Yes, the danger is there. Many people say the same thing about Google, but I tend to be an optimist where these kinds of companies are concerned. I give them the benefit of the doubt because of their past actions.
"Do whatever Microsoft and Yahoo! does but better."
A formula for success in any business is to do something better than everyone else. If you're the only one doing it, great. But the point of competition is to beat out your competitors. And in this case, Google, Yahoo!, and MSN all compete for a very similar market by producing very similar products.
I disagree. There are all kinds of ways to make money by doing the wrong thing.
Most of us don't rob banks, break into our neighbors' homes, or counterfeit money. And it's not just because we are afraid of the consequences.
But I realize you're also talking about ethical issues rather than illegal problems. But the point is the same. Most people won't do ANYTHING for money... there are a lot of people on Slashdot that wouldn't write viruses, spyware, or send spam. Sure, some of them will. But, thankfully, a lot of people still try to adhere to the Golden Rule. Especially since a lot of the folks around here (and at Mozilla) probably remember the results of selling out during the late 90s.
Since this will be controlled by the currently non-evil Mozilla Foundation, I have faith that they will keep up the good work and resist the temptation to sell out for a quick buck.
Because some people, myself included, prefer to avoid certain linguistic adoptions. Using "like" in such a way was criticized by all of my teachers growing up (I'm in my 20s). It was adopted, as the article said, by middle-class teenagers despite the constant corrections of educators.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of incorrect usages in English that I refuse to adopt on the basis of their absurdity:
I could care less.
Same difference.
irregardless
Some time ago, I found a site dedicated to common errors in English. While I admit that I am guilty of some of these myself, I make an effort to correct those that I can (or at least feel are glaring).
This came about while having a conversation with a teenager that made me reconsider my devotion to language; hearing the word "like" three or four times in each sentence was a big part of that.
Like is for simile. I'll concede that it is frequently used for quotation. But I will not concede when it is used as a substitution for "um" or "uh."
After my third time removing spyware from my wife's grandparents' computer I did the following:
1. Install Firefox. 2. Change IE shortcut to Firefox. 3. Rename Firefox icon as "Internet" 4. I told them that their computer was slow because of the IE and AOL browsers.
This worked wonders. These are the same people that were told to defrag once to make your computer faster and interpreted it as a "defrag every day."
There are a lot of folks out there that aren't cut out to be IT workers, too. This probably comes from the mid-90s boom when people saw money as a good reason to get into IT.
When you present those people with the same problems you describe, the money is no longer attractive. Especially in a post-bubble economy where the paychecks are half of what they used to be (or less!).
A quick note on your last "problem":
While coders aren't usually hand-picked for management, the Peter Principle is still in effect. Many coders go from JR Developer to SR Developer to Team Leader to Manager to Director. In the few places I've worked with such a hierarchy (education, for one) this is all to common. There were Managers and Directors with no leadership, management, or even practical experience. While some of them were old coders, most of those had been out of the coding world for 10+ years.
Luckily, I left this environment to work in a tiny firm with no career potential - the only person above me was the boss and there was no interest in rewarding employees for "above and beyond." In all honesty, I was really wishing that I would have gone to a larger corporate structure at the time.
I'll give you that. I'm new to Perl - so that's probably part of it. But this code was modified five or six times over the last six years and was neither clean nor elegant. It is probably 20 separate files (HTML and Perl) and 2000 lines of code.
Oh well. I hope to replace it with PHP or ASP (one file, approximately 500 lines) in the next few months. While Perl has excellent uses, this is not one of them.
I usually try to make my code self-explanatory (and thus comment-free) except on complex areas or custom functions.
Having served on the editing staff of my high school literary magazine for three years, I remember reading a good number of terribly cliched opening lines. We had several entries each year that started "It was a dark and stormy night" and ended with their own horrible writing. Once or twice the ending was a simple period, as in "It was a dark and stormy night." We discovered that many young writers believed that this line was the official start of a short story or novel.
As a 16-year-old poet, I forced myself away from my natural tendencies to rhyme such breakthrough combinations as heart/apart, love/above, and crying/dying. Once I got into Eliot and Cummings, I mostly forgot about rhyming altogether. Can't say the same for most submissions we had...
I think a lot of that confusion comes from many geeks' vision of the do-it-yourself, garage-based game developer that conceived of, designed, programmed, tested, marketed, sold, and supported games in the 70s and 80s.
Being part of a small business means you wear a lot of hats. For a game company, that means you could be doing many of the jobs that I listed above. Even companies like id started off small and had to share the responsibilities.
Fast forward fifteen years and you've got massive corporations with teams of designers, programmers, QA, etc. that handle very specific roles. It can be much more efficient (and profitable) this way, but as a participant in the process it probably wouldn't appeal to many DIY geeks here.
I agree, but only for consumers or small businesses with very little computing need.
Try building and supporting fifty or more home-brew computers and their users. Meanwhile, Mom and Pop stores have a hard time competing on price with Dell/Gateway/HP - even without the OS.
So the cost of the machines, plus the cost of the manpower to install, support, whatever, plus the increased cost of support due to Linux (because your users aren't all Linux folks) can be difficult to swallow. So saving money on the mainstream purchases (and the accompanying support) can be very attractive.
The parent appeared to take issue with webmasters collecting information in any form, not just by way of cookie-based tracking. Since your HTTP request is unavoidable and contains information to collect, you simply cannot visit any website without sending some information. If the collection/analysis of that info is a problem for someone, they can stop using the web because it's part of using the web.
Cookie tracking is an additional technique for data collection. While useful in some instances, I don't think it's that much more privacy-infringing than traditional logs.
If we're just talking websites with the cookie tracking, you have an excellent point.
If you don't want to be monitored in a store, you have no recourse but to not go there.
The same goes for the website you visit.
It's not a privilege to collect your data, it's a necessary part of sending you the information you've requested. Your HTTP request contains plenty of valuable data that you claim infringes on your privacy. Though I'm a privacy nut myself, I think your complaints go too far.
You can either accept the logging/tracking/analysis or you can stop using the web. It's pretty simple.
That's all well and good if you want to treat the web as a digital brochure. But that's not what it is and not what it should be.
We're talking about functions far beyond HTML. HTML is just a markup for content, yes. But we're talking about Javascript, Java,.Net, ASP, PHP, Perl, and so on. We're talking about things that extend the web way past content and well into function.
Users don't want four interfaces to do related tasks. They want one interface. So we integrate chat, ftp, and so on into websites. We make it easy to use, easy to do, and easy to support. It's the concept of web as a platform; everyone has a web browser (and they're free if you don't) so you can use software without having to write for and support a lot of specific OS or hardware platforms.
In the case of one of my sites, my users most likely have no control over the computer they will be using, the software or configuration of that computer, etc. They will rely on a web browser to do everything they need.
While it's true that.Net opens doors that normal web technologies do not allow, the same can be said of Java. A decent web developer should advise against any decision that will eliminate all users outside of a certain environment (Windows IE6+). Even when I have to explain that IE is the majority by a long shot (~90%) no reasonable business wants to alienate a potential 10% of its customers.
Some web applications require ActiveX to do things you can't do using standards-compliant code. You have to rely on ActiveX, Java, etc. to do things like drop-and-drop file uploading. As it stands, using a file browse interface to access individual files when you really want to click and drag thirty files at once is a pain.
(I bring up this example because it's a problem I'm dealing with now.)
So while there are plenty such web apps written by no-talent hacks, there are also apps that push the limits of web standards and require something more powerful.
"Gee, Mom, I didn't mean to keep it. But when a hooker follows you home, what are you going to do? It could be worse. At least I leave my gun at school."
A "tofight" is a dangerous animal that some people have taken in as pets. Approximately 120-200 lbs, these playful, but sometimes vicious beasts have strong legs and a wide, flat head with curled horns. They are easily spooked and will sometimes attack people or other animals when they feel threatened.
Clearly, the misguided student's tofight was spooked and charged at someone. It is, indeed, a sad, sad day for both the tofight in captivity and for the victim of its brutal assault.
You said it right in the first sentence of your second paragraph:
"...they should be able to go to a court and get wiretapping authorization..."
I want a court looking after the FBI. They should answer to someone other than themselves. That's the idea of checks and balances. If a judge approves it, I'll accept it.
Would you support this if the FBI didn't require any authorization? If it was "we check everybody" or could be?
I'm a co-owner of a web consulting firm - design, development, marketing (SEO/PPC, not pop-ups). I spend a lot of time meeting potential clients, writing proposals, and managing projects. It's amazing how my business skills have improved in the last six months or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Indiana, they teach us how to speak with an American accent and make up hobbies so we can relate to all the tech support callers.
Yes, the danger is there. Many people say the same thing about Google, but I tend to be an optimist where these kinds of companies are concerned. I give them the benefit of the doubt because of their past actions.
Still worth keeping an eye on 'em, though.
And Google's formula probably started off with:
"Do whatever Microsoft and Yahoo! does but better."
A formula for success in any business is to do something better than everyone else. If you're the only one doing it, great. But the point of competition is to beat out your competitors. And in this case, Google, Yahoo!, and MSN all compete for a very similar market by producing very similar products.
I disagree. There are all kinds of ways to make money by doing the wrong thing.
Most of us don't rob banks, break into our neighbors' homes, or counterfeit money. And it's not just because we are afraid of the consequences.
But I realize you're also talking about ethical issues rather than illegal problems. But the point is the same. Most people won't do ANYTHING for money... there are a lot of people on Slashdot that wouldn't write viruses, spyware, or send spam. Sure, some of them will. But, thankfully, a lot of people still try to adhere to the Golden Rule. Especially since a lot of the folks around here (and at Mozilla) probably remember the results of selling out during the late 90s.
Since this will be controlled by the currently non-evil Mozilla Foundation, I have faith that they will keep up the good work and resist the temptation to sell out for a quick buck.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of incorrect usages in English that I refuse to adopt on the basis of their absurdity:
Some time ago, I found a site dedicated to common errors in English. While I admit that I am guilty of some of these myself, I make an effort to correct those that I can (or at least feel are glaring).
This came about while having a conversation with a teenager that made me reconsider my devotion to language; hearing the word "like" three or four times in each sentence was a big part of that.
Like is for simile. I'll concede that it is frequently used for quotation. But I will not concede when it is used as a substitution for "um" or "uh."
After my third time removing spyware from my wife's grandparents' computer I did the following:
1. Install Firefox.
2. Change IE shortcut to Firefox.
3. Rename Firefox icon as "Internet"
4. I told them that their computer was slow because of the IE and AOL browsers.
This worked wonders. These are the same people that were told to defrag once to make your computer faster and interpreted it as a "defrag every day."
There are a lot of folks out there that aren't cut out to be IT workers, too. This probably comes from the mid-90s boom when people saw money as a good reason to get into IT.
When you present those people with the same problems you describe, the money is no longer attractive. Especially in a post-bubble economy where the paychecks are half of what they used to be (or less!).
A quick note on your last "problem":
While coders aren't usually hand-picked for management, the Peter Principle is still in effect. Many coders go from JR Developer to SR Developer to Team Leader to Manager to Director. In the few places I've worked with such a hierarchy (education, for one) this is all to common. There were Managers and Directors with no leadership, management, or even practical experience. While some of them were old coders, most of those had been out of the coding world for 10+ years.
Luckily, I left this environment to work in a tiny firm with no career potential - the only person above me was the boss and there was no interest in rewarding employees for "above and beyond." In all honesty, I was really wishing that I would have gone to a larger corporate structure at the time.
I'll give you that. I'm new to Perl - so that's probably part of it. But this code was modified five or six times over the last six years and was neither clean nor elegant. It is probably 20 separate files (HTML and Perl) and 2000 lines of code.
Oh well. I hope to replace it with PHP or ASP (one file, approximately 500 lines) in the next few months. While Perl has excellent uses, this is not one of them.
I usually try to make my code self-explanatory (and thus comment-free) except on complex areas or custom functions.
So you found that, eh? *evil chuckle*
I was in a similar spot a month or two ago and found some other company's comments - unhelpful as always - in the form of typed out sound effects.
# This function goes vroooooooommm-pop!
I have no idea why the developers put such comments there other than to entertain themselves as they sifted through their horribly written Perl.
Having served on the editing staff of my high school literary magazine for three years, I remember reading a good number of terribly cliched opening lines. We had several entries each year that started "It was a dark and stormy night" and ended with their own horrible writing. Once or twice the ending was a simple period, as in "It was a dark and stormy night." We discovered that many young writers believed that this line was the official start of a short story or novel.
As a 16-year-old poet, I forced myself away from my natural tendencies to rhyme such breakthrough combinations as heart/apart, love/above, and crying/dying. Once I got into Eliot and Cummings, I mostly forgot about rhyming altogether. Can't say the same for most submissions we had...
People are probably more likely to drop $50 on beer over the course of sitting there than they are to drop $50 on coffee, too.
Though my coding gets pretty sloppy after a few pints of Bass or glasses of wine.
Don't you mean "the same number for 1/16 of the price" or "16 times the number for the same price?"
Four times for one-quarter of the price seems a bit redundant, eh?
Like real estate, outdoor advertising is about location. Who would put a billboard next to a demon-guarded ravine?
Customers are no good to you when they're mangled and decapitated.
I think a lot of that confusion comes from many geeks' vision of the do-it-yourself, garage-based game developer that conceived of, designed, programmed, tested, marketed, sold, and supported games in the 70s and 80s.
Being part of a small business means you wear a lot of hats. For a game company, that means you could be doing many of the jobs that I listed above. Even companies like id started off small and had to share the responsibilities.
Fast forward fifteen years and you've got massive corporations with teams of designers, programmers, QA, etc. that handle very specific roles. It can be much more efficient (and profitable) this way, but as a participant in the process it probably wouldn't appeal to many DIY geeks here.
I agree, but only for consumers or small businesses with very little computing need.
Try building and supporting fifty or more home-brew computers and their users. Meanwhile, Mom and Pop stores have a hard time competing on price with Dell/Gateway/HP - even without the OS.
So the cost of the machines, plus the cost of the manpower to install, support, whatever, plus the increased cost of support due to Linux (because your users aren't all Linux folks) can be difficult to swallow. So saving money on the mainstream purchases (and the accompanying support) can be very attractive.
The parent appeared to take issue with webmasters collecting information in any form, not just by way of cookie-based tracking. Since your HTTP request is unavoidable and contains information to collect, you simply cannot visit any website without sending some information. If the collection/analysis of that info is a problem for someone, they can stop using the web because it's part of using the web.
Cookie tracking is an additional technique for data collection. While useful in some instances, I don't think it's that much more privacy-infringing than traditional logs.
If we're just talking websites with the cookie tracking, you have an excellent point.
If you don't want to be monitored in a store, you have no recourse but to not go there.
The same goes for the website you visit.
It's not a privilege to collect your data, it's a necessary part of sending you the information you've requested. Your HTTP request contains plenty of valuable data that you claim infringes on your privacy. Though I'm a privacy nut myself, I think your complaints go too far.
You can either accept the logging/tracking/analysis or you can stop using the web. It's pretty simple.
I will assume you're not just trolling.
.Net, ASP, PHP, Perl, and so on. We're talking about things that extend the web way past content and well into function.
That's all well and good if you want to treat the web as a digital brochure. But that's not what it is and not what it should be.
We're talking about functions far beyond HTML. HTML is just a markup for content, yes. But we're talking about Javascript, Java,
Users don't want four interfaces to do related tasks. They want one interface. So we integrate chat, ftp, and so on into websites. We make it easy to use, easy to do, and easy to support. It's the concept of web as a platform; everyone has a web browser (and they're free if you don't) so you can use software without having to write for and support a lot of specific OS or hardware platforms.
In the case of one of my sites, my users most likely have no control over the computer they will be using, the software or configuration of that computer, etc. They will rely on a web browser to do everything they need.
While it's true that .Net opens doors that normal web technologies do not allow, the same can be said of Java. A decent web developer should advise against any decision that will eliminate all users outside of a certain environment (Windows IE6+). Even when I have to explain that IE is the majority by a long shot (~90%) no reasonable business wants to alienate a potential 10% of its customers.
Some web applications require ActiveX to do things you can't do using standards-compliant code. You have to rely on ActiveX, Java, etc. to do things like drop-and-drop file uploading. As it stands, using a file browse interface to access individual files when you really want to click and drag thirty files at once is a pain.
(I bring up this example because it's a problem I'm dealing with now.)
So while there are plenty such web apps written by no-talent hacks, there are also apps that push the limits of web standards and require something more powerful.
"Gee, Mom, I didn't mean to keep it. But when a hooker follows you home, what are you going to do? It could be worse. At least I leave my gun at school."
A "tofight" is a dangerous animal that some people have taken in as pets. Approximately 120-200 lbs, these playful, but sometimes vicious beasts have strong legs and a wide, flat head with curled horns. They are easily spooked and will sometimes attack people or other animals when they feel threatened.
Clearly, the misguided student's tofight was spooked and charged at someone. It is, indeed, a sad, sad day for both the tofight in captivity and for the victim of its brutal assault.
I believe the apologies should really go to Frank Sinatra or Ervin M. Drake...
(But the version from the Simpsons was wonderful, too.)
I want a court looking after the FBI. They should answer to someone other than themselves. That's the idea of checks and balances. If a judge approves it, I'll accept it.
Would you support this if the FBI didn't require any authorization? If it was "we check everybody" or could be?
I'm a co-owner of a web consulting firm - design, development, marketing (SEO/PPC, not pop-ups). I spend a lot of time meeting potential clients, writing proposals, and managing projects. It's amazing how my business skills have improved in the last six months or so.