User: yagu

Re:People are not stupid - sorry.

On: Windows Defense on IE7 Search is No Defense

Whoaaa!

Italics were used to point out the typical "us" (smart people) vs. "them" (stupid people) attitude on /..

Not what I was going for at all, I apologize to all if this seems to by my implied message.

Instead I was trying to emphasize the difference of world perspectives. I daily troubleshoot, code, research all that is computer and related technology. But not everyone does that, and there are shades of degree to which those not in IT have mastered or care to master tuning their computer environments.

I work with non-IT people all of the time, and what used to amaze me I figured out and now understand better. People master the slice of their computer necessary to do work they want or need to do. Beyond that, most know little more. An option to configure a default search engine is first: something they probably wouldn't know about short of having it pointed out to them, and second: something that would interest them little to change if in fact their "out of the box" searching is yielding results. It's a lack of knowledge for those users, not a shortage of intelligence.

You are correct, many people know all about how and what to type, and those who don't aren't idiots because they don't. They know what they have chosen to know.

I hate the car analogy, but here I go again. I couldn't tell you the first thing about how a car works beyond putting gas in it, and changing the oil and topping off the fluids. Beyond that I don't care, I just want it work, and I want it to work well. And, thankfully cars do just that!

Of course there are those who could change the O2 sensor thresholds and they see it as easy-peasy to do. But for those who don't work on cars as a profession or avocation should get reasonable and fair defaults... they do.

Again, apologies to any who interpreted my point as hubris, that's not where I meant to go.

Yahoo and Microsoft say what?

On: Windows Defense on IE7 Search is No Defense

From the Fine Article:

However, representatives from both Microsoft and Yahoo have publicly said that Google is being hypocritical. They say Google has deals with companies like Mozilla, which makes the second most popular browser Firefox and PC maker Dell, where Google is the default search window in the browsers.

That's a pretty disingenuous argument of Yahoo/Microsoft's part. They trot out the fact Mozilla is second most popular, and that Google is doing the same thing. I'm not sure what they're thinking, this point holds no importance.

I'm not even going to bother looking up the numbers, it's enough to point out IE currently is around 80 - 90% of the browser market, and if Mozilla were all of the rest of the market, Google's aggressive penetration is 10 - 20%. WTF?

Also from the article:

Microsoft argues that it will be easy for IE7 users to change the default search engine to Google if they want to. However, "easy" is a relative term. For any IE7 user, it's always going to be easier to just leave the default browser as it is - Microsoft's factory setting.

Microsoft's contention it's easy is exactly that, their contention. This is a relative measure, and probably 99% of slashdotters would change the search engine default with no difficulty. But one step out of the cozy techno-geek door and easy becomes Partial Differential Equations to many casual users. Remember, Microsoft has been touting their "easiness" pretty much since day one, and each new iteration they say, "trust us, we really mean it this time".

For those who argue Google has their own monopoly in the search engine race (and I would argue that -- they only have dominance, not a monopoly), I will point out in advance that Google's monopoly doesn't matter -- it's legal to have a monopoly, it's illegal to use that monopoly to capture other markets.

Again, this is still about, and always has been, and always will be Microsoft's existing monopoly elsewhere (their OS and desktop offerings) leveraging another niche (in this case, search engines). Microsoft is back in old form, they seem to have shaken any residual fears of the legal trappings of their actions. My guess is they're ready to play as hard a ball as anyone who wants to take them on will. And they have the money trove of petty cash ready to dole out as they pass through each legal (illegal) toll booth.

God Bless Capitalism blended with corruption.

market saturated at 3% (or close)

On: Cellphone Gaming Market Lacks Pull

I've got news for the game makers for the cell phone industry. Your market is probably close to saturated at 3%. Playing games on cell phones is a diversion, not an avocation. Users and potential buyers of games comprise a tiny fraction of the cell-phone audience. Almost any game at all, especially simple ones, will do to kill that 10 minutes wait at the train station. Anything more than a click away to add to the existing suite of games with the phone is no temptation.

I think the cell phone industry greatly overestimates any appetite for the cell phone to be the ultimate phone, pda, gaming machine, pc, soda fountain, reference, ad nauseum. Our wallets are finite (well, mine is), and we're not going to pay and spend time managing a suite of games to play on a cell phone where

• screen resolution sucks
• battery life sucked up by games subtracts from cell phone availability
• games are redundant additions to consumers existing collection on other devices

Maybe the strategy is to find the endpoint of the consuming public's collective appetite for pay-for gaming on cell phones. I think they're close.

who defined insanity

On: RIAA Targets LAN Filesharing at Universities

I don't remember, maybe it was Einstein who said the definition of insanity was to repeatedly do something and expect a different result. Is the RIAA insane?

This is cutting their (RIAA/Entertainment industry) future profits off at the source on a number of levels.

1. The university demographic is probably one of the least likely to be their cash cows, i.e., many, if not most students aren't living fat and happy on exorbitant budgets (I know, some are). They don't have tons of money to fill the RIAA and cohort's coffers.
2. Throwing the college campus dragnet may result in catching file-sharing but it sets the tone for how these students perceive the industry for the rest of their lives, and it's going to be adversarial in this light.
3. In addition to poisoning their future audience, the RIAA misses a great opportunity to expose students to a wealth of music. Sure they're going to share, sure it's technically illegal, but they're going to graduate with some illegal tunes, and likely an appetite to get more music, and with real jobs and real money, most would pay fair prices.

Also, it is so problematic to try and institute filtering in an academic arena. There are probably any number of legitimate ways and reasons to see file sharing on a college campus that would not be legal outside. This will force universities to layer artificial distribution mechanisms they otherwise could have handled with firewall policies. (All this at an added expense to universities, and eventually to the cost of an education.)

So, once again the music industry goes to the "we don't know for sure, but to be safe we're going to assume you're a crook" mentality. The RIAA needs to listen to clue.mp3.

slashdot summary is just plain wrong

On: IT Certification Less Important Now?

There is nothing in the article stating IT certifications are hurting careers. To summarize the real article:

• some certifications have lost value in the market (MCDST, CISA, NCDE, MCNE, CNA)
• some certifications have gained value (SCNP, CISM, MCT)
• companies are also beginning to pay closer attention to skills rather than certifications.
• 14 certifications have grown in value, showing an 11 percent or higher growth over the last year (directly contradicting the slashdot article thesis)

I personally think certification is bullhockey, but I don't necessarily hold that someone has a certification against them. Doing so (subtracting value for certification) would be akin to disrespecting someone for having a college degree, and that doesn't make sense.

So, if you have certs, it isn't going to hurt you. What will hurt you is not having skills companies are looking for (unfortunately, the article is really a little thin on what those skills are. The article does list some very broad categories that are "growing" (whatever that means): Applications Development/Programming Languages, Project Management, Training, Webmaster and Security).

Bottom line, as it probably should be, you're going to get evaluated and paid for performance, not pieces of paper.

Firefox can do it, Microsoft probably can't

On: Microsoft's IE7 Search Box Bugs Google

From the slashdot summary:

I notice that in my version of Firefox the search box defaults to Google, and that the pull-down menu of pre-entered options doesn't even include MSN Search, but Google seems to have been oddly quiet on that front for the many years prior to IE7 that Firefox has made this feature available.

Google's concern and complaint is Microsoft is once again leveraging their monopoly in their Windows domain to control unfairly users' choice to some other market or product, in this case, search engine choice. It could be problematic, maybe even legally, that Microsoft sets the default search to theirs, even though they offer other choices. I agree with Google's complaint and would like to see Microsoft forced to make choosing the search engine part of the setup procedure.

As for the slashdot summary observation Firefox hasn't done the same, Firefox has no monopoly and is therefor in no way obligated in the same way as Microsoft to change the default behavior.

As an aside, and a question, has anyone else had trouble with IE7? In keeping with "knowing your enemy", I installed IE7, and it crashes consistently every time I open up a new page in a new tab. Anyone else seen this?

watch Colbert Report instead

On: Colbert New Comic-in-Chief

I watched the entire clip, and I felt pain for the President, the room, and Colbert. By far, this was not Colbert's best work, his show is typically much better. Colbert deserves a tip of the hat for his courage to skewer mercilessly, but I didn't find the material sharp, and his vignette Press Secretary audition was too long, and amateurish.

Go watch a couple episodes of his show. The Colbert Report is much funnier.

by far the funniest and most clever (IMO)

On: FirefoxFlicks Winners Announced

Wheee! Almost peed my pants. Played it over and over, this is funny on many levels, reminds me of the old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons, where little kids laughed, but there is an adult element that is hilarious.

As far as being effective for general advertising, I'm not sure... It may succeed on the level of getting people talking about it, "Do you GET that new Firefox commercial", or not. It's a bit of a wink and a nod to the tech demographic (taunting especially Microsoft and Netscape).

If I were making a SAFE choice for mass consumption, I'd probably go with the "Give me the Soap". Simple, mass appeal, cute, cuddly, with a clearly stated message. If I had some extra money, I'd produce and run both. If I had money to burn, I'd definitely do the Wheeee! just for fun.

Good job to all winners.

such sweet irony

On: Rockers Sue Sony Over Download Royalties

I want you to want me. I need you to need me.

What a tasty irony one of the first incidents of the artists awakening to the double-edged sword that is the music industry's abuse is from a band named Cheap Trick!

From the article, assuming it's accurate and correct, what a staggering number each 99 cent sale of a Cheap Trick song nets Cheap Trick a paltry $.045. That's internet highway robbery.

I never thought about it this way before, but maybe a to date unreckoned force that could be brought to bear is the ire of scorned artists. Maybe, just maybe, in its seemingly infinite greed the record industry finally goes a bit (or bits) too far and the slumbering artists wake up and smell the corruption. Probably a bit of a pipe dream, but I'm pulling for Cheap Trick.

Re:I want a refrigerator

On: Cell Phones Responsible For Next Internet Worm?

From a larger perspective, do you seriously think the cell phone network, with moving transmitters in contention for bandwidth with other units, could ever provide similar levels of quality with land lines, where copper wires are run from point to point? I think you are expecting too much.

But, I'm the customer -- I should always be right. As I've mentioned, I've been in some of these design meetings, and I know what tradeoffs are being made to maximize profit (translation: push the compression algorithms and spectra/message slicing and splicing techniques to their painful limits... if the result is "intelligible", then it's good enough). This takes advantage of user (consumer) naivete, i.e., the customer doesn't know this technology is capable of landline quality. Heck, it's even capable of CD quality audio if that's what they wanted.

As for "..., changing your argument a bit here. You were originally railing against extra features that phones have, such as cameras and PIM features", I respectfully disagree. I was "railing" against the industry for introducing shotgun features at the expense of perfecting any of them, especially the first and main original function: phone calls.

And I don't really care that there's a split between phone manufacturers and network and transport providers (they actually work a lot closer together on these products than you think anyway). Again, as a consumer, I want technology that is more transparent, and reliable. And, I don't think that's asking for much. I think it's too convenient to mutually point fingers when something in the integrated final product isn't up to snuff.

So, we're probably getting pretty buried in "offtopic" and/or "redundant" here... I'd love to continue discussion if you would (or maybe put a thread in your blog)... send me an e-mail to my obfuscated e-mail address, I'll pick up the dialog there.

Regards, "yagu".

Re:I want a refrigerator

On: Cell Phones Responsible For Next Internet Worm?

What the hell device[s] are you ranting against that are sold as cell phones and can't make calls? Every cell phone I've seen in the past year can make calls. Nobody is going to manufacture a cell phone that can't make calls.

I didn't say "couldn't make calls", I added the modifiers: reliable, clear, and simple .

• I don't find cell phones to be reliable (just completed a cross-country drive, want to guess what the percentage of calls were that were either dropped, unable to connect, or interrupted/garbled?).
• I don't find cell phones clear. Even the very best quality audio I've experienced with cell phones is inferior to land lines (which, btw, is only conditioned to 3000Hz, an already not great audio spectrum). And, today's audio quality is worse than previous generations, e.g., the original analog cell phones. I was excited to borrow a friends digital cell phone when they first came out and was hugely disappointed to hear significant compression artifacts -- sometimes to the point of sounding robotic.
• And, I don't find cell phones simple. Manufacturers' success in differentiation of product results in a dizzying array of cell phone UIs, none of which is that intuitive (especially with the piled on extra features), and none of which is very consistent across different models.

  I wonder how a user would feel about the differences the day they need to grab an unfamiliar cell phone to make a 911 call in a life and death situation.

However, for the average consumer, cell phone reliability is good enough. They don't want more reliable phones. They want text messaging and cameras.

You and I must run in different social circles. The most common complaint/comment I hear about cell phones is their reliability. The second most complaint/comment I hear is about reliability.

And, no one I know raves about, or even uses text messaging and camera features of their cell phones... Most don't even know how to use those features.

I've been in design meetings for cell phones, and my observation was the discussion centered around "what cool things can we make these devices do", and not around "what do the customers want".

I want a refrigerator

On: Cell Phones Responsible For Next Internet Worm?

No, seriously, what aren't they thinking of using cell phones for these days, except maybe making reliable, clear, and simple phone calls? Seems like the piling on of more non-cell-phone features on cell phones is not very well thought out. Couple the lack of security design in these added networking features with the possibility/probability more mobile phones are moving to embedded Windows (at least that's what I've read), potential for network compromise and disaster increases non-linearly (upward).

What I find annoying and intrusive about this is I'm sitting here in my (our) internet universe working hard to make it reasonably sound, and these entrepreneurs trump that work with their one-off, disposable technology. So, I (we) eventually take the big hit for their irresponsibility. Sheesh, in every major park I've visited there's a requirement for pet owners to clean up after their pets, it'd be nice to see similar structure here.

When they're designing these phones, and these networks, and what and how the phones work, does anyone in the room bring up the notion these phones first and foremost should be phones?

In haste to be the first with the new features it seems the ramifications of what and how they add are considered little, if at all. It's money grabbing, and let the chips fall where they may, as long as the manufacturer is first and fastest with the latest new features. Sick.

I find it ironic, paradoxical(?), one of the features so darling and network centric is text messaging. I've referenced this before the T-Mobile Sidekick got written into an episode of Gilmore Girls where Rory carried on a "conversation" with Daddy about arrangements to attend a function. I'm waiting for the next great headlines where someone discovered the newest and fastest way to communicate with one of these devices -- you can actually dial a number and talk to the other person!!!

As for the "The mobile devices you know and love are great for productivity" statement, give me a break. Firstly I don't "love" them, and if by "great for productivity" you mean: great for interrupting the social flow of interaction; great for rude behavior; great for ignoring real world, then, okay, great! Not.

(And, for those who feel they must beat me with their clue sticks, no thanks on advice about how to get phones that are just phones -- been there, done that... I know how to get around the system, I just don't think I should have to.)

Re:careful of the source

On: The FAA Saves $15 Million by Migrating to Linux

Everything about it shouts "press release", including the SEC warnings at the bottom and the press contact information. As is typical with press releases, it was picked up and run all over the place. That's what press releases are for. Anything that comes from Business Wire is a press release.

Thanks for the info, I did not know everything from Business Wire was a press release. However, my first guess as to what a publication "Business Wire" would represent would be news about business, not press releases. When I think of Wall Street Journal, I think of articles about business and Wall Street.

As for everything about it "shouting" press release, I'm only giving my opinion, and I don't think it "shouts" press release.

I also have no problems with Red Hat or any other business issuing press releases, they SHOULD. As for whether it is something that should be on slashdot, I refer to the slogan "News that Matters". It's only my opinion, but I don't think press releases fall into that category. (I would have no problem with slashdot creating a category "press releases".)

As in my original post, I have high hopes for Linux, I just prescribe caution to readers who don't know Business Wire is a press-release publication (I didn't). And, as in the anecdotal case I cited, sometimes the press release (or ad) is not only misleading, it is completely false. (The ad I mentioned even had testimonials from Microsoft and "our company" employees... statements and testimonials which COULDN'T have been true.)

And, for the record, I hold Red Hat in high regard for their contributions to the Linux movement.

careful of the source

On: The FAA Saves $15 Million by Migrating to Linux

Disclaimer: I love Linux (and Un*x), and I hope someday Linux (and Un*x) becomes a majority player in the computing world. But, ...

The article paints a rosy success story, but consider the source. This is a Red Hat press release. While it all may be completely true with no misdirection, I put little stock in self-congratulation, especially after an amazing experience with a similar Microsoft claim.

I worked for a major Telcom years ago and we merged with a smaller firm... Shortly after the merger, Microsoft put a full page ad in Time magazine describing an enourmous success story of how our new company now comprised of two previous companies combined the two companies' IT systems and integrated them seamlessly with Micosoft's then new .NET platform.

This would have been an amazing success story except for the fact that:

1. .NET still had not been released for general consumption
2. noone in our IT knew of this stunning success effort
3. our "integrated" systems weren't

For those who doubt, I can provide the digital photograph of the ad, I was so amazed I actually took a picture of it (I will have to dig it out, but I know I have it.)

I know many would not be surprised by a bogus claim from a Microsoft, but I don't trust that any company providing a press release to be providing real news (or trustworthy, or balanced, etc.).

This whole "press release" presented as "news" would be more honest if they placed the disclaimer information up front. (If you don't read all the way to the VERY LAST LINE of the article, you won't know the source is Red Hat.

summary of article, not likely to happen

On: Your Thoughts Are Your Password

If you don't want to take the time, the article basically says, "this would be a really cool idea, but it's not ready for prime time, and it's too expensive, and it's too unwieldy, and there are already cheaper, better, easier alternatives.

From the article:

but right now the only way to tap into a person's brain signals is through a highly inconvenient EEG cap that's smeared with conductive gel and worn on the scalp.

There's going to be a lot of people having a bad hair day. For once, being bald holds an advantage.

Re:both sides of their mouths.

On: Digital Music Downloads Too Expensive?

Good points. I am not an economics expert and your point about that is well taken. I do understand at an elementary level some of the tenets you describe, and would have factored that into a longer post, i.e., IANAEE (economics expert), but the entertainment industry is playing loose with the rules here.

So, my post was thinner than it could have been but I still think underpinning the industry around downloads and digital media is a sinister and conniving Star Chamber, and they're not there for their industry, they're not there for their artists, nor are they for the customer.

You're also right the media short shrift the principles in this (and almost everything else they "report") and lead too many to misguided inferences, that's a shame. I do wish they were more thorough.

I acceed your points there is a lot more to the skin thin article referenced, but I also cry "foul" with the entertainment industry. Perhaps more active resistance and investigation into the industry would reveal their evil plans (or not), and allow for appropriate corrective forces. I don't see that happening because of the highly technical nature of the argument, and the paying public's indifference (at least until it's too late).

both sides of their mouths.

On: Digital Music Downloads Too Expensive?

Interesting key (and somewhat conflicting) points from the article:

This is not the fault of retailers. Prices for digital downloads are based on wholesale prices, and are determined on a territorial basis by record companies based on their perception of what each market can bear

and:

As a border-free environment, the internet was supposed to bring down market barriers. But record companies use the internet to create boundaries and increase protectionism in the market for sound recordings, to the detriment of consumers

So, in addition to lobbying in the United States to encumber music and entertainment beyond any previous restrictions (to the point of unusability if they get their way), the music industry tries to layer artificial geographical artifacts over the internet to further increase their (already obscene) profits. I find it interesting the entertainment wonks get away with this under the "protection of artists and intellectual property" canards juxtaposed next to the argument that many people lose their jobs to outsourcing as a result of the "global economy" and the breaking down of these alleged geographic boundaries.

Seems like those in power define by expedience.

(As an aside, another tasty tidbit in the article:

When will parallel-import laws be extended to the digital market, so that Australian consumers are finally charged a fair price for downloads?

I find this an interesting question -- maybe when Americans are also charged a fair price for music (they aren't today). Sigh.

good thing

On: Viiv Falls Flat

Good thing they're "vi" fans and not "emacs", otherwise it would be: "introducing the new 'Emacsscame'"

I can vouch for tivo... they got it right

On: The Challenges of A DVR Service

We have both tivos and a Comcast HD PVR (I believe made by Magnavox), and I can attest to the interface being the hardest thing to get right, but maybe the most important. And, by far Tivo has come closest to the transcendental interface over any competitors (I've also sampled the offering of some of the others).

Here are some of the "wows" about Tivo, many of which I'd discovered over time:

• the infamous but invaluable 30-second skip hack. It's controversial and I don't know why, since the Comcast box offers the 30-second skip out of the box. Anyway, if you have Tivo, and you don't know about this one, you HAVE to get it.
• the tick-mark FF. When fast forwarding at any speed, whether in the live buffer or watching a recorded show, the "->|" button will advance the video to the next tick mark on the screen. The tick marks are typically 10, 15, or 5 minutes depending on the length of the show. This is a GREAT convenience factor!
• the same tick-make REW function... Same button, if you're rewinding, you can move immediately to a previous tick mark. If you're in the live buffer, it takes you all the way to the beginning (oldest video) of the live buffer.
• the "ENTER" button, in any list context will take you alternately to the beginning and then end of a list.
• the "ENTER" button also is "Previous" for last watched channel.
• the 8-second backward button
• overloaded buttons, e.g., when browsing show listings, the "channel up and down" buttons move you one page up and down through the listings respectively. Same is true when in any list context. Also, the FF and REW buttons are overloaded in TV Schedule list mode and advance the "frame" of the listings forward and back by 30 minutes.
• wish list... great feature, really does work
• translucent screens for most interaction, you can continue to watch while scheduling recordings.
• Season PASS is MUCH more accurate and reliable than the competition
• "recently deleted" folder for shows manually deleted, you can go back and retrieve them if you need to as long as the Tivo hasn't permanently deleted them for lack of space.
• grouping of shows into folders to more easily navigate recorded shows (optionally on or off)

This barely covers the features, but Tivo has done an AMAZING job in ergonomics!

The Comcast box, on the other hand, is abysmal. It is almost unusable, but for now is the only available option to record HD shows. Here are a few of the annoyances:

• On a regular basis, shows appear (that were requested to record) in the "recorded" list with no title and a recording date of 1999, impossible since this device never existed then. They can't be deleted, and they accumulate over time.
• If you try and play one of the "anonymous" shows, it locks the box solid, the only option is a power recycle.
• The ONLY way to turn CC (Closed Caption) on and off is to power the unit down with the remote, then hit the menu within a timeout interval, and scroll down through an internal systems menu and turn CC on.
• Oh, and by the way, when you do the previous bullet to toggle the CC, any recording shows stop recording, and don't resume upon re-power.
• There is a well known and hated "lag" in the Comcast box. Apparently the software has NO concept of prioritization. When the box is particularly bogged down, the response to button presses from the remote can come in fits and starts. I've literally gotten lost in what I thought I pressed and would put the remote down and "cool down" and let the box take sometimes up to 3 or 4 minutes to "catch up". Oh, and yes, it captures EVERY button press, and honors them, and yes, because of that we have accidentally deleted shows we didn't want to.
• And, related to previous bullet, there is NO way to tell whether the unit has seen your button presses, there is no hourglass, no indicator, NOTHING to indicate is has seen a remote comm

tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X...

On: Run Windows Applications Natively in OS X?

He points out one of the difficulties WINE has had keeping applications healthy:

Wine is great, but it is also a moving target subject to Microsoft meddling. If Wine gets too good, Microsoft can "accidentally" break it at will. But Microsoft can't afford to do that with its own Windows API. The courts will no longer allow checking for a different underlying OS as Redmond did back in the days of DR-DOS. Besides, unless we are strictly talking about Microsoft apps, there isn't even much code involved here that Microsoft CAN meddle in.

I wonder that his assumption Microsoft can't break its own API in Windows is correct, and suspect (or fear) it isn't. Or, at best, writing to Microsoft's API is only a half truth and is at the core of one of the EU's complaints against Microsoft -- complete API documentation!

Cringely does confirm third party reports of this suite of software working at Apple, but I wonder for how long? And for what versions? A complete, robust, and current maintenance of what is available for a Windows API is a minefield, and in my opinion, likely to somehow "break" rather quickly.

I can imagine if Apple somehow has pulled this off and is ready to roll it out publicly they must be bracing for the Microsoft blitzkrieg, because they're going to get it.

As to whether or not this really is a realistic scenario (Microsoft and Windows Apps running transparently in OS X), please, please, please let it be true! (We can all hope, right?)

Old dog, old tricks.

On: The Future of Innovation At Stake?

Key article quote:

"What Microsoft is talking about is freedom for them to innovate, not others," said lawyer Thomas Vinje, representing a group of competitors that will speak at the hearing."

and:

Last year, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer told Germany's Manager Magazin: "We needed the first years to conquer the PC and those following to be ahead in the server business. In the upcoming years we'll conquer the Internet."

Seems Microsoft, et. al., especially Balmer are back to their old swagger when they talk so boldly about "conquering". Remember Ballmer, during the US DOJ investigation was the one who said "Janet Reno can go to Hell."

(And, before any business experts go off on "a company's business is to make money by conquering a market", remember, Microsoft is already convicted of abusing its monopoly position to introduce an imbalance in other markets. This is exactly the position Balmer takes so boldly in his interview.)

Amazing.

clarification please

On: New Patent on TV Forces You to Watch Ads

I would really like to know exactly what this technology is about because I see it in two contexts, one annoying, and the other evil (and maybe not legal?).

I can't tell from the article if this technology relates to constraining a viewer to watch commercials when watching a pre-recorded show, i.e., something on a Personal Video Recorder (like a Tivo), or if this is something that prevents a viewer from channel surfing while a channel breaks for commercials.

The former (pre-recorded show viewing) is something I've heard about for a long time, for example I've heard Tivo has played with instantiating "popup" ads if you fast forward through commercials while watching a recorded show. Regardless, while this is annoying, I guess it's their call -- but for sure, it'll cut back on how much I'm watching -- it's already borderline for what I find tolerable with encroaching advertising (product placement, etc. -- anyone see the pandering "sidekick" product placement in Tuesday's Gilmore Girls? For Heck's sake, it was actually written into the script!).

However, if this is about locking in to a station during commercial breaks, I would be (and I assume the viewing public) outraged! How dare they. Aside from the egregious nature of this, I can't imagine it would be a legal tactic. Certainly any potentially "competing" channel would be up in arms over something like this, unless of course there is future collusion to ensure commercials are all aired at exactly the same time, thus attenuating the incentive to surf during commercial breaks.

Anyone know the answer to exactly what this technology is?

Mr. Thurrott forgives Microsoft

On: How Vista Disappoints

Well, in summary, the new Vista:

• Introduces the new user security model similar to Un*x, only 30 years later. But it is (so far) incredibly inane in its interaction model with the user (from the article):

  The bad news, then, is that UAP is a sad, sad joke. It's the most annoying feature that Microsoft has ever added to any software product, and yes, that includes that ridiculous Clippy character from older Office versions. The problem with UAP is that it throws up an unbelievable number of warning dialogs for even the simplest of tasks. That these dialogs pop up repeatedly for the same action would be comical if it weren't so amazingly frustrating. It would be hilarious if it weren't going to affect hundreds of millions of people in a few short months. It is, in fact, almost criminal in its insidiousness.

• they've taken the "windows" metaphor to its (in their opinion) next logical step, i.e., "glass", offering translucent and transparent windows. But (FTA):

  Anyway, the reality of glass windows is that they stink. The windows themselves are translucent, meaning you can see through them partially. But the visual difference between the topmost window (that is, the window with which you are currently interacting, or what we might describe as the window with focus) and any other windows (i.e. those windows that are visually located "under" the topmost window) is subtle at best. More to the point, you can't tell topmost windows from other windows at all. And don't pretend you can.

• they've added a "Media Center", but (summarizing the article), it stinks.

Thurrott says he still doesn't hate Microsoft for not delivering on all of these promises:

I don't hate Windows Vista, and I certainly don't hate Microsoft for disappointing me and countless other customers with a product that doesn't even come close to meeting its original promises.

The world needs friends like Mr. Thurrott. He's a pretty forgiving guy. But, it would have been nice had Microsoft really been able to deliver this as promised. I was looking forward to buying a new upgraded computer!

Re:embedded in this message (not surprisingly)

On: Working at Microsoft, the Inside Scoop

Hello again, Wile,

Unless you want to change our economic system (which I am all for BTW), you are going to have corporations do everything they can to make a buck (including the ones that have favored status on slashdot). Don't hate the player, hate the game..

I have to agree to agree on this. I think part of our divergence is in my opinion, I think everyone, every company, the world keeps waiting for the "game" to change, not taking into account they are all integrally a part of the game. I hate that so many take the "every one else does it" stance... it's lame.

Maybe there's something about human nature, some genetic thread that predisposes us to gather and build power to any extent and by any method available. And maybe some day we evolve to the point that is no longer necessary.

(For the record, while MS is prominent in my examples they are by no means unique... but when you have the industry footprint of a MS, you're going to get heavy duty scrutiny. I've sounded off about many other companies, but this forum is largely anti-MS, as I'm sure you've inferred long ago.... Anyway, nice chatting. I've "friended" you.)

fact of interviewing life these days.

On: Behavioral Interviews for New Hires?

Behavioral and Personality Type tests are becoming almost standard for larger companies (read, ones that can afford them). Whether or not they add value is debatable, and whether you should "move on" obviously will be a personal choice. If it's a job you really want, you probably should consider taking it.

I don't consider these tests harmless, especially since many companies allow too much weight to the results. I wonder how many industry leaders today would get "passing" results.

All that said, if you're interested in what they're looking for and some info on why, and what you might do to improve your results visit this site.

For a perspective from the "hiring" side, you might want to look at this article.

Also, here's an article that describes what behavioral interviews/tests are. It claims (I won't agree or disagree):

..., behavior-based interviews are said to be 55 percent predictive of future on-the-job behavior, while traditional interviews are only 10 percent predictive. They can help hiring managers get more objective information about a candidate's job-related skills, abilities, interest and motivation, and make more accurate hiring decision. Currently, 30 percent of all organizations are using behavioral interviews to some degree.

It's mostly voodoo garbage (no offense to voodoo practicers) but is a fact of life in the interviewing world.