapting and coming up with real-world solutions to real-world problems. Read a book on basic business principles and apply some of the ideas held therein.
One thing which I would be glad to see less of in Wikipedia articles is the "cultural uses" of people, things or ideas; basically, references to appearances in movies or video games. Unfortunately, too often I've found fictional information mixed in with real-world information (which I believe is unacceptable), or there can appear to be too much emphasis on video game references and not enough on reality (which I believe makes Wikipedia look immature and affects its credibility).
On one occasion I removed such a cultural reference from an article only to see it reinstated a few days later, and I removed it again. For that particular article, I suspect the time committment vs emotional committment will determine whether the info stays or goes.
When America goes off to war in far-off lands, it is not a vast fleet of US Navy vessels carrying the mountains of food and equipment to foreign shores. The material goods are transported by civilian cargo companies which the government hires, and the cargo goes on plain old civilian container ships.
If the government needs to hire a civilian company to haul cargo to space, what is wrong with that? If it is more efficient, then I believe it is a better arrangement.
The more "normal" space travel becomes, the more people are going to have to let go of the notion that space travel is only for government agencies, and let go of the assumption that government space agencies must be more advanced than civilian companies in all areas of space technology.
I know zilch about Linux and its various versions, but I'm curious about it. I'm sure there are many dedicated programmers working on Linux, but how many true interface designers are involved? The programmers contribute to the reliability and efficiency of the software underpinnings, but it is the interface which makes software easy or challenging to use.
First, the too-late advice: get everything in writing before accepting one job and resigning from another. Ask a lot of questions. Uprooting and relocating for a new job is no laughing matter, and you should make an effort to avoid unexpected surprises. This story reads as if the surprise was sprung before relocating, so it's far from a "nightmare" scenario, but it's still bad.
As in many situations in life, having a clear idea of how much bullshit you will accept is important. Whether it is a new job across the state or the other side of the planet, always know where your bullshit line is and be prepared to walk away if they cross it. Before you get on the plane, hope for the best but accept that you may have to eat thousands in travel and relocation costs in a worst-case scenario. Walking away will set you back, but if they're in a situation where they need to do long-distance hiring, then it is probably in their best interest to try and keep you around.
In employment there is little that is as bad as being shafted on a long-distance relocation. Be thankful if you discovered this discrepancy before going through the stress of relocation. Nasty surprises sometimes await until after relocating and starting the new job, and that's when it really gets into living through nightmare scenarios.
I'm curious about the efficiency of charging batteries with this technology. Batteries are already have an inherent level of inefficiency, so it seems to me that potentially adding another layer of energy loss to battery-powered gadgets is unfortunate and disappointing at best, environmentally irresponsible and a choice to contribute to the spoiling of Earth at worst.
Yeah, but can I expect a positive or negative effect from the tin foil in my hat?
"Likewise, if I need to estimate the length of the room and I don't have a measuring device, do you know how I do it? I walk, one foot in front of the other, and see how many steps it takes. My feet are each just about 1 foot long, and it works pretty reliably."
Likewise, if I need to estimate the length of the room and I don't have a measuring device, do you know how I do it? I walk, one foot in front of the other, and see how many steps it takes. My feet are each just about a third of a meter long, and it works pretty reliably.
"GM did not release cost estimates but said they recognize the Volt's price will have to be competitive."
As I've been shopping for a new car lately I can tell you that GM seems to have a tough time with the idea of "competitive pricing".
Besides that, GM shouldn't forget the Volt will need to be reliable too; that's an area GM has issues with.
They do claim these are true stories. I can attest for at least one of them. The 1996 silly-sad tale of the lawyer jumping against the windows in the skyscraper office where he worked was in many Toronto news sources at the time. Where this event occurred is a very busy area, so there were plenty of witnesses.
It was later that same year when I heard of the Darwin awards, as someone mentioned that this well-known story was nominated.
"Society isn't open because there are too many closed minds." ...and the writer of this article is a fine example of a closed mind.
"Then came what some people like to call 'Web 2.0'. On that wave of "let's pretend we've upgraded the Internet, LOL" came the social-networking websites... along with those terrible pages of drivel people like to call 'blogs'. It became cool to talk about mundane things and show other people what had been happening in your life. In essence, all the chat room goers had something to do once again."
"My name is Steve Kerrison. I don't have a FaceBook account, or a MySpace login. I do have a blog, but it's work-related."
Obviously the writer has some very strong negative feelings about "Web 2.0", and so he's painting everything involved with it with the same brush. It's a horrible article which doesn't really say anything except that this guy prefers keeping secrets and believes everyone else should too.
People with closed minds will judge people by their online content (and by their clothes, their hair, their car), and that is unavoidable; everybody judges everybody to some degree. It might be argued that some people could judge people simply because they have online content, regardless of its nature.
This article stresses that we should cater to the close-minded set such as Kerrison, without considering that as time goes on it is the open-minded set who will be taking over. It wasn't too long ago that long hair on a guy could cost him a job opportunity, even for mundane jobs (I faced this in the late 80s/early 90s). Times change, and former long-hairs are doing the hiring now. All those people for whom it is perfectly natural to have blogs and myspace pages today, and who are perfectly comfortable with an elevated level of publicity about their lives, will become the new norm before long; there will be new criteria for what could cost you a job opportunity. Keeping the emphasis on catering to the closed-minded set will only delay this change.