me: J and I'm an internetholic.
crowd: Hi J
me: I haven't surfed the web in.6 seconds (slashdot posting does not count as "surfing") and I'm hoping to achieve 30 minutes and get my first button!
crowd cheers in support
I'm not asking to have it both ways - I AM asking that companies use some judgement and discretion about their behavior so that they don't give themselves a bad name or appear to be doing something that might hurt their credibility and integrity. Hence my statement that they wonder how they get the "Big Brother" reputation.
Like I said earlier - my phone number is publically available - that doesn't mean I don't think poorly of telemarketers when they interrupt my dinner. Can they do it legally? Yes. Is my number publically available? Yes. Does that mean I like it? No. Point blank I don't. Telemarketing = sleazy business in my mind, no matter how legal or legitimate it may be. In the same vein, scouring internet blogs to seize on an opportunity to tout your business to someone who has clearly stated they don't like your company = big brother sleazy. Certainly a PR representative from Microsoft should recognize that - and as such, I question their judgment. Incidentally - I DON'T blog because of this exact thing - which I feel is a mis-use of blogs, but that's my opinion. This is no different than my choice to have some e-mail addresses for professional purposes and some for "everything else" to help keep my spam down on my professional e-mail address, and also provide me some anonymity on "the net" when I'm just a girl-geek seeing what's out there. I understand my responsibility in this - that doesn't mean that I think it's ok for people to spam me, telemarket to me, or use my/. posts saying I don't like Microsoft's business practices to start brow-beating into me that Microsoft is a great business and that it's perfectly in their rights to be doing said brow-beating. This isn't a black and white, you can't have it both ways issue - this is a reputation and integrity issue - and I think Microsoft has made it patently obvious where they stand on it. Note the difference between personal responsibility and business integrity line I just drew there. This is the crux of the matter - yes I have a responsibility - but I believe Microsoft and other companies do too.
By the way, I often wonder if the people who say that publically available blogs are absolutely ok to use as a marketing ploy also feel that employers using google, myspace and blogs to decide whether or not to hire you are also completely in their rights. After all, if they don't hire you based on what you blogged - they have every right under the same argument. Frankly, I don't think that's good practice either, but hey, that's just my opinion and may well be worth what you paid for it.
Finally, the last thing I would point out in this, is that we are talking about "the net". There's very few laws that are in place with regards to it at this point. As such, just because something is legal and possible, doesn't mean it's right or moral. I'm not questioning whether or not Microsoft CAN do it. I'm not questioning whether or not it's legal. I'm not even questioning whether or not it's ok for them to read people's blogs should they see them in a publically available space. I AM questioning whether or not it's a real wise move to not only seek out bloggers who have expressed anti-Microsoft sentiment but to then confront them in an effort to tout the benefits of Microsoft. That seems like crossing a line to me.
Greeaatt - yet more reason to feel like I can't freely express my opinions. What country do I live in again? Last I checked, I was guaranteed the right to say I didn't like stuff without worry of being persecuted for it (up to and including saying I hate the President) - or sued in this case.
I hear your point and it's well taken, but I have to admit - this is chiefly why I won't use blogs and other publically available and searchable mediums to write my thoughts about ANYTHING.
If I indicated I hated the President of United States in a blog somewhere, I would be equally annoyed, offended and paranoid about some advocate of the President contacting me to sell me on whether he's a good President or not. Interestingly enough, I don't see other companies or organizations doing that, much less touting it as some great thing.
I just think it's bad form whether or not it's possible or whether the information is public. It's like telemarketers calling my house because they got my phone number. Sure, my phone number is available publically - doesn't mean I like, or want, companies to abuse that knowledge to interrupt my dinner.
"We used blog-search engines to find anyone who wrote the word 'Microsoft' on their blog. Even if they had no readers and were just ranting, 'I hate Microsoft,' I could see that and link to it, or I could participate in their comments, or send them an e-mail saying, 'What's going on?'
Is anyone else thinking 'gee, maybe contacting people who are writing that they hate Microsoft aren't exactly feeling BETTER that they got contacted about it too?' Just remember, Big Brother IS watching and is scouring the net for you - whew, I'm glad they cleared that up to make me feel better!
Hi, my name is Joe Blo and I'm selling the most whizbang awesome bowl you EVER saw complete with a sparkling handle, twirligig, whistle for those of you who like music, buttons, knobs and switches for only $32693.99
But wait, there's more! Act fast and for only another $292.99 I'll throw in the bottom part so your bowl will actually hold something! (no warranty is given on "bowlsealer add-in®" product - void where prohibited)
The problem with this argument is that, like every other similar hypothesis, it relies on a single tactic based on a single type of attack.
Have we learned nothing? For every lock you build, a pick will be devised, therefore, security should always be layered (thus requiring any would be wrong-doer must carry lots of picks or they will - more likely - give up). People should be educated, laws should be passed, banks should hold some accountability, people should hold some accountability, and I'm absolutely certain there's layers that haven't even been devised yet that should be implemented when new exploits are found.
Whew, I can relax and know that I can get my domain before anyone steals my glorious scheme to get filthy rich hocking plastic replicas of left handed elvis impersonators. Everyone who sells junk on the internet gets rich right?
I don't know about anyone else, but I felt like the man's arguments were muddled and meaningless. He posited lots of opinions with very little actual evidence, facts, or solutions of value. How about an example even?
I was reading opinions like Linux is failing because of the GPL and kept thinking "in what particular way? Give me an example where the GPL is failing Linux - a hard real example such as 'technology professional X reviewed Linux and found this failing in the GPL so decided to go with another choice'". Or the opinion that Linux should try to be something other than a WinDOAs look alike - such as what precisely? I mean it's really easy to point out flaws, but just a tad more of an undertaking to provide real answers and solutions.
Reading all this felt a bit like someone saying they think my shoes are ugly without any real information on how they could be better or why particularly they're ugly. I mean he has a right to his opinion of things but ultimately, if he was hoping to actually keep my attention, I would think he would try to at least give me something concise, with real value and of some interest to me. Ultimately I was left with the impression that he can insult Linux, and the point in that exercise is what? Was it just me who was left feeling that way?
Ok seriously, there are arguments to both sides of this clearly. Sure America made it, but does that mean we get to KEEP it. The internet has moved into the ranks of "utility" like phone, power, sewage, water, etc. Would we argue that some country from the middle east gets to keep control of waterflow systems simply because aqueducts were likely invented in babylon?
What it does say is that people in the same age group as typical P2P users are more likely to shoplift or cheat. It does not make any correlation between P2P users and these things!
This is exactly what I was thinking. So all this article really says to me is that 12-24 year olds are more likely to shoplift. Gee, I needed this article to know this? Last I checked, that was a phenomenon long before P2P file sharing existed, heck I think it even predates *gasp* computers.
RIAA has a long row to hoe if they think this is going to get most intelligent people to side with them. But you didn't need me to point out the patently obvious anymore than you needed this article too.
I have *exactly* the same comment to this article I had to one quite some time ago when they compromised our ability to go to libraries and read whatever we liked without monitoring.
That's just a different interface. You think knowing the cmd line means that you understand the mechanics of what is going on because you consider the cmd line to be "low level". A person who wrote the OS would look at both of you (old school cmd line user and new school ui user) and say that neither of you understand the mechanics of what is going on.
I don't fundamentally disagree with what you're saying here, but if you look at the interface of command line, you're a lot closer to your hardware when you're making commands that allocate memory, irq's and interrupts through it than you are when your gui just "handles" everything automatically. You KNOW what you set, why you set it and how. If something goes wrong, you can change it with relative ease and comfort. In the gui case, you're befuddled. Maybe you try some pointless thing like deleting the device and letting the gui set it up wrong again and other such things, but ultimately, you're not digging into the heart of the problem. Most likely (in my experience) you don't even know there's something to dig into.
And really, the people who designed the CPU or BIOS might claim that the operating system writer doesn't really understand the mechanics of what is going on.
Absolutely, but you're comparing apples to oranages here - cpu and bios designers versus techs. I'm comparing techs then to techs now. A closer relevence.
I read your comment as a deeper seated resentment against things changing. The truth is that if somebody wanted to they could make a system with no cmd line at all.
Sorry you see it this way, because I don't have any resentment towards things changing. I do resent having to teach people who really ought to understand this MORE than I've ever had to in the past about just really basic stuff. The technology changes themselves actually fascinate and intrigue me. I enjoy using a lot of them too, but unlike newer people in the support industry, I ask a very fundamental question "how". As in "how does my blackberry receive text messages" instead of simply accepting it and hoping nothing comes around to bite me in the proverbial ass later for not knowing.
I mean really, I like the cmd line, but there's nothing more fundamental about it than ui. It may seem like it because cmd line leans towards funcationality and ui leans towards intuitive interaction.
I think I covered my feelings on the differences of this earlier.
Do the same thing to the old folks. They dont know either. Of course some punk ass kid on a skateboard doesnt know how stuff works, hes retarded. A generation does not invent, select individuals do. Remember, people are stupid.
I disagree. Even if you select for distinct people within the generation, you DO see an increased number of people who don't understand.
Take for example a small group - technical support folks. Since I started doing technical support, things have changed. Back when I first started, most people DID understand the underlying mechanics of what was going on. They COULD do things command-line and know precisely what to expect to receive back. They also often had knowledge of a wide range of systems and levels of technology from the front end, to the server, to everything in an entire corporate network. Today, technical support folks know how to click mouse buttons and change graphical settings without having any clue as to what exactly is happening to the system or why. Furthermore, they're specialized down to the point of knowing only a few systems, instead of the broader range.
I agree technology has changed how people use it. I agree that the masses have technology in ways they never could have back then. I agree that most people who use it don't and shouldn't need to know how the underlying systems work. I also agree that there are people who SHOULD understand more about the systems they work with and don't. I sum it up to DOT-COM frankly when floods of people came into the tech world and lingered too long knowing too little.
I struggle to find any respect for a "news" organization that continually inundates me with "this show may not be suitable for children" warnings on shows like The Simpsons simply because they introduce concepts of gay marriage or depict a cartoon character in underwear or who cough up obviously biased articles like this one aimed at securing Microsnot's future. Nor do I find it a particularly credible source when Blockbuster (also owned by Murdoch) lies about no late fees.
How can they even look at themselves in the mirror and take themselves seriously when they make claims like "we're fair and balanced"?
I actually wrote my local Fox station to complain about some of these things. Their response? It's not our fault, it's the main Fox company that makes us do it. Well.... isn't that fun. You'd think that the local station could at LEAST run messages like that up the wire to Rupert Murdoch and let him know he's losing market share. You'd think that might matter.
On the other hand, it's not as though Murdoch has ever been a bastion of true reporting.
The people who develop the current voting systems do the auditing. Does anyone see ANYTHING wrong with this? "Shh, don't ask any questions, we know we did it allllll good"
I will admit, when I go in to vote, they hand me my little key (which anyone could rip off), I put it in the machine, I pick my choices... and I press that enter button and wonder. What exactly happens when I hit that button? I don't get any kind of confirmation printout. Hey, if the system just choked, my votes may have just been obliterated and noone would be the wiser or have any way to verify anything. A verification code I could write down on the back of my hand would even be progress. I get NOTHING.
I applaud McPherson trying to do something, but I wish we could first provide even the most basic of auditing in on these systems before we start talking about new platforms to run them on.
My gawd! WHY?! How about not having to launch the calendar separately, synching to palm pilots or other devices (a seriously lacking capability currently in sunbird that I miss), the fact that users want to have e-mail and calendar in all one place.... the list goes on and on. I don't like Outlook, but I have to admit, from a user's world, it works, it does all they expect and it does it seemingly without any crazy setup and tweaking. Granted, it breaks, it's insecure and a whole host of other things. But hey, that's what the geeks are here for - to make that stuff ok. Users just want to "use".
I mean really, if you don't like that kind of format, don't use it. Noone is forcing you to use this application anymore than anyone is forcing you to use Eudora.
I was thinking that precise thing.
Even if you *could* amass enough people to make a real dent in their pocket-books - they'd simply use it as PROOF that file-sharing has caused a downturn in their business and further fuel the fires in Redmond to tighten computers down to even more ridiculous levels - and boy doesn't that sound like a pleasant outcome for the average geek - not.
I think we send the strongest and clearest message everytime we crack their latest lockdown and keep doing it anyways. It keeps them busy running around in circles trying to build a lock that has no pick - which of course doesn't exist. Can you say rat in a cage?
It seems like every day I read an article somewhere about how *MY* personal privacy is invaded by our government.
I take small solace in the fact that there are just too many people to watch and that I am still just a number.
But for how long I wonder? How long before video cameras are plentiful enough, digital satellites can map the planet to superb detail, and computers can catalog the behavior of ordinary citizens with ease and extrapolate patterns of behavior from it.
I use the library. I walk into stores where I'm video-taped. I read "controversial" material. Most of all, I wonder how much of that is already recorded about me somewhere that I don't know about.
I think this is a pretty excellent idea. Being able to emulate human actions through devices such as this can provide some real human interaction for someone who is for one reason or another home-bound most of the time, such as the elderly.
In a UCLA study, it was found that just to maintain emotional and physical health, men and women need 8 to 10 meaningful touches a day (Smalley & Trent, 1986, p. 42).
Giving psychiatrists and other health professionals the ability to "reach into" someone's home and touch them is a really good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
me: J and I'm an internetholic. .6 seconds (slashdot posting does not count as "surfing") and I'm hoping to achieve 30 minutes and get my first button!
crowd: Hi J
me: I haven't surfed the web in
crowd cheers in support
I'm not asking to have it both ways - I AM asking that companies use some judgement and discretion about their behavior so that they don't give themselves a bad name or appear to be doing something that might hurt their credibility and integrity. Hence my statement that they wonder how they get the "Big Brother" reputation.
Like I said earlier - my phone number is publically available - that doesn't mean I don't think poorly of telemarketers when they interrupt my dinner. Can they do it legally? Yes. Is my number publically available? Yes. Does that mean I like it? No. Point blank I don't. Telemarketing = sleazy business in my mind, no matter how legal or legitimate it may be. In the same vein, scouring internet blogs to seize on an opportunity to tout your business to someone who has clearly stated they don't like your company = big brother sleazy. Certainly a PR representative from Microsoft should recognize that - and as such, I question their judgment. Incidentally - I DON'T blog because of this exact thing - which I feel is a mis-use of blogs, but that's my opinion. This is no different than my choice to have some e-mail addresses for professional purposes and some for "everything else" to help keep my spam down on my professional e-mail address, and also provide me some anonymity on "the net" when I'm just a girl-geek seeing what's out there. I understand my responsibility in this - that doesn't mean that I think it's ok for people to spam me, telemarket to me, or use my /. posts saying I don't like Microsoft's business practices to start brow-beating into me that Microsoft is a great business and that it's perfectly in their rights to be doing said brow-beating. This isn't a black and white, you can't have it both ways issue - this is a reputation and integrity issue - and I think Microsoft has made it patently obvious where they stand on it. Note the difference between personal responsibility and business integrity line I just drew there. This is the crux of the matter - yes I have a responsibility - but I believe Microsoft and other companies do too.
By the way, I often wonder if the people who say that publically available blogs are absolutely ok to use as a marketing ploy also feel that employers using google, myspace and blogs to decide whether or not to hire you are also completely in their rights. After all, if they don't hire you based on what you blogged - they have every right under the same argument. Frankly, I don't think that's good practice either, but hey, that's just my opinion and may well be worth what you paid for it.
Finally, the last thing I would point out in this, is that we are talking about "the net". There's very few laws that are in place with regards to it at this point. As such, just because something is legal and possible, doesn't mean it's right or moral. I'm not questioning whether or not Microsoft CAN do it. I'm not questioning whether or not it's legal. I'm not even questioning whether or not it's ok for them to read people's blogs should they see them in a publically available space. I AM questioning whether or not it's a real wise move to not only seek out bloggers who have expressed anti-Microsoft sentiment but to then confront them in an effort to tout the benefits of Microsoft. That seems like crossing a line to me.
Greeaatt - yet more reason to feel like I can't freely express my opinions. What country do I live in again? Last I checked, I was guaranteed the right to say I didn't like stuff without worry of being persecuted for it (up to and including saying I hate the President) - or sued in this case.
I hear your point and it's well taken, but I have to admit - this is chiefly why I won't use blogs and other publically available and searchable mediums to write my thoughts about ANYTHING.
If I indicated I hated the President of United States in a blog somewhere, I would be equally annoyed, offended and paranoid about some advocate of the President contacting me to sell me on whether he's a good President or not. Interestingly enough, I don't see other companies or organizations doing that, much less touting it as some great thing.
I just think it's bad form whether or not it's possible or whether the information is public. It's like telemarketers calling my house because they got my phone number. Sure, my phone number is available publically - doesn't mean I like, or want, companies to abuse that knowledge to interrupt my dinner.
But wait, there's more! Act fast and for only another $292.99 I'll throw in the bottom part so your bowl will actually hold something! (no warranty is given on "bowlsealer add-in®" product - void where prohibited)
Buy now and I'll throw in the installation free!
Have we learned nothing? For every lock you build, a pick will be devised, therefore, security should always be layered (thus requiring any would be wrong-doer must carry lots of picks or they will - more likely - give up). People should be educated, laws should be passed, banks should hold some accountability, people should hold some accountability, and I'm absolutely certain there's layers that haven't even been devised yet that should be implemented when new exploits are found.
Whew, I can relax and know that I can get my domain before anyone steals my glorious scheme to get filthy rich hocking plastic replicas of left handed elvis impersonators. Everyone who sells junk on the internet gets rich right?
I better get out there and register LeftHandedElvisImpersonator.com before someone else does!!!!!!!
Hey, I bathe every month whether I need it or not! The nerve of some people!
I was reading opinions like Linux is failing because of the GPL and kept thinking "in what particular way? Give me an example where the GPL is failing Linux - a hard real example such as 'technology professional X reviewed Linux and found this failing in the GPL so decided to go with another choice'". Or the opinion that Linux should try to be something other than a WinDOAs look alike - such as what precisely? I mean it's really easy to point out flaws, but just a tad more of an undertaking to provide real answers and solutions.
Reading all this felt a bit like someone saying they think my shoes are ugly without any real information on how they could be better or why particularly they're ugly. I mean he has a right to his opinion of things but ultimately, if he was hoping to actually keep my attention, I would think he would try to at least give me something concise, with real value and of some interest to me. Ultimately I was left with the impression that he can insult Linux, and the point in that exercise is what? Was it just me who was left feeling that way?
*gasp* MORE people might actually BUY your music... NO the humanity, the HUGE MANATEE!
Ok seriously, there are arguments to both sides of this clearly. Sure America made it, but does that mean we get to KEEP it. The internet has moved into the ranks of "utility" like phone, power, sewage, water, etc. Would we argue that some country from the middle east gets to keep control of waterflow systems simply because aqueducts were likely invented in babylon?
RIAA has a long row to hoe if they think this is going to get most intelligent people to side with them. But you didn't need me to point out the patently obvious anymore than you needed this article too.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=44261&cid= 4602410
Oh the times, they ain't a channnnginnng
Take for example a small group - technical support folks. Since I started doing technical support, things have changed. Back when I first started, most people DID understand the underlying mechanics of what was going on. They COULD do things command-line and know precisely what to expect to receive back. They also often had knowledge of a wide range of systems and levels of technology from the front end, to the server, to everything in an entire corporate network. Today, technical support folks know how to click mouse buttons and change graphical settings without having any clue as to what exactly is happening to the system or why. Furthermore, they're specialized down to the point of knowing only a few systems, instead of the broader range.
I agree technology has changed how people use it. I agree that the masses have technology in ways they never could have back then. I agree that most people who use it don't and shouldn't need to know how the underlying systems work. I also agree that there are people who SHOULD understand more about the systems they work with and don't. I sum it up to DOT-COM frankly when floods of people came into the tech world and lingered too long knowing too little.
How can they even look at themselves in the mirror and take themselves seriously when they make claims like "we're fair and balanced"?
I actually wrote my local Fox station to complain about some of these things. Their response? It's not our fault, it's the main Fox company that makes us do it. Well.... isn't that fun. You'd think that the local station could at LEAST run messages like that up the wire to Rupert Murdoch and let him know he's losing market share. You'd think that might matter.
On the other hand, it's not as though Murdoch has ever been a bastion of true reporting.
I will admit, when I go in to vote, they hand me my little key (which anyone could rip off), I put it in the machine, I pick my choices... and I press that enter button and wonder. What exactly happens when I hit that button? I don't get any kind of confirmation printout. Hey, if the system just choked, my votes may have just been obliterated and noone would be the wiser or have any way to verify anything. A verification code I could write down on the back of my hand would even be progress. I get NOTHING.
I applaud McPherson trying to do something, but I wish we could first provide even the most basic of auditing in on these systems before we start talking about new platforms to run them on.
I mean really, if you don't like that kind of format, don't use it. Noone is forcing you to use this application anymore than anyone is forcing you to use Eudora.
I think we send the strongest and clearest message everytime we crack their latest lockdown and keep doing it anyways. It keeps them busy running around in circles trying to build a lock that has no pick - which of course doesn't exist. Can you say rat in a cage?
Ignore the messages embedded in this whitenoise.
You will Loooooooove Microsoft
You will Haaaaaaaate Open Source
Linux is eeeeeeeevil
War on Iraq is goooooooood
I think you're all in a conspiracy to come up with conspiracy theories to sell to the American public and make a buck off of.
It seems like every day I read an article somewhere about how *MY* personal privacy is invaded by our government. I take small solace in the fact that there are just too many people to watch and that I am still just a number. But for how long I wonder? How long before video cameras are plentiful enough, digital satellites can map the planet to superb detail, and computers can catalog the behavior of ordinary citizens with ease and extrapolate patterns of behavior from it. I use the library. I walk into stores where I'm video-taped. I read "controversial" material. Most of all, I wonder how much of that is already recorded about me somewhere that I don't know about.
I think this is a pretty excellent idea. Being able to emulate human actions through devices such as this can provide some real human interaction for someone who is for one reason or another home-bound most of the time, such as the elderly. In a UCLA study, it was found that just to maintain emotional and physical health, men and women need 8 to 10 meaningful touches a day (Smalley & Trent, 1986, p. 42). Giving psychiatrists and other health professionals the ability to "reach into" someone's home and touch them is a really good thing.