User: yagu

e-books redux... still not going to happen.

On: eBooks - What's Holding You Back?

e-books, what's holding me back?

• price (seems only fair the prices should be competitive à la less expensive than the same back in hardback (they're NOT!)).
• compatibility - until and unless I know I can move my book around to different readers/computers to read without being fingered a criminal and with minimal fuss, I'm not interested.
• convenience - related to previous comment - If I have to jump through a bunch of DRM hoops to stay clean, I don't have the energy to do so (though if this does take off I cringe at the number of hours I'm going to spend "supporting" my non-technical friends and family).
• quality - I still haven't seen a device or reader that approaches the quality of print (even the e-ink doesn't), nor have I found something that comes close the the ambience and ergonomics of a book.... heck none of the e-readers even come close to smelling like a book.
• portability - I don't know the state-of-the-art for things like printing portions of an e-book, but I want it to be easy, and again, I want it to be unencumbered.
• selection - I don't want to make my decision on e-book reading based on what's available and what I have to do to get it.
• price - did I mention price?

I think there's a general misconception by the idiots making decision in their conference rooms about rolling out these products. They clearly have misidentified their priorities as technology first, customer experience second (if that). Invariably the emphasis is wrapped around protecting content to the detriment of any pleasure and easy-to-use experience for customers. As long as the e-book industry continues down this path (and all other future e-media) the long term impact is negative for the content providers. It only takes one or two disasters (reader stops working, customer can't get the "rights" transferred to new reader, etc.) for customers to pretty much wash their hands of the experience.

Other than that, it's all good.

I know this list closely matches the article's prediction... but it bears repeating... (I actually wrote up my list before going to the "read more", unaware the read more had the list.)

not a perfect system, someone propose a better one

On: Financial Responsibility == Terrorism?

I have no idea why a much larger than normal payment would trigger red flags for suspicious behavior. But then, I'm not responsible for Homeland Security.

From the article:

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up.

The flags were cleared, they didn't lose money, they don't live under a cloud of suspicion.

Until or unless we know what behaviors might be red flags for suspicious possibly terrorism-related activity, this story is mildly interesting at best.

The headline for this article is misleading at best: "Financial Responsibility == Terrorism". Noone was accused of terrorism. And, writing a check for $6500 on a credit card sounds to me like typical financial matters, but maybe not "responsible", i.e., we have no idea if they were running large balances against no income, etc. (As a matter of fact, they say in the article they were making this payment because their balance "had gotten to an unhealthy level".

As for unusual financial transactions raising flags, this is not new as reflected in one of the posts in the referenced article:

This kind of spying isn't new. I bought a vehicle in 1990 and wrote a check for it. The dealer had to record where I got the money because "the IRS wants to know the source of any payment in excess of a certain dollar amount." No proof required, just a statement. No idea what they did with the info.

Of course, I'm sacrificing karma to take the unpopular view.

Re:CIOs, come on, go(ogle) for it!

On: Google Copies Corporate Data to Google's Servers?

Your lack of basic grasp of syntax and grammar make your point difficult to interpret. I've cleaned up your comment a bit for you so others may understand better what you were trying to say. You're welcome.

*Your* You're a moron. If I thought Google was getting the data from my Company and I was in the CIO positon *that* who is basically the gatekeeper of all Information I would block google so tightly it you wouldn't even be able to open a work document with the *wolrd* word google in it.

Plus your thesis that employees can get at data better using google desktop search is crazy. *Lets* Let's see,[comma] I could set up a data warehouse and some OLAP cubes or I could use a *crapy* crappy [assuming you meant crappy here] free desktop download. I can't imagine you work in a position any higher than help desk.

Now that might be a bit more extreme *then* than what I would really do. But just because a company claims to do no evil is no reason to risk losing corprate data that may be used for competitive advantage or *copy righted* copyrighted to Google. I suspect if Google keeps on doing things like this they will crash harder than pets.com. They are *gonna* going to [unless you want to go with the idiom] be in a mess of trouble about *thier* their image search after their recent *law suit* lawsuit loss. Plus they are gonna get slammed on *thier* their foolish book search. Just because you can make a powerful search engine that will help people find things quickly doesn't mean you can bypass laws and morals just to catalog data.

I was going to address some of your comments but I see after cleaning up your mess a bit I still can't really see any rational thinking in your, ahem, thesis. But, if ad hominem works for you...

(I'll let you imagine what you will about any position I hold in technology, I assure you it's much more than help desk. As for what you may do, I hope, considering your grasp of grammar it's something unrelated to responsibilities including clear communication. Best regards.)

it's the cloud!

On: Where is the Real Ajax/Flex Revolution Happening?

One key question in this Ask is

What will be the killer app?

Just my opinion, but I think the killer app may be out there already but in stealth form. It's mostly a question of discovery and trust, and I think both lurk right around the corner.

Just my anecdotal internet experience, but I'm migrating virtually all of my work into cyberspace and allowing internet services to manage my data and backup. I'm not completely there yet, but I've been a heavy gmail user for over a year now, and have almost forgotten how to use local pop clients (though I still do for peace of mind pop/download the e-mails for local storage -- I haven't gotten that far with my trust). And the sheer convenience of being able to "do e-mail" from any browser has been more beneficial than I'd predicted. I now have complete threads at my disposal whereas I used to find myself re-constructing threads dispersed across multiple machines (typically laptops "on the road").

Lately I've tried some of the on-line word processors and calendars, and yes even some of the spreadsheets (some of the on-line spreadsheets are very responsive and offer functionality 99% of excel users typically tap). They're not all there and ready for prime time yet, but they're getting close.

The word processors for my general use are already good enough that I'm willing to do my word processing on line and let "them" do the management. I wouldn't even consider (not that I did anyway -- I'm an OpenOffice user) any of the pricey Microsoft Word Processing/Spreadsheet options. Again, the side benefit, almost unexpected, is the universal access to my work with NO effort, just a reasonably current browser.

So, from my perspective, that's the "killer app"...: the security; the ease-of-use; the convenience; the cost; the true benefits reaped from a net where your data is created and managed in the internet "cloud" (sorry about all of the "quotes").

(As for the one-size-fits-all, I think the eventual internet app winners will be those who provide the functionality with the flexibility. And if you shop around you'll find these on-line versions seem to providing reasonable (maybe not complete, but reasonable) flexibility)

CIOs, come on, go(ogle) for it!

On: Google Copies Corporate Data to Google's Servers?

Up front disclaimer: My WA state license plates are "GOOGLE" so some would probably accuse me of some bias.

I'll probably get flamed here, but I think CIO's are missing an opportunity for a great productivity enhancement at the hands of their Google paranoia. I wouldn't blame a CIO for wanting policy like this (I guess), but Google has shown themselves to be good corporate citizens, and I still submit they honor their "do no evil" credo.

I don't know what better way for a company of employees to share and access their data than having a Google desktop. Certainly (and Google knows this) Google exposes itself to such huge liability I can't imagine this being something they don't address with extreme due diligence.

As for the paragraph from the fine article:

Analyst Gartner last week warned that the 'search across computers' feature on the latest version of Google Desktop poses an "unacceptable risk" to many organisations because it allows people to share information and also stores some of that data on Google servers.

People sharing information in companies isn't new, and I don't see this desktop searching as bringing any additional risk to bear. As for the information stored on Google servers, as stated above, Google seems to have this in hand, and I'd trust them for this service far more than anyone else, including any home-grown in house attempt to provide similar architecture.

I'd rather my CIO be a little more bold and allow this as a tool to further leverage my company's data.

clarify this paragraph:

On: U.S. Investigating Online Music Pricing

From the fine article:

Mr Jobs suggested such a move [in reference (apparently) to greedy prices set by music companies] would drive owners of Apple's iPod, the hugely popular digital music player, to piracy, a problem that has cost the music industry billions in revenues in recent years.

I wonder, does Mr. Jobs actually believe this, or is this casual conjecture/repetition by the author?

Regardless, I'm still curious about and waiting for the definitve and objective study that shows real correlation, because I still don't believe it.

The biggest "cost" to the music industry over the last five years has been and continues to be their disdain for the consumer (e.g., the SONY debacle, protected "CDs") and their insistance on charging similar fees for songs even while the business model dramatically evolves (e.g., hugely cheaper distrubution channels).

Heck, if the music companies were found to be colluding by charging $15+ per CD years back (they were), what are the chances they are doing the same now when the per-tune cost remains the same as distribution costs drop?

My biggest fear though is the music industry gets "caught" and settles in similar fashion to their previous settlement, à la "giving away" free downloads (by the truckload) to local libraries, but restricting the downloads to non-selling tracks. Sigh.

what are the comparisons: openxml vs. open doc?

On: OpenDocument Alliance to Fight Digital Dark Age

Open formats are definitely the standard for which to strive.

It appears Microsoft claims an open format, from the (fine) article:

OpenXML will be the default format for saving documents instead of Microsoft's proprietary formats, said Alan Yates of the company's Office division

Can anyone clear up exactly what OpenXML is? When I google it, I get vague references leading me to believe OpenXML is more of a container, and not Microsoft's specific document format. So, this sounds like another canard from Microsoft with the claim "open" obfuscating what is probably not.

Any /.'ers have more info about Microsoft's format?

On the other hand, the consortium (if you will) proposing a universal open document standard sounds more open and the proof will be in the implementation. Still, I'd like to know more specifically what that standard proposal is in detail.

MS blames everyone else.

On: Microsoft Accuses European Union of Collusion

This is more of the same. Microsoft doesn't seem to have enough fingers to point for blame, of course, except for at anyone but themselves.

A previous slashdot thread discussed Microsoft's "published" documents whereby Microsoft, unsuccessful in their attempts to win over the European Union, instead published their documentation and responses, trying to drum up public support for their ostensible compliance.

Now Microsoft wants to blame the EU and other companies for colluding against them. Poppycock! There would be almost no other way to define the complaint... it basically is about other companies, and Microsoft's tactics in that marketplace. Yes, the EU plays the heavy here, but it is not in cahoots with the other companies.

Microsoft was asked to provide API documentation, they instead offered to license their source (with restrictions), which is in no way the same thing and is an inappropriate substitute.

Of course the EU is going to be discussing this with other companies -- the other companies are the ones injured in this action, and their observations are key in determining real Microsoft compliance.

ask a billion people

On: Microsoft Makes EU Dispute Docs Public

If you can't get the opinion or results you want from the commission, throw it out to the public and see if you can generate a groundswell of support.

I think this is what Microsoft hopes to do. I doubt they'll succeed.

From The Fine Article (emphasis mine):

But a Commission monitoring trustee, one of several nominated by Microsoft, as well as competitors and a technical review committee gave Microsoft's documentation scathing reviews. The trustee called it "fundamentally flawed. "

The commission isn't buying Microsoft's protest, the "buying" public won't either.

What's interesting though is just in sheer numbers, Microsoft will find empathy, support, and voices to support their claim they're being treated unfairly.

interesting, but don't lump Google into this mix

On: Search Engines' Reward Programs

MSN is doing it (offering free nights at the Four Seasons); Yahoo's "GoodSearch" is doing it (but nicely -- donating pennies to charity); but Google is not doing it, but Blingo is.

If you look at the Blingo "about us" page, at the bottom you'll find:

Who is Blingo?

We're a privately-held company in California, managed by a small team of successful entrepreneurs.

Just wanted to set the record straight, since I still kind of believe Google means it when they say "do no evil".

industry missing the point (hwah???)

On: Digital Books Start A New Chapter

The gist of the article points to an industry smugly patting itself on the back (and possibly massaging other body parts) in glee now that they've "solved" the problem with previous e-book introductions and their failings. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), they're wrong.

I've sampled the e-book offerings, both hardware and software since the day they were first introduced. I was so excited to finally merge my appetite for reading (about 20 novels/year) with the convenience and power of technology. Yes, I was disappointed with the first e-book hardware, but it wasn't the only reason I returned the merchandise.

First and foremost, the problem with e-books is not the presentation (though it can be better), it's the frigging business model! Did I mention the problem with e-books is the business model?

Though I haven't done complete research for this latest round of e-books I suspect the landscape is similar to before. What I'd found was yet another money grab. Consider that:

• e-books cost almost nothing to distribute
• e-books can be amended electtronically (read auto-errata :-) )
• e-books can be dynamically allocated (no more "guessing" how many copies per print, thus saving publishers even MORE money)
• e-books take up no space (publishers can stock an infinite warehouse)

You'd think with all of these super advantages, at most you'd pay 50% what a hard copy book would cost. Guess again. Especially early on, when I did go "shopping" it wasn't unusual at all to find electronic books selling for more than the hard copy of the same book!

No, the problem isn't only hardware, and the problem isn't mostly hardware, it's the frigging business model!

This is old news.

On: Pen-Sized Color Scanner Reviewed

While a handheld pen-sized scanner may intrigue, it's not very new, not even for this particular device. If you go to the amazon.com review of this device, and look and see the oldest review for this device is in October of 2004!

Additionally, while there are only fifteen reviews, the average is only 3.5/5 stars, enough of an indicator (to me at least) this isn't exciting or very interesting technology (for the record, a running theme at amazon seems to indicate a klunky package with difficult to use software and controls). Also fifteen reviews over a 15 month period would indicate a product that isn't moving. Perhaps this review is a nudge to try and get the product moving?

I've seen this simulated, it isn't pretty.

On: Has World Oil Production Passed Its Peak?

I remember in college a geologist was invited to demonstrate a "resource simulator" for our class. By today's standards it would be considered extremely crude (this was after all, in 1978), (wow, weird unintentional pun).

The simulation was basically a giant video game with a simple graphical display of the world's known and projected resources including but not limited to:

• coal
• oil
• uranium
• water
• copper
• shotgun pellets (just seeing if you're paying attention!)

About 20 students in the class were given controllers, each to (again, crudely) simulate usage and comsumption patterns of all of these resources. Also, some students had controllers allowing them to spend resources to explore for MORE resources.

At the time, and years subsequent that demo stayed with me -- it left an indelible image of what could and probably would be.

The results? Basically, no matter what the students did to conserve, and what they did to increase the resources, the "world" pretty much always ran out of fuel and resources by the year 2020. At the time that seemed pretty far away and I don't think many people felt the need to care. Maybe that time has come.

Another interesting piece of the simulation: there were those students who pointed out these "estimates" of known and expected future discoveries of resources were just that, "estimates". The geologist obliged, and let the students rerun the simulations with a magnitude of latitude, i.e., ten times the estimated resources were allocated! The results then?, about an additional 10 to 20 years of resources before they ran out.

Note: the results (we ran many different trials) weren't ALWAYS about running out of oil and petroleum. On a few occasions there were severe food and water crises. A very interesting lesson.

Would the Beatles have made it today?

On: How Songs Get Popular

I wonder how much the degree to which today's world is "connected" compared to the days and emergence of the Beatles and Stones (much less Beethoven, et. al.) contributes to the "lesser quality" of today's popular music? I have to think this is a significant factor, and an unfortunate one.

So, today stars are foisted, created, presented to the consuming public by fiat, not a great surprise. It's too bad though. I even wonder a group as good as the Beatles, or a composer as great as Beethoven (Ludwig, my opinion) would have much of a chance for recognition for their real talent -- probably not so much. Too bad.

For those of this generation, food for thought. (and, sorry for all of the sentence fragments.)

(Also, readers should visit the links at the bottom of the referenced article, there are some pretty interesting additional articles about human nature and music (and I have NO interest in that magazine).)

okay, so it takes great pictures!

On: The World's Fastest Image Processor

What about the call quality?, and text-messaging? And what is the area coverage? What kinds of plans are available?

Does it play mp3s?

Can I take videos with it and send to my friends?

Oh Great!...

On: Borland Divests IDEs to Focus on ALM

Borland, long the maker of some kickass development tools now is interested in aggressively pursuing a company whose opening paragraph on it's web site home page begins:

Segue Software is a global leader dedicated to delivering quality optimization solutions that ensure the accuracy and performance of enterprise applications. ...

Sigh. I guess not they're pursuing the kickass world of business-speak (including but not limited to the term: Application Lifecycle Management (ALM)).

For the record, I'm not opposed to quality tools, but, first and foremost, application lifecycle management (ooops, sorry, ALM) is less a result of some tool "delivering quality optimization solutions that ensure..." and more a result of teams of people; clients, designers, coders, etc., that know how and what to do.

So long Borland, it's been nice knowing you.

Interesting shift in focus.

the answer is statistically probably 42

On: The Human Mind is a Bayes Logic Machine

From the fine article:

They suggest that the Bayesian capacity to draw strong inferences from sparse data could be crucial to the way the mind perceives the world, plans actions, comprehends and learns language, reasons from correlation to causation, and even understands the goals and beliefs of other minds.

Phew! Once I read that, I realized I didn't have to read the rest of the article having now taken a large enough "sparse" sample.

An added benefit, I already know what all of the posts are going to say, including this one!

equitable policy would be okay

On: Pay-to Play and the Tiered Internet

Is this possible proposed policy to establish equity? If so, I'm okay with that. I've often wondered that for the same $30/month as my neighbor I can download five of the latest linux distributions, sample 20 or 30 trial software packages (large).

What would bother me, and bother me greatly, would be if they established pricing baselines the cheapest of which match what people pay today. In other words, a money-grab.

People have long paid more money to make more long distance calls, that only makes sense. Why not for heavier internet usage? It makes sense that heavier users pay higher fees.

There also could be additional benefits (assuming this is a fair and balanced idea) -- that being a more moderated approach to internet usage. I don't doubt a significant slice of internet bandwidth is absorbed by indiscriminate downloading and uploading, and streaming. I know I don't think twice about downloading Photoshop Elements to trial for a couple days (~300MB) just because I can. I'm also just as likely to stream my music to whereever I am in the country from my server at my home, again, just because I can. How many others approach the internet in the same way? I'm guessing "many".

If users used the internet as a finite resource (which it is, by the way) the usability of the internet would improve almost immediately and expansion costs and needs would attenuate (my opinion). All of this would help keep costs and increased charges down (again, assuming businesses are here to charge us a fair price).

But, based on everything else I see in business, this may not pass the smell test. Sigh

mobile internet, not much fun, even if improved

On: Should Businesses Have Mobile Friendly Websites?

I can only speak from my personal experiences with mobile internet, and they've been mostly disappointing, but I think the shortcoming is more in the form factor and less in the reluctance or resistance of the internet developers to provide mobile compatible web sites.

I first surfed "mobile" with a cell phone, "duette" (can't remember the manufacturer, doesn't matter). It had a small something-like six or seven line black and white character based screen. The access to the internet was provided by the phone service, and apparently they pretty much mapped the web sited you would access, there was no notion of "address bar" (that I remember). The speed was slow, the sites were rarely updated, and the presentation was terrible.

Fast forward to a month ago when I got the latest Palm with hi-res screen and wi-fi built in. I mostly got it for the high quality screen (which has not disappointed) but looked forward to also having near hi-res internet experience. This device has essentially half-VGA resolution and hence gives "normal" surfing access to the internet.

I've not encountered too many sites that bother to accommodate mobile devices, and after using the Palm TX for a while I see why. The Palm is probably one of the better devices for screen quality and even then (even when a site "does mobile"), the experience is unsatisfactory. (Google actually does a mobile presentation, but I actually would prefer it didn't -- the real estate and presentation is SO clamped down, I'd prefer panning the screen.)

In my opinion, I don't think there is much to be done about creating a satisfactory, let alone a "great" experience for mobile devices. Their form factor is just too small -- there are far too many people who, even with high resolution, cannot use these to surf the net comfortably.

If I were making decisions about a web site and whether to accommodate mobile devices my first instinct would be to ignore that niche. I wonder if there are any compelling counters to this experience?

Gates deserving of "rock star status"?

On: Who is Your Hero, Gates or Jobs?

From the fine article, near the end, drawing a conclusion:

On the evidence, he's [Jobs] nothing more than a greedy capitalist who's amassed an obscene fortune. It's shameful. In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs' rock star exaltation.

I respectfully disagree with the author's conclusion, unless by indicating "much more deserving", he is setting the bar incredibly low. Gates' fortune is every bit as obscene as the author claims Jobs' fortune is, and probably much more suspect in how Gates acquired it.

I get sick of the implied (or inferred by the masses) rags-to-riches yarn of Gates, college dropout made good. It's not true, Gates is of wealthy background, was a spoiled brat from the start and never had anything to lose, i.e., he was always destined to be rich and that would never have been in doubt. Unfortunately, he chose to become a goon and run roughshod over the technology world, amassing wealth unethically, and eventually (by DOJ judgement) illegally.

While I expect good to come of money Gates gives away, it's certainly less because Gates is a good guy and more that money can buy good things.

As for the slashdot question posed: Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?, probably yes. But probably more important is the motivation. I don't get any sense Bill's motivation is humanitarian, but do sense much of the work and generosity comes more from his wife Linda.

data has walked out the door before.

On: When Data Goes Missing Will You Even Know?

From the slashdot post:

The problem is USB flash drives

While there is truth to this, it is not a new truth and it is not the complete truth. It's one more mechanism for "losing" data but it's not the first and it won't be the last.

It's an effective mechanism for moving large volumes of data, but it's not the only mechanism.

Corporate espionage and theft has and will continue to exist. USB drives are just one more aspect. While there may be some "exposure" and scandal soon about some USB drive falling into the wrong hands I doubt it will surpass any of the recent scandals (lost tapes and customer data).

Unfortunately, I'm guessing the article is correct in its prediction: "It is highly likely that within the next year, we will see at least one publicized major case of unencrypted data loss from a portable device. Afterward, a lot of companies will ban such devices". That would be a knee jerk reaction and counter productive but I'm already seeing it on so many other levels, e.g.,

• restricted e-mail (filtered to death)
• blocked IM
• key logging

among many others. I still think the greatest exposures are social engineering... and the paranoia around security policies don't address that. Sigh

(And, besides, isn't the RIAA is working on a solution to apply DRM to USB drives too? ) ;-)

not easy to avoid, not easy to appease

On: How to Survive a Bad Boss

The problem with "bosses" is they come from the same base as everyone else. My experience has been and continues to be, for any discipline, less than 5% or so of players in that discipline truly know how and what they're doing.

That leaves the temperament and maturity of a "boss" as the essence with which you must deal. I had always been pretty lucky with managers and had good working relations with all but the last -- who turned out to be a little Nazi... He cared more about his image, and less about the work his team produced. He cultivated an "always busy" look for his group, but they produced far less with far less quality than other groups around us.

I constantly took him and the team to task for their hubris, and faux work facade, and became unpopular with Mr. Boss.

I rolled the dice at a bad time, it was at the same time IT decided to lay off 20% of the work force, and I had curried no favors to better my chances with this goonie. I don't know had I been a kiss-ass with him I would have fared better, but I was part of the 20% (after a illustrious 21 years with this company) let go.

Bottom line: in today's world, there isn't much you can do if you want to stand on priniciple -- unless you're lucky enough to have landed a great boss who knows what he or she is doing -- there aren't many of them. It's a shame and a crime when the truth, as stated in the article, is:

some bosses can be "fixed," but at other times it's better to hunker down or cover your ass so the bad boss can find other targets

It's probably one reason so many things are fucked today -- it's probably one of the reasons things like DRM even manages to get any traction -- it's probably why half the decisions being made are done so because of money under the table.

still mostly an exception

On: Can Tech Save Small Town America?

I think ultimately whether a town (small, that is) can be a place to be financially successful depends on:

• what constitutes a small town
• what constitutes financial success

Limited anecdotal cases show one can set up shop and make money in small town, USA, but a lot of what drives economies and business requires socially connected communities, typically large (larger than small towns).

People are still social creatures, business products are still tangible, and communities larger than small towns provide optimal management and distribution. I'm not sure this will change much in the forseeable future.

Yes, some people may make their fortune in small towns, but it remains the exception. And some big-money companies may toss a financial bone at small towns, but it remains only that. They're not developing a community, they're saving money -- it's little more than rural out-sourcing.

And for IT folks considering putting out a small town shingle, you can do it, but you'd better be good, and you'd better be prepared to sacrifice most of the small town life you'd anticipate, because, to land big-money gigs, you're going to have to be good above and beyond to assuage the suspicions of clients, and you're going to have to travel a lot, because they're still going to want to get a lot of face time with you.

one time, for security's sake

On: Has Corporate Info Security Gotten Out of Hand?

One time for security's sake my office ethernet port was turned off by IT. Figuring it to be some outage I called support (hah!), and they looked up my IP address and said yes the port had been turned off because my machine had refused to accept recent XP updates.

Hmmm, but my machine is a linux machine! We're sorry, but until you're machine accepts the updates we can't re-enable the port. I asked why I hadn't been notified -- they said ALL XP login scripts had been posting the notice for over a week, I had been given "plenty" of warning!

Hmmmm, but my machine is a linux machine! We're sorry, but until you're machine accepts the updates we can't re-enable the port.

Fortunately I had a dual-boot, so I was able to comply.

But, ironic that one of their (in my opinion) least vulnerable machines on the network was mine.

(And, for the record, my assigned work had no specific XP requirement, and my responsibilities were heavily around Unix... so I wasn't in violation of any policy (such as they existed).)

don't short shrift grammar

On: On the Subject of Slashdot Article Formatting

Bravo Taco! Good points well made.

I would like to take slight issue about the importance of spelling and grammar, especially in the slashdot article itself. To your main point, the article is about something, not spelling and grammar. That is true. But correct spelling and grammar lend accuracy to the article and are not ancillary niceties. Too much carelessness around grammar and spelling leads to muddier thinking and sometimes requires extra interpretation from the readers.

Case in point from this very article, ninth paragraph, describing how long a slashdot article must be:

It needs to be not to long, not to short.

While it's mostly clear what you mean, the sentence could take on different meaning. For example, the "It needs to be not to long" could (easily in fact) be interpreted to mean the length of the article should be appropriate as not to leave the reader "longing" for more. And, the "not to short." could mean the article should have appropriate length to assure you have not "shorted" the reader. Nuances, yes, but appropriate (not perfect) grammar is important.

Again, thanks for the illumination of publishing policy. It really is useful!