"It's a series of tubes.
This amazing network technology enables you to get email from associates in as little as five days! Thankfully, Mr. Stevens is yet-another-confused Congresscritter more interested in pork than in sound public policy.
Yeah, the article is clearly marketing hype. All broad brush, loaded with scary terms couched in small technical-sounding (but relatively non-technical paragraphs by some VP of Marketing. Note the use of hanging "and,"s as paragraph breaks, lest some poor, ignorant exec's eyes glaze over at uninterrupted technobabble.
I was rather amused at how the writer(s) sort of lost it, style wise. I found the fact that threat-scape was unquoted the first time it was used (at the end of a paragraph) while it was quoted as if it was a new term the second time it was used, in a short paragraph with yet another awkward transition at the end.
All in all, what impressed me most about the authors is how they must have tried really, REALLY hard to sound knowledgeable but came across looking like wannabes as far as security expertise goes. We all know how well maintaining the appearance of being knowledgable works as far as actually securing systems goes.
*SIGH* Time to reset the BS detector...
FLASH!: I just remembered the image that came to mind when I was reading the article, trying to figure out what the basic message the authors were trying to convey is. Remember the Talking Barbie ads that got the jockey shorts of a few feminists in a bunch several years ago? If so, imagine Barbie whining, "Security is hard!"
Aww, come on now, give the nice Brits at The Register a break! English is not their first language.:-) Those folks in particular make tech even more interesting to read about.
Seriously, I gather that is an address for "official" correspondance. Maybe in England, postal has a different meaning than is implied by "going postal"...or something.
Think about how an odor producing agent, mercaptan, is added to natural gas so that people can more easily detect dangerous gas leaks. Likewise, think of how silly those scenes in movies where someone is doused in or surrounded by a liquid that is gasoline without realizing it are not very plausible -- you just know that person would smell the fumes and not light a match or do anything to create a spark.
There are certain smells that get our attention, not because they are unpleasant, but because they signify something important, perhaps even life threateningly dangerous! When you smell something burning, you almost automatically look around to see where the odor is coming from or if there is visible smoke or fire; unless, of course, you are the sort who can burn almost anything (water?) when trying to cook a meal.:-)
Olfactory signals might be terribly useful if they could be produced on demand in a very controlled manner. Animals can often tell a lot more about the world around them because they have well developed senses of smell. Humans lack great sniffers for the most part, but we are good at creating tools (machines) to enhance our natural abilities far beyond what nature has given us. Why not make smells more useful?
Think about the possibility in cosmetics alone. Instead of trinkets such as mood rings, people might wear scent generators that convey specific meanings/moods in a decidedly non-verbal manner. Isolating scents and producing complex odors on demand is a technology that just reeks of potential!
Wanna scare the crap out of giant, monopolistic software companies such as Microsoft? Tell your legislators that you want to see lemon laws applied to things such as Microsoft Windows and Office. If their products don't work reasonably well as advertised (in other words, taking all of Microsoft's marketing hype at face value and ignoring the carefully concealed (in fine print) disclaimers, then the companies should be held liable.
Take a look at the following from the Microsoft XP EULA:
[....]
16. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants
that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90)
days from the date of receipt.
If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits
disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED
DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS
DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY
KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the
above limitation may not apply to you.
Any supplements or updates to the Software, including without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes
provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or
condition, express, implied or statutory.
17. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty
made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any
advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the
maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if
any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express,
implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of
merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of
responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the
Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content
through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR
CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION
OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
[....]
Microsoft touts its buggy bloatware as being wonderful operating system software, business software, etc. Yet (despite massive advertising campaigns to the contrary in practice) it won't guarantee that its software is going to do much of anything in particular.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Microsoft was obligated to live up to its marketing blather?
When you buy or lease new a car from a major automobile manufacturer, you can reasonably expect that it will do the things that one expects a car to do and that any wacky, extremely contraintuitive disclaimers like the one in the EULA above that the manufacturers sneak in are not going to make a bit of difference if your new car just doesn't work the way we all expect cars to work, especially if it doesn't do the things it is portrayed doing in advertisements (such as start and operate, respond to the controls, not blow up burn up or release lethal quantities of toxic gases inside the passenger compartment, etc.)
What I am suggesting is that Microsoft be far more concerned that its products do what they as touted as being able to do and not have the time to waste on crap like incomprehensible EULAs and spyware such as WGA.
Great, now all they have to do is show where I signed an actual contract.
I was under the impression that shrinkwrap and clickthrough EULAs were still up in the air as far as their validity under contract law goes in many (most?) places. But I got to wondering. So I did a little bit of online research. IANAL (but I'd still like to finish law school...anyone want to donate tuition?:-) Anyway, I gather there are still a lot of issues related to EULA and shrinkwrap licensing that have not been clearly resolved in the courts.
I will point out that if a kid too young to enter into a contract goes through the motions of doing so, it might not be valid. Lots of other factors can invalidate contracts that might be valid otherwise. Wouldn't it be interesting if a whole lot of companies had their EULAs and/or other (shrinkwrap or clickthrough) licenses challenged in court by independent parties? A lot of little cases are much more difficult (and expensive) for corporations to deal with than one or two caases carefully selected for their (beneficial) precedent-setting potential. As long as all of the little cases seem to be more or less separate and distinct and are filed by unrelated parties, I imagine such a scenario would be a nightmare for the companies that use EULAs to walk all over end users who are generally intimidated by legalese. (This is, in fact, one of the areas of law that I wanted to get into.)
But, as a practical matter, if a company such as Microsoft did take me to court, point to their EULA and claim I had agreed to it, one of my responses would be to say, in effect, "Oh really? Show me exactly when and where I agreed to it. Where is your copy of the signed agreement?" If they tried to pressure me, I'd keep trying to shove the burden of proof back on them saying that if they maintain I agreed to anything, they must be able to prove it and that would certainly include describing when and where or showing some sort of tangible signed and dated contract. Would these arguments prevail? IANAL.
Are you referring to: Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Microsoft and its
affiliates may collect and use technical information
gathered in any manner as part of the product support
services provided to you, if any, related to the Product.
Microsoft may use this information solely to improve
our products or to provide customized services or
technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this
information to others, but not in a form that personally
identifies you.
If so, you have a strong argument if one considers all data to be technical data. But, the point is that if Microsoft was truly concerned about the quality of its products and its support for them, it would make updates available with no strings, spyware or other gotchas attached.
It's astonishing that you have to lie to get people to switch.
Please specify where I lied. Microsoft's WGA *IS* spyware. It does not benefit the users of systems it infests.
[FZ] What makes this so amusing to me is that I don't even consider myself a Linux geek...yet.
You may not consider yourself that - but your behavior (willingness to lie and mislead) speaks much.
Lie? You are confused. Mislead? Not really, I state facts and let others' fear and ignorance do the rest. If that causes them to avoid Microsoft's buggy bloatware, I'm doing them a huge favor.
Also, you seem to assume (incorrectly) that one must be a Linux geek to realize how bad Microsoft has become. I was becoming disenchanted with Microsoft long before there was a Linux. MS-DOS was a real boost for the infant PC industry. Microsoft hasn't done anything uniquely amazing as far as technology goes since then. Even the way Microsoft's DOS became PC-DOS was more of a good business maneuver than a technological coup. Microsoft is known for grabbing others technology and running with it.
Let's face it. Most of MS's userbase is not very tech savvy. If they were, they could just disable or remove WGA. It is easy enough to do, after all. But in the long run, they're better off not doing business with a company that would stoop to using spyware such as WGA.
Yeah, it is nice to see the rats abandoning the hopefully distressed capitol ship known as Microsoft, but does Google really benefit from hiring rats?
Does Google really benefit, and does Google's userbase benefit, from an influx of ex-Microsofties and the kind of corporate mentality they will bring with them?
Just wondering...
I have converted a large number of people over to ubuntu on their pc after scaring theim with the latest MS fud about not having WGA on there to spy on you they will get viruses and trojans ant other things instantly.
I have been having some success convincing people to move away from Microsoft's buggy bloatware by oh-so-casually mentioning how MS installs spyware (WGA) on their computers. I got the idea when I was showing a friend how to do an MS Update (he'd never even installed SP2, yet thought his system was reasonably current). He observed how my security software prompted me for permission before it allowed Update to actually do certain things. He asked why I did not DL and install WGA. I told him that Microsoft had no right to snoop around my system and that I didn't trust MS's spyware not to send personal information from my system back to MS. I mentioned that I was getting up to speed on Linux with the intent of *never* installing Vista on any of my systems. (I, too, am finding Ubuntu to be fairly straightforward.)
The industry (of which Microsoft is a vey large part) has "the masses" terrified of malware already and since WGA is best described as Windows Genuine Disadvantage in that it does not benefit the user in any way whatsoever, I am learning to drop just the right hints and let FUD work against Microsoft for a change. Mentioning how Microsoft tries to "sneak" WGA onto the systems of unsuspecting users and how it phones how without their informed consent just confuses (and thereby scares) them more. I point out that reputable companies with solid products don't try to infect their customers' machines with spyware.
What makes this so amusing to me is that I don't even consider myself a Linux geek...yet.
Google continues to encroach on the services that their advertisers are supplying. They will need to get a strategy that will support a long-term downward spiral of those advertising dollars from this cannibalism, and are recognizing that recurring revenue is the way to go.
If Google (or any large IT company) obviously can (or ought to) go somewhere to make a profit, it is foolhardy to make that place your market niche, assuming that getting there first gives you some sort of dibs on the spot or that Google (or other major player) won't notice it. Google is not omniscient, but it is run by smart people who take note when others spot an opportunity created by Google that it could easily take advantage of itself. Google has nearly cost many small business owners their livelihood when it tweaks its PageRank algorithm to correct for click-fraud or other problems. At one level, it is clear they are foolish to presume that an algorithm Google guards zealously is going to remain carved in stone, forever unchanging. If your firm happens to be thriving because of Google and you haven't asked yourself exactly how and why that is, don't go blaming Google for improving its system overall without worrying about trivial (to it) side-effects, such as the impact of those improvements on your business.
In practice, Google would have far fewer complaints from people who pay for AdWords if Google would send them (advance) samples of what the results of the queries they have been pinning their hopes on will produce once the PageRank scheme has been adjusted. Unless I'm grossly mistaken, this would be extremely easy for Google to do, although it would also give click-fraudsters some advance notice too.
You are describing the result of poor communications on Google's part, and it looks heartless, callous, or even gasp!> EVIL, when Google makes a minor adjustment in its operation that causes many business owners to fear for their survival, as they drop from the top of the ranks for their pet queries into the abyss of obscurity. Why Google doesn't pay more attention to its paying customers puzzles me.
If Google was more forthcoming about the likely effects of basic changes it is going to make, its present customers would have no rational reason to whine when they suddenly lose traffic generated by Google. Google could (and should be able to) say, "We told you this change was coming, you were given the option to change your AdWords (or whatever) but you either did nothing or goofed -- you and your competitors are all free to use our services as effectively as you can and we try to keep you abreast of what you need to know to use our services to your benefit."
Google is a very young business. Developing a good business communications plan is not easy. If you believe "the Google story", it was a research project that grew into an Internet service into an entrepreneurial venture in search of a business model into a wildly successful public traded corporation to whatever it is today. That is not an excuse (I'm not paid enough to to be a Google apologist!) but merely an observation.
I tend to actually do math with spreadsheets, not produce pretty documents, although some of what I do involves linking multiple spreadsheets, written documents (boilerplate), and databases, to mass produce customized reports. I did a lot of that sort of thing in Symphony, and as with 1-2-3, I pushed it right to the limit. Running out of physical memory was almost always my main complaint working with 1-2-3 or Symphony, even when I had maxed out the memory expansion possibilities on a high-end PC.
The way Microsoft approached application integration was rather different, conceptually, than how Lotus did. Lotus' scheme was very memory bound but if I could do the same thing using a Lotus product and a Microsoft product, it would be so much faster with the Lotus product that Microsoft's programs looked like escargot.
Microsoft takes the "it's good enough for the masses, so let's make it shiny" approach. MS relies on improvements in hardware (PC performance) to cover up the poor design and implementation of their core applications. Look at IE versus Firefox. Firefox is more secure, faster, does what you expect it to do (as opposed to what Microsoft wants it to do) and is presently the browser of choice for folks who want to add functionality by writing their own add-ons and plug-ins.
Excel is much the same way. PCs have become so powerful that a program such as Excel, burdened with all sorts of bells and whistles that most people never use and even power users rarely use in combinations very often, is just a software pig. You're right, it is relatively stable, but that was not always the case. When it was competing with 1-2-3 and Symphony, it won not on technical merits, but via MS's marketing clout. Users were convinced that then needed all the frills and that the slow performance would improve when faster machines became available, and that "nobody ever got fired for buying a Microsoft Office product" (Microsoft learned a lot about FUD from IBM).
Now, the amount of work that can be comfortably done in Excel on a typical new PC has so far surpassed what the majority of users require that the performance difference between Excel and what could be done is best summed up "plenty fast" versus "Warp 7". When 1-2-3 and Symphony were in their heydays, one usually turned off auto-recalculation as a matter of routine when developing complex spreadsheets. Excel made that a necessity back then. Now, it is only spreadsheet power users who you'll see developing spreadsheets big enough to make auto-recalculation a practical necessity.
In fairness, I consider gaping security holes to be bugs. Excel is king of the spreadsheets in a different day and age that 1-2-3 was. Lotus never had to worry much about security holes in its spreadsheets (dirty tricks used to by people creating spreadsheets to commit fraud were making a little news, but not much). Having malware infested documents passed around the 'Net infecting other people's machines was not an issue.
I'd like to see a spreadsheet built more like Linux; a lean mean core on which one could hang whatever features and options one wants -- they wouldn't slow it down or use resources unless one specifically installed and enabled them. Excel's "core" is too big and slow, IMNSHO, which qualifies it as bloatware in my book. Buggy? Well, yes, but mostly because of the security holes common to the entire Office suite and IE. Let's face it, ActiveX is just one of many serious problems that plague Microsoft's premiere product lines.
Microsoft: you can get better, but you can't pay more.
But how many average American customers would want to subscribe to "Google Broandband Beta v2" ?
Google has this going for it: most geeks seem to like or at least not dislike Google. Guess who the majority of people who are non-Geeks turn to for advice on what tech products to use/buy? Guess what happens oh, starting maybe a decade from now, when the first "Google Generation" is a major market factor and is making serious IT buying decisions? Hmmm?
Google is a young company. IMNSHO, what it does and what it purports to stand for have youth appeal, without being sickenly trendy/hip. I consider myself fairly jaded when it comes to the latest fads in IT. Google's apparent lack of a traditional marketing campaign is a nice touch AFAIAC. Actions speak louder than hype.
Maybe at some level, a lot of geeks feel as I sometimes do; that Google pays attention to people's reactions to its products (including/especially the betas). [Note: I am *still* waiting for a version of Gmail that let's me group stuff into folders/directories, even if it is really done with labels and search underneath. Are you listening, Google?]
Fundementally, many companies see their customers as targets of opportunity -- gullible fools who are easily parted from their money. Google is certainly a capitalistic enterprise, but the vast majority of people who pay to use Google's services are businesses. The rest of us "pay" for using Google's products by tolerating ads that are often of interest and almost never hard on the eyes. Google is making a pile of money by selling low key, sometimes helpful advertising. Personally, I wonder if most people who use Google could describe how it earns its income.
Google is in a unique position to expand its own infrastructure required to provide the best overall search capabilities around. In fact it can turn around and overdevelop that infrastructure then sell things such as off-site backup (reliable mass storage), Internet services that compete with other ISPs offerings, and (distributed) supercomputing power for companies that wouldn't or couldn't dream of using a supercomputing facility.
I've mentioned elsewhere that with the telecoms and cablecoms doing everything they can to protect their ability to make Internet users pay twice (or more) for bandwidth that has already been paid for at both ends of every 'Net connection, Google ought to look into competing in the global ISP market -- one way for it to do so would be to offer fiber connections to people's door. How would that get paid for? Well, I imaging that they could do just what the cablecoms do with their fee-based subscriptions, but provide more reliable service (fibre doesn't care about electrical storms as much as copper wires do).
All Google need do is be as good as current telecoms and cablecoms are at delivering content and providing N-way communications (all kinds of phone services) to convince increasing numbers of people to switch to equivalent services from Google, if Google delivers those services via fibre and charges competitive rates. People talk. Most people I know hate their current phone companies. Many aren't thrilled with their cable services. (My ISP is a cablecom and they do a good job, IMHO, but I'm not so loyal I wouldn't switch if I got fiber to my home as part of the deal.) If it starts in a few cities on the Left coast, I can't blame it. They are close to home. If things work out well at those "beta sites", it will probably have other cities begging it to compete with telecoms and cablecoms in other locations.
The problem would be "the last mile". Most of us have four or more physical connections to our home from outside organizatons: power, gas, water, sewer, telephone, and CATV are the main ones that come to my mind. Is there room for another? Yes, especially if it replaces two existing ones with better technology. The rights of way are already in place everywhere that matters, but Google (or anyone else wanting to run fibre to the doors of everyone in your neighborhood) would have to gain access to (permission to use) them.
I just opened up MS Word and typed "Hello World!" and saved it to my desktop. 24,064 bytes. Why? What in God's name is that bloated app bloating in it's bloated files?
Hmmm. Stuff WGA might use when it phones home? (Think how useful the User Information settings for a new Word document might be to the Evil Empire...) Oh, I'm straying off topic for this thread...but there is little on one's system that is off-topic to spyware such as WGA if Microsoft decides to go snooping around your system without your informed consent.
Absolutely retarded. And Microsoft has the nerve to ask why anyone would want to use other software. I dare them to ask why anyone would want to use THEIR insecure, buggy, incompatible, locked-in, proprietary, asstastic formats and the apps that produce them. Microsoft should've stuck to what it did best: make Excel better.
OK, I'm biased as all hell about Excel. I know it, use it, and think it sucks compared to Lotus 1-2-3 v2+ for the vast majority of things I use a spreadsheet for. Microsoft came out with Multiplan back in the early days of PCs, when VisiCalc was king of the electronic spreadsheets. (See http://www.dssresources.com/history/sshistory.html for a nice history of electronic spreadsheets. Then see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplan to learn what Multiplan is if you don't already know about it - a glaring omission in the main article at the first URL.)
Why did 1-2-3 fare so well against Multiplan? My guess is that it was simple, fast, and efficient by comparison. Multiplan was overly complicated, bloated, inefficient, and very slow. Gee, that describes Excel, too...I wonder why?
Excel's roots are in Microsoft Multiplan. If Excel were written in highly optimized x86/x64 assembler (in the tight loops that affect performance, anyway) and didn't have so much crap hung off of it (it reminds me of what a pimp would like in a spreadsheet program), it might actually be fast. Excel didn't win the spreadsheet wars on its merits, that's for sure. Microsoft's marketing muscle, monopolistic practices used to keep Windows bundled with most PCs to this day, and its unceasing use of FUD are the only reasons Excel is the dominant spreadsheet today. I'd love to be part of an Open Source project to port and update 1-2-3 to modern platforms. I doubt IBM would allow that, but we won't know until someone asks.
Given today's microcomputers, I think there is room for a program like Lotus Symphony (modernized of course) that does all of the major office application tasks in memory. Symphony was really a spreadsheet at heart and looked very much like 1-2-3 under the hood, with different views of the same data when one used it in word processing or database modes. What percentage of users work with written documents, databases, or spreadsheets that won't fit into 1GB of RAM? As I recall, the empty file overhead for Lotus 1-2-3 and Symphony files was very low. Very well designed data structures and tight, fast code tend to do that.
I've used OpenOffice a little, enough to know it will do most anything I expect out of an office suite. Why pay ripoff prices for buggy bloatware from Microsoft when OpenOffice and various flavors of Linux are available for free and now have increasingly good support?
"So, what is the scope of technical repair that Geek Squad techs do?"
Several replies come to mind, including:
"Nothing more than the 12-year-old kid next door could do better for a few smokes, a six-pack of beer, or a joint."
"Fix things until they are broken; requiring return trips to Best Buy."
"Case your home."
Take a look at http://geeksquad.com/servicesandpricing/onlinesupp ort.php
Lots of $99 price tags for vaguely defined "services".
(The only thing I consistently note about the Geek Squad is its total lack of concern for competency and quality...just look at how they butcher the English language on that Web page, then imagine what they will do to your computer if you are crazy enough to pay to give them access to it! One would think that an element of giant corporation that does billions of dollars of sales each year could and would afford to pay a proofreader to go over their Web site, or at least someone who knows how to use a spelling and grammar checker.)
Affirmative! If you're not satisfied with your service, please contact the Geek Squad location where the service was performed. We guarantee our services for 90 days for Geek Squad Precincts and stores. On-site services are guaranteed for 30 days. Remote services are guaranteed for five days. If there is a problem with the service we provided and you notify us within the stated time period, we will work to remedy your problem quickly and at no additional cost. For further details, please see the Terms of Service found at a location near you.
Note that no promise is made that the Geek Squad will actually do what a normal person might think they agreed to do. Note also that Best Buy fails to publish their Terms of Service on that page, not even on a linked page...I wonder why? My educated guess is that they might take a second or even a third stab at solving a problem that has them stumped (the possibilities are endless!) and then, if one is extremely persistent, grudgingly refund one's money.
The business model is simple. Overcharge for simple services that people have been fooled into thinking they can't do themselves (FUD). Pay a goofy kid not bright enough to tie a tie to dress funny (clip-on tie) and spew terminology he doesn't understand as he goes through an installation or "repair" with a step-by-step set of instructions a chimp could follow.
In all fairness, Best Buy really doesn't deserve the moniker Worst Buy...not as long as Circuit City exists.
"Architect" and "Engineer" are NOT terms that only people who have registered or obtained licenses can use, at least in some places in the U.S. The title "Professional Engineer" does have legal signifance in most places in the U.S. that I am aware of, but it is a safe bet that most of the people who refer to themselves as software engineers and who do get hired are not committing any crime. They get paid. If they apply some sort of formal, structured methodology to software development, it is safe to say they are engineering software. The same sort or reasoning applies to software architects.
BTW, I know of several people who have non-medical doctorate degrees who insist on being called "Doctor ____" and I doubt they are committing any crime, either, unless they start posing as medical doctors or giving out medical advice. Lawyers seem to be the only professionals who guard the use of their titles ("Lawyer", "Attorney at Law", and "Esquire") extremely well.
What (else) does Google Toolbar actually do? What might it do?
I'm serious. I've been an avid user of Google since early 1999 or so, and Gmail since a few months after it came out. Like many technologists, I am somewhat of a Google evangelist.
What worries me is that Google records one's clickstream as one searchs and I can only presume that Google Toolbar could easily be modified to "phone home" about anything of interest to Google (or the NSA), particularly about what it finds on your local hard drives if you use Google Desktop.
From the Google Toolbar Features Page:
[....] Auto Update
There's no need to check for new versions of Google Toolbar; updates are installed automatically, so you'll always have the latest and greatest version.
Your Privacy
Google respects and protects our users' privacy. Periodically, the Google Toolbar's auto-update feature will contact our servers to see if you're running the most current version. In addition, Google may collect information about web pages that you view when you use advanced features such as PageRank, SpellCheck, AutoLink, and WordTranslator. However, these advanced features can be easily disabled or re-enabled at any time by selecting "Privacy Information" under "Help" in the Toolbar's "Google" menu. To learn more, please read the Toolbar privacy policy
From the Google Toolbar Privacy Statement: Your copy of Google Toolbar includes a unique application number. When you install Google Toolbar, this number and a message indicating whether the installation succeeded are sent back to Google. Also, when Google Toolbar automatically checks to see if a new version is available, the current version number and the unique application number are sent to Google. The unique application number is required for Google Toolbar to work and cannot be disabled.
(emphasis added)
How likely is it that some "new version" that users casually allow to be installed might become increasingly snoopy?
Given that I already trust Google to handle my email, I might just be being paranoid. If that is the case, then my thought is, "It's a tough, thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it!"
I worry that the vast majority of people will cheerfully ignore invasions of their privacy and monitoring of their activities if you offer them something helpful, convenient, and very shiny.
They could sell ads that take the place of redacted text. But then the original text still is there though, and what would you advertise on an NSA memo?
Ads in place of text redacted by the NSA?:
Maybe EFF and ACLU could take out a missing text replacement PSA that reads:
"Big Brother *IS* Watching You! -- Support the 1st and 4th Amendments."
So...in one paragraph, you say that you should have the freedom to decrypt encrypted signals--and in the next, you say that if people don't want their signals used, they should encrypt them. You really are in training to be a lawyer, aren't you?
Well, lets just say I didn't finish law school. Read what I wrote carefully. Think about email sent over a broadband cable link or a wireless link, or a voice conversation you have on your cell phone. Do you really want a large service provider to use lame security and encryption? I do not like the way the law currently deals with such situations.
I've generally subscribed to the theory that one should never put in email anything one would not put on a post card to be sent via snailmail. I given that the cost of strongly encrypting traffic has become almost negligible, why shouldn't the burden fall upon people wishing to exchange private communications using the public airwaves to make sure they are not overhead?
I agree with what you said about use of someone else's AP requiring you to send signals that manipulate their system. Someone has already mentioned the NoCatAuth program from NoCat.net which would seem to be ideal for someone who wants to set up an otherwise open wireless AP that identifies itself as being private and for the use of selected people (patrons of a cafe, for example).
Think of it in these terms: you walk by what looks like a business, you decide to push open the door, step in, look at the merchandise, read some literature on display (some for sale, some of the free flyer variety), talk with other people inside, watch the TVs scattered about the place and even use the publicly accessible phones that are conveniently located within easy reach to make toll-free calls. You do this frequently over several months (think of the kid who lived in a Wal-Mart Supercenter for a while).
So far, what is the problem?
Now, I see a problem if someone approaches you and says "This is a business and we offer free use of a lots of neat things to our (paying) customers. You are making heavy use of our facilities but not buying anything so please leave and don't come back." As someone else mentioned, bars and clubs often have cover charges, N drink minimums and/or bouncers to prevent leeches from using them as free pickup joints.
Some sort of splash screen that all users of an AP would see is the equivalent of a "Members Only" sign outside of a private club. The part about using signals to manipulate someone else's AP could be handled easily by digital signage that is the equivalent of "No unauthorized entry permitted" signs that are quite common most buildings where the general public is not supposed to be in certain areas but where stout doors with serious locks, (armed) guards, metal detectors, etc. would be overkill.
The issue of encrypted transmissions from content providers or delivery services and providers is a slightly different matter. What about sporting events, concerts, airshows, fireworks displays, and private outdoor events/celebrations perceivable from public property? If you happen to live near a drive-in movie theater, a ballpark, or anyplace you can easily enjoy some of the things listed above without paying for admission, why shouldn't you do so? Many sports centers, concert venues, and other locations where admission charges for major events are the norm go to great lengths to make sure that those who don't pay to get in don't get to enjoy the show. I think Chicago was trying to figure out a way to skin a buck off people who observed sporting events at a ballpark from rooftops that overlooked it. I know some cities don't like it when private landowners offer to let event-goers park on their conveniently located property for much lower rates than the city charges to park on the fairgrounds.
In a perfect world, you couldn't charge for a signal that you already send to someone. If they get it, they should be able to do with it as they please. If I don't like
As I understand it, when he was asked to leave the parking lot of the cafe with the open WiFi by the management of the establishment, failed to do so, and ignored a similar demand to respect their property rights made by the police, he could certainly be detained (almost anyone can for almost any reason -- this is no longer a free country) and can probably be arrested and charged with trespass. I don't think he'd have much of a prayer in court.
The WiFi aspect of it is what interests me. I've long held the strong belief that people should be free to do as they please with *ANY* signal that impacts them or their property. Guess what? The law as it is enforced today doesn't agree with me. Else I could put up a satellite dish, figure out how to descramble the signals from DirectTV, DISH Network, XM Satellite Radio or StarBand...or cellular towers, or secure police radio transceivers, etc. and use them as I pleased for my own purposes, under the assumption that they were freely given to (forced upon) me.
If it were up to me, the burden would fall entirely upon people who transmit over the public airwaves to provide whatever security they deem necessary for their signals. I would favor laws that openly encourage people to entertain themselves however they please with any transmission they receive, and make full use of unsecure wireless network nodes such as the open AP in question.
Why? Well, if you don't want someone to see what you are doing in your home, or don't want to see light from cars, the neighbors' homes, police helicopters, etc., you should just close your blinds or curtains! Visible light is just electromagnetic radiation within a certain part of the spectrum. So are radio signals. I used to be able to read the newspaper in my bedroom by the lights mounted on a building next door. I certainly don't consider that any kind of theft of service! Since it was more annoying than useful, I went over to the parking area below that building, stood on top of my car (which I parked there since the same guy owned both buildings and I liked the covered parking) and duct taped a piece of cardboard to block the light that was shining in my apartment. The parking area was still well lit, the owner was okay with my solution, and my next door neighbor thanked me. The point is that EMR just keeps going until it is stopped.
If stray EMR in the form of communication signals hits you or your property (including the antenna(s) of your wireless gear) you should be able to do as you please with it, just as the people who sent it your way are. That makes sense, doesn't it?
That being said, I would draw the line in favor of keeping laws against denial of service (DoS) "attacks" using the supposedly public airwaves. If the guy had been on his own or public property and been using significantly more bandwidth than the intended users of the AP inside the cafe, then the law(s) against DoS attacks should apply.
The lawyer wannabe in me wants to know if the cafe has any signage indicating that their WiFi AP is wide open and that any communications their patrons engage in via that AP are easily captured by anyone with a modern WiFi-enabled laptop within range. What made me think of that? Well, when a sex offender has easy access to one's email, for example, he might pay attention to messages to one's communications to see if he can identify and locate new prey. Should the cafe be liable if harm comes to someone because communications via that open AP somehow leaked into the wrong hands?
Hmmm... If I were a greedy lawyer, I might be handing out business cards to patrons I spotted using that cafe's open WiFi AP, especially if they had children in tow.
You would think whoever can buy the most votes would win, but don't forget that the telcos and cablecos don't actually control more than a small fraction of the content they carry. I hope that Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. prevail in their effort to make Net Neutrality the law of the land.
In every other comparable industry I can think of, the price one pays for a good or service tends to vary with how much one uses. Businesses get better rates when they buy phone service in bulk. As far as I know, no telco is allowed to provide "enhanced" for callers trying to reach Kmart and mere "regular" (read: degraded) service to those trying to call Wal-Mart just because Kmart pays them an additional feel. In essence what the bandwidth providers are trying to do is protect their ability to extort money from popular sites on the 'Net that happen to have deep pockets.
The Network Neutrality folks are saying that content providers and consumers alike should pay for the bandwidth they use, regardless of how they use it. What could be more fair? If purportedly unbiased news outlets started giving preferential treatment to politicians who gave them the most largesse at the taxpayers expense, most people would object if they knew about it. Telcos and cablecos are supposed to be unbiased in this sense, since they exist because of government granted regional monopolies.
FractalZone
esotriv.blogspot.com
My real world experience with InsightBB is that I routinely get at least the 4Mbps I expect and often (just now, at 5:47pm, for example) get over 5Mbps. Upload is usually at least 512Kbps and sometimes closer to 1Mbps. I think I am getting the premium service at the regular service price. I note that while there are the usual delays in contacting tech support, they are available and are usually helpful rather than evasive when there are problems.
I am very concerned about the effective cost to the consumer of high-speed Internet access going up for no technically valid reason (when the cost of providing the bandwidth is fixed or dropping, in other words). I'd like to see the telcos and cablecos required to sell bandwidth as bandwidth to anyone who wants to compete with them in the phone or ISP business. They'd maintain the physical infrastructure but would not be allowed to benefit from their monopolies over it in any significant geographic region. That way we, as consumers, would be assured that if the cablecoes or telcos started jacking up rates or charging extra for "premium" service (read: the plain old network neutral service we've come to expect) we could take our business elsewhere...maybe even to a competitor who uses the same infrastructure more efficiently. Their competitors would be in a much better position to cry "Foul!" when the companies that provide the physical infrastructure abuse their control of it in an unfair manner.
I'm very libertarian, but realize that cablecos and telcos are wont to use the monopolistic benefits they get from the rights of way they have been granted by the government to shove their competition right out of the market.
We need more competition, not less, so Network Neutrality is a Good Thing(tm)!
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a series of tubes. This amazing network technology enables you to get email from associates in as little as five days! Thankfully, Mr. Stevens is yet-another-confused Congresscritter more interested in pork than in sound public policy.
Yeah, the article is clearly marketing hype. All broad brush, loaded with scary terms couched in small technical-sounding (but relatively non-technical paragraphs by some VP of Marketing. Note the use of hanging "and,"s as paragraph breaks, lest some poor, ignorant exec's eyes glaze over at uninterrupted technobabble.
I was rather amused at how the writer(s) sort of lost it, style wise. I found the fact that threat-scape was unquoted the first time it was used (at the end of a paragraph) while it was quoted as if it was a new term the second time it was used, in a short paragraph with yet another awkward transition at the end.
All in all, what impressed me most about the authors is how they must have tried really, REALLY hard to sound knowledgeable but came across looking like wannabes as far as security expertise goes. We all know how well maintaining the appearance of being knowledgable works as far as actually securing systems goes.
*SIGH* Time to reset the BS detector...
FLASH!: I just remembered the image that came to mind when I was reading the article, trying to figure out what the basic message the authors were trying to convey is. Remember the Talking Barbie ads that got the jockey shorts of a few feminists in a bunch several years ago? If so, imagine Barbie whining, "Security is hard!"
Aww, come on now, give the nice Brits at The Register a break! English is not their first language. :-) Those folks in particular make tech even more interesting to read about.
Seriously, I gather that is an address for "official" correspondance. Maybe in England, postal has a different meaning than is implied by "going postal"...or something.
Think about how an odor producing agent, mercaptan, is added to natural gas so that people can more easily detect dangerous gas leaks. Likewise, think of how silly those scenes in movies where someone is doused in or surrounded by a liquid that is gasoline without realizing it are not very plausible -- you just know that person would smell the fumes and not light a match or do anything to create a spark.
:-)
There are certain smells that get our attention, not because they are unpleasant, but because they signify something important, perhaps even life threateningly dangerous! When you smell something burning, you almost automatically look around to see where the odor is coming from or if there is visible smoke or fire; unless, of course, you are the sort who can burn almost anything (water?) when trying to cook a meal.
Olfactory signals might be terribly useful if they could be produced on demand in a very controlled manner. Animals can often tell a lot more about the world around them because they have well developed senses of smell. Humans lack great sniffers for the most part, but we are good at creating tools (machines) to enhance our natural abilities far beyond what nature has given us. Why not make smells more useful?
Think about the possibility in cosmetics alone. Instead of trinkets such as mood rings, people might wear scent generators that convey specific meanings/moods in a decidedly non-verbal manner. Isolating scents and producing complex odors on demand is a technology that just reeks of potential!
Wanna scare the crap out of giant, monopolistic software companies such as Microsoft? Tell your legislators that you want to see lemon laws applied to things such as Microsoft Windows and Office. If their products don't work reasonably well as advertised (in other words, taking all of Microsoft's marketing hype at face value and ignoring the carefully concealed (in fine print) disclaimers, then the companies should be held liable.
Take a look at the following from the Microsoft XP EULA:
[....]
16. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you. Any supplements or updates to the Software, including without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or condition, express, implied or statutory.
17. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
[....]
Microsoft touts its buggy bloatware as being wonderful operating system software, business software, etc. Yet (despite massive advertising campaigns to the contrary in practice) it won't guarantee that its software is going to do much of anything in particular.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Microsoft was obligated to live up to its marketing blather?
When you buy or lease new a car from a major automobile manufacturer, you can reasonably expect that it will do the things that one expects a car to do and that any wacky, extremely contraintuitive disclaimers like the one in the EULA above that the manufacturers sneak in are not going to make a bit of difference if your new car just doesn't work the way we all expect cars to work, especially if it doesn't do the things it is portrayed doing in advertisements (such as start and operate, respond to the controls, not blow up burn up or release lethal quantities of toxic gases inside the passenger compartment, etc.)
What I am suggesting is that Microsoft be far more concerned that its products do what they as touted as being able to do and not have the time to waste on crap like incomprehensible EULAs and spyware such as WGA.
It would n
Great, now all they have to do is show where I signed an actual contract.
:-) Anyway, I gather there are still a lot of issues related to EULA and shrinkwrap licensing that have not been clearly resolved in the courts.
I was under the impression that shrinkwrap and clickthrough EULAs were still up in the air as far as their validity under contract law goes in many (most?) places. But I got to wondering. So I did a little bit of online research. IANAL (but I'd still like to finish law school...anyone want to donate tuition?
I will point out that if a kid too young to enter into a contract goes through the motions of doing so, it might not be valid. Lots of other factors can invalidate contracts that might be valid otherwise. Wouldn't it be interesting if a whole lot of companies had their EULAs and/or other (shrinkwrap or clickthrough) licenses challenged in court by independent parties? A lot of little cases are much more difficult (and expensive) for corporations to deal with than one or two caases carefully selected for their (beneficial) precedent-setting potential. As long as all of the little cases seem to be more or less separate and distinct and are filed by unrelated parties, I imagine such a scenario would be a nightmare for the companies that use EULAs to walk all over end users who are generally intimidated by legalese. (This is, in fact, one of the areas of law that I wanted to get into.)
But, as a practical matter, if a company such as Microsoft did take me to court, point to their EULA and claim I had agreed to it, one of my responses would be to say, in effect, "Oh really? Show me exactly when and where I agreed to it. Where is your copy of the signed agreement?" If they tried to pressure me, I'd keep trying to shove the burden of proof back on them saying that if they maintain I agreed to anything, they must be able to prove it and that would certainly include describing when and where or showing some sort of tangible signed and dated contract. Would these arguments prevail? IANAL.
Are you referring to:
Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Microsoft and its affiliates may collect and use technical information gathered in any manner as part of the product support services provided to you, if any, related to the Product. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies you.
If so, you have a strong argument if one considers all data to be technical data. But, the point is that if Microsoft was truly concerned about the quality of its products and its support for them, it would make updates available with no strings, spyware or other gotchas attached.
It's astonishing that you have to lie to get people to switch.
Please specify where I lied. Microsoft's WGA *IS* spyware. It does not benefit the users of systems it infests.
[FZ] What makes this so amusing to me is that I don't even consider myself a Linux geek...yet.
You may not consider yourself that - but your behavior (willingness to lie and mislead) speaks much.
Lie? You are confused. Mislead? Not really, I state facts and let others' fear and ignorance do the rest. If that causes them to avoid Microsoft's buggy bloatware, I'm doing them a huge favor.
Also, you seem to assume (incorrectly) that one must be a Linux geek to realize how bad Microsoft has become. I was becoming disenchanted with Microsoft long before there was a Linux. MS-DOS was a real boost for the infant PC industry. Microsoft hasn't done anything uniquely amazing as far as technology goes since then. Even the way Microsoft's DOS became PC-DOS was more of a good business maneuver than a technological coup. Microsoft is known for grabbing others technology and running with it.
Let's face it. Most of MS's userbase is not very tech savvy. If they were, they could just disable or remove WGA. It is easy enough to do, after all. But in the long run, they're better off not doing business with a company that would stoop to using spyware such as WGA.
Yeah, it is nice to see the rats abandoning the hopefully distressed capitol ship known as Microsoft, but does Google really benefit from hiring rats? Does Google really benefit, and does Google's userbase benefit, from an influx of ex-Microsofties and the kind of corporate mentality they will bring with them? Just wondering...
I have converted a large number of people over to ubuntu on their pc after scaring theim with the latest MS fud about not having WGA on there to spy on you they will get viruses and trojans ant other things instantly.
I have been having some success convincing people to move away from Microsoft's buggy bloatware by oh-so-casually mentioning how MS installs spyware (WGA) on their computers. I got the idea when I was showing a friend how to do an MS Update (he'd never even installed SP2, yet thought his system was reasonably current). He observed how my security software prompted me for permission before it allowed Update to actually do certain things. He asked why I did not DL and install WGA. I told him that Microsoft had no right to snoop around my system and that I didn't trust MS's spyware not to send personal information from my system back to MS. I mentioned that I was getting up to speed on Linux with the intent of *never* installing Vista on any of my systems. (I, too, am finding Ubuntu to be fairly straightforward.)
The industry (of which Microsoft is a vey large part) has "the masses" terrified of malware already and since WGA is best described as Windows Genuine Disadvantage in that it does not benefit the user in any way whatsoever, I am learning to drop just the right hints and let FUD work against Microsoft for a change. Mentioning how Microsoft tries to "sneak" WGA onto the systems of unsuspecting users and how it phones how without their informed consent just confuses (and thereby scares) them more. I point out that reputable companies with solid products don't try to infect their customers' machines with spyware.
What makes this so amusing to me is that I don't even consider myself a Linux geek...yet.
'Nuf said.
Google continues to encroach on the services that their advertisers are supplying. They will need to get a strategy that will support a long-term downward spiral of those advertising dollars from this cannibalism, and are recognizing that recurring revenue is the way to go.
If Google (or any large IT company) obviously can (or ought to) go somewhere to make a profit, it is foolhardy to make that place your market niche, assuming that getting there first gives you some sort of dibs on the spot or that Google (or other major player) won't notice it. Google is not omniscient, but it is run by smart people who take note when others spot an opportunity created by Google that it could easily take advantage of itself. Google has nearly cost many small business owners their livelihood when it tweaks its PageRank algorithm to correct for click-fraud or other problems. At one level, it is clear they are foolish to presume that an algorithm Google guards zealously is going to remain carved in stone, forever unchanging. If your firm happens to be thriving because of Google and you haven't asked yourself exactly how and why that is, don't go blaming Google for improving its system overall without worrying about trivial (to it) side-effects, such as the impact of those improvements on your business.
In practice, Google would have far fewer complaints from people who pay for AdWords if Google would send them (advance) samples of what the results of the queries they have been pinning their hopes on will produce once the PageRank scheme has been adjusted. Unless I'm grossly mistaken, this would be extremely easy for Google to do, although it would also give click-fraudsters some advance notice too.
You are describing the result of poor communications on Google's part, and it looks heartless, callous, or even gasp!> EVIL, when Google makes a minor adjustment in its operation that causes many business owners to fear for their survival, as they drop from the top of the ranks for their pet queries into the abyss of obscurity. Why Google doesn't pay more attention to its paying customers puzzles me.
If Google was more forthcoming about the likely effects of basic changes it is going to make, its present customers would have no rational reason to whine when they suddenly lose traffic generated by Google. Google could (and should be able to) say, "We told you this change was coming, you were given the option to change your AdWords (or whatever) but you either did nothing or goofed -- you and your competitors are all free to use our services as effectively as you can and we try to keep you abreast of what you need to know to use our services to your benefit."
Google is a very young business. Developing a good business communications plan is not easy. If you believe "the Google story", it was a research project that grew into an Internet service into an entrepreneurial venture in search of a business model into a wildly successful public traded corporation to whatever it is today. That is not an excuse (I'm not paid enough to to be a Google apologist!) but merely an observation.
I tend to actually do math with spreadsheets, not produce pretty documents, although some of what I do involves linking multiple spreadsheets, written documents (boilerplate), and databases, to mass produce customized reports. I did a lot of that sort of thing in Symphony, and as with 1-2-3, I pushed it right to the limit. Running out of physical memory was almost always my main complaint working with 1-2-3 or Symphony, even when I had maxed out the memory expansion possibilities on a high-end PC.
The way Microsoft approached application integration was rather different, conceptually, than how Lotus did. Lotus' scheme was very memory bound but if I could do the same thing using a Lotus product and a Microsoft product, it would be so much faster with the Lotus product that Microsoft's programs looked like escargot.
Microsoft takes the "it's good enough for the masses, so let's make it shiny" approach. MS relies on improvements in hardware (PC performance) to cover up the poor design and implementation of their core applications. Look at IE versus Firefox. Firefox is more secure, faster, does what you expect it to do (as opposed to what Microsoft wants it to do) and is presently the browser of choice for folks who want to add functionality by writing their own add-ons and plug-ins.
Excel is much the same way. PCs have become so powerful that a program such as Excel, burdened with all sorts of bells and whistles that most people never use and even power users rarely use in combinations very often, is just a software pig. You're right, it is relatively stable, but that was not always the case. When it was competing with 1-2-3 and Symphony, it won not on technical merits, but via MS's marketing clout. Users were convinced that then needed all the frills and that the slow performance would improve when faster machines became available, and that "nobody ever got fired for buying a Microsoft Office product" (Microsoft learned a lot about FUD from IBM).
Now, the amount of work that can be comfortably done in Excel on a typical new PC has so far surpassed what the majority of users require that the performance difference between Excel and what could be done is best summed up "plenty fast" versus "Warp 7". When 1-2-3 and Symphony were in their heydays, one usually turned off auto-recalculation as a matter of routine when developing complex spreadsheets. Excel made that a necessity back then. Now, it is only spreadsheet power users who you'll see developing spreadsheets big enough to make auto-recalculation a practical necessity.
In fairness, I consider gaping security holes to be bugs. Excel is king of the spreadsheets in a different day and age that 1-2-3 was. Lotus never had to worry much about security holes in its spreadsheets (dirty tricks used to by people creating spreadsheets to commit fraud were making a little news, but not much). Having malware infested documents passed around the 'Net infecting other people's machines was not an issue.
I'd like to see a spreadsheet built more like Linux; a lean mean core on which one could hang whatever features and options one wants -- they wouldn't slow it down or use resources unless one specifically installed and enabled them. Excel's "core" is too big and slow, IMNSHO, which qualifies it as bloatware in my book. Buggy? Well, yes, but mostly because of the security holes common to the entire Office suite and IE. Let's face it, ActiveX is just one of many serious problems that plague Microsoft's premiere product lines.
Microsoft: you can get better, but you can't pay more.
But how many average American customers would want to subscribe to "Google Broandband Beta v2" ?
Google has this going for it: most geeks seem to like or at least not dislike Google. Guess who the majority of people who are non-Geeks turn to for advice on what tech products to use/buy? Guess what happens oh, starting maybe a decade from now, when the first "Google Generation" is a major market factor and is making serious IT buying decisions? Hmmm?
Google is a young company. IMNSHO, what it does and what it purports to stand for have youth appeal, without being sickenly trendy/hip. I consider myself fairly jaded when it comes to the latest fads in IT. Google's apparent lack of a traditional marketing campaign is a nice touch AFAIAC. Actions speak louder than hype.
Maybe at some level, a lot of geeks feel as I sometimes do; that Google pays attention to people's reactions to its products (including/especially the betas). [Note: I am *still* waiting for a version of Gmail that let's me group stuff into folders/directories, even if it is really done with labels and search underneath. Are you listening, Google?]
Fundementally, many companies see their customers as targets of opportunity -- gullible fools who are easily parted from their money. Google is certainly a capitalistic enterprise, but the vast majority of people who pay to use Google's services are businesses. The rest of us "pay" for using Google's products by tolerating ads that are often of interest and almost never hard on the eyes. Google is making a pile of money by selling low key, sometimes helpful advertising. Personally, I wonder if most people who use Google could describe how it earns its income.
Google is in a unique position to expand its own infrastructure required to provide the best overall search capabilities around. In fact it can turn around and overdevelop that infrastructure then sell things such as off-site backup (reliable mass storage), Internet services that compete with other ISPs offerings, and (distributed) supercomputing power for companies that wouldn't or couldn't dream of using a supercomputing facility.
I've mentioned elsewhere that with the telecoms and cablecoms doing everything they can to protect their ability to make Internet users pay twice (or more) for bandwidth that has already been paid for at both ends of every 'Net connection, Google ought to look into competing in the global ISP market -- one way for it to do so would be to offer fiber connections to people's door. How would that get paid for? Well, I imaging that they could do just what the cablecoms do with their fee-based subscriptions, but provide more reliable service (fibre doesn't care about electrical storms as much as copper wires do).
All Google need do is be as good as current telecoms and cablecoms are at delivering content and providing N-way communications (all kinds of phone services) to convince increasing numbers of people to switch to equivalent services from Google, if Google delivers those services via fibre and charges competitive rates. People talk. Most people I know hate their current phone companies. Many aren't thrilled with their cable services. (My ISP is a cablecom and they do a good job, IMHO, but I'm not so loyal I wouldn't switch if I got fiber to my home as part of the deal.) If it starts in a few cities on the Left coast, I can't blame it. They are close to home. If things work out well at those "beta sites", it will probably have other cities begging it to compete with telecoms and cablecoms in other locations.
The problem would be "the last mile". Most of us have four or more physical connections to our home from outside organizatons: power, gas, water, sewer, telephone, and CATV are the main ones that come to my mind. Is there room for another? Yes, especially if it replaces two existing ones with better technology. The rights of way are already in place everywhere that matters, but Google (or anyone else wanting to run fibre to the doors of everyone in your neighborhood) would have to gain access to (permission to use) them.
I just opened up MS Word and typed "Hello World!" and saved it to my desktop. 24,064 bytes. Why? What in God's name is that bloated app bloating in it's bloated files?
l for a nice history of electronic spreadsheets. Then see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplan to learn what Multiplan is if you don't already know about it - a glaring omission in the main article at the first URL.)
Hmmm. Stuff WGA might use when it phones home? (Think how useful the User Information settings for a new Word document might be to the Evil Empire...) Oh, I'm straying off topic for this thread...but there is little on one's system that is off-topic to spyware such as WGA if Microsoft decides to go snooping around your system without your informed consent.
Absolutely retarded. And Microsoft has the nerve to ask why anyone would want to use other software. I dare them to ask why anyone would want to use THEIR insecure, buggy, incompatible, locked-in, proprietary, asstastic formats and the apps that produce them. Microsoft should've stuck to what it did best: make Excel better.
OK, I'm biased as all hell about Excel. I know it, use it, and think it sucks compared to Lotus 1-2-3 v2+ for the vast majority of things I use a spreadsheet for. Microsoft came out with Multiplan back in the early days of PCs, when VisiCalc was king of the electronic spreadsheets. (See http://www.dssresources.com/history/sshistory.htm
Why did 1-2-3 fare so well against Multiplan? My guess is that it was simple, fast, and efficient by comparison. Multiplan was overly complicated, bloated, inefficient, and very slow. Gee, that describes Excel, too...I wonder why?
Excel's roots are in Microsoft Multiplan. If Excel were written in highly optimized x86/x64 assembler (in the tight loops that affect performance, anyway) and didn't have so much crap hung off of it (it reminds me of what a pimp would like in a spreadsheet program), it might actually be fast. Excel didn't win the spreadsheet wars on its merits, that's for sure. Microsoft's marketing muscle, monopolistic practices used to keep Windows bundled with most PCs to this day, and its unceasing use of FUD are the only reasons Excel is the dominant spreadsheet today. I'd love to be part of an Open Source project to port and update 1-2-3 to modern platforms. I doubt IBM would allow that, but we won't know until someone asks.
Given today's microcomputers, I think there is room for a program like Lotus Symphony (modernized of course) that does all of the major office application tasks in memory. Symphony was really a spreadsheet at heart and looked very much like 1-2-3 under the hood, with different views of the same data when one used it in word processing or database modes. What percentage of users work with written documents, databases, or spreadsheets that won't fit into 1GB of RAM? As I recall, the empty file overhead for Lotus 1-2-3 and Symphony files was very low. Very well designed data structures and tight, fast code tend to do that.
I've used OpenOffice a little, enough to know it will do most anything I expect out of an office suite. Why pay ripoff prices for buggy bloatware from Microsoft when OpenOffice and various flavors of Linux are available for free and now have increasingly good support?
Several replies come to mind, including:
"Nothing more than the 12-year-old kid next door could do better for a few smokes, a six-pack of beer, or a joint."
"Fix things until they are broken; requiring return trips to Best Buy."
"Case your home."
Take a look at
http://geeksquad.com/servicesandpricing/onlinesup
Lots of $99 price tags for vaguely defined "services".
(The only thing I consistently note about the Geek Squad is its total lack of concern for competency and quality...just look at how they butcher the English language on that Web page, then imagine what they will do to your computer if you are crazy enough to pay to give them access to it! One would think that an element of giant corporation that does billions of dollars of sales each year could and would afford to pay a proofreader to go over their Web site, or at least someone who knows how to use a spelling and grammar checker.)
But the work done by the Geek Squad is guaranteed!, right?
This is the description of the Geek Squad "guarantee" I found at
http://geeksquad.com/commonquestions/index.php#gu
Note that no promise is made that the Geek Squad will actually do what a normal person might think they agreed to do. Note also that Best Buy fails to publish their Terms of Service on that page, not even on a linked page...I wonder why? My educated guess is that they might take a second or even a third stab at solving a problem that has them stumped (the possibilities are endless!) and then, if one is extremely persistent, grudgingly refund one's money.
The business model is simple. Overcharge for simple services that people have been fooled into thinking they can't do themselves (FUD). Pay a goofy kid not bright enough to tie a tie to dress funny (clip-on tie) and spew terminology he doesn't understand as he goes through an installation or "repair" with a step-by-step set of instructions a chimp could follow.
In all fairness, Best Buy really doesn't deserve the moniker Worst Buy...not as long as Circuit City exists.
"Architect" and "Engineer" are NOT terms that only people who have registered or obtained licenses can use, at least in some places in the U.S. The title "Professional Engineer" does have legal signifance in most places in the U.S. that I am aware of, but it is a safe bet that most of the people who refer to themselves as software engineers and who do get hired are not committing any crime. They get paid. If they apply some sort of formal, structured methodology to software development, it is safe to say they are engineering software. The same sort or reasoning applies to software architects.
BTW, I know of several people who have non-medical doctorate degrees who insist on being called "Doctor ____" and I doubt they are committing any crime, either, unless they start posing as medical doctors or giving out medical advice. Lawyers seem to be the only professionals who guard the use of their titles ("Lawyer", "Attorney at Law", and "Esquire") extremely well.
What (else) does Google Toolbar actually do? What might it do?
I'm serious. I've been an avid user of Google since early 1999 or so, and Gmail since a few months after it came out. Like many technologists, I am somewhat of a Google evangelist.
What worries me is that Google records one's clickstream as one searchs and I can only presume that Google Toolbar could easily be modified to "phone home" about anything of interest to Google (or the NSA), particularly about what it finds on your local hard drives if you use Google Desktop.
From the Google Toolbar Features Page:
[....]
Auto Update
There's no need to check for new versions of Google Toolbar; updates are installed automatically, so you'll always have the latest and greatest version.
Your Privacy Google respects and protects our users' privacy. Periodically, the Google Toolbar's auto-update feature will contact our servers to see if you're running the most current version. In addition, Google may collect information about web pages that you view when you use advanced features such as PageRank, SpellCheck, AutoLink, and WordTranslator. However, these advanced features can be easily disabled or re-enabled at any time by selecting "Privacy Information" under "Help" in the Toolbar's "Google" menu. To learn more, please read the Toolbar privacy policy
From the Google Toolbar Privacy Statement:
Your copy of Google Toolbar includes a unique application number. When you install Google Toolbar, this number and a message indicating whether the installation succeeded are sent back to Google. Also, when Google Toolbar automatically checks to see if a new version is available, the current version number and the unique application number are sent to Google. The unique application number is required for Google Toolbar to work and cannot be disabled.
(emphasis added)
How likely is it that some "new version" that users casually allow to be installed might become increasingly snoopy?
Given that I already trust Google to handle my email, I might just be being paranoid. If that is the case, then my thought is, "It's a tough, thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it!"
I worry that the vast majority of people will cheerfully ignore invasions of their privacy and monitoring of their activities if you offer them something helpful, convenient, and very shiny.
They could sell ads that take the place of redacted text. But then the original text still is there though, and what would you advertise on an NSA memo? Ads in place of text redacted by the NSA?: Maybe EFF and ACLU could take out a missing text replacement PSA that reads: "Big Brother *IS* Watching You! -- Support the 1st and 4th Amendments."
So...in one paragraph, you say that you should have the freedom to decrypt encrypted signals--and in the next, you say that if people don't want their signals used, they should encrypt them. You really are in training to be a lawyer, aren't you?
Well, lets just say I didn't finish law school. Read what I wrote carefully. Think about email sent over a broadband cable link or a wireless link, or a voice conversation you have on your cell phone. Do you really want a large service provider to use lame security and encryption? I do not like the way the law currently deals with such situations.
I've generally subscribed to the theory that one should never put in email anything one would not put on a post card to be sent via snailmail. I given that the cost of strongly encrypting traffic has become almost negligible, why shouldn't the burden fall upon people wishing to exchange private communications using the public airwaves to make sure they are not overhead?
I agree with what you said about use of someone else's AP requiring you to send signals that manipulate their system. Someone has already mentioned the NoCatAuth program from NoCat.net which would seem to be ideal for someone who wants to set up an otherwise open wireless AP that identifies itself as being private and for the use of selected people (patrons of a cafe, for example).
Think of it in these terms: you walk by what looks like a business, you decide to push open the door, step in, look at the merchandise, read some literature on display (some for sale, some of the free flyer variety), talk with other people inside, watch the TVs scattered about the place and even use the publicly accessible phones that are conveniently located within easy reach to make toll-free calls. You do this frequently over several months (think of the kid who lived in a Wal-Mart Supercenter for a while). So far, what is the problem?
Now, I see a problem if someone approaches you and says "This is a business and we offer free use of a lots of neat things to our (paying) customers. You are making heavy use of our facilities but not buying anything so please leave and don't come back." As someone else mentioned, bars and clubs often have cover charges, N drink minimums and/or bouncers to prevent leeches from using them as free pickup joints.
Some sort of splash screen that all users of an AP would see is the equivalent of a "Members Only" sign outside of a private club. The part about using signals to manipulate someone else's AP could be handled easily by digital signage that is the equivalent of "No unauthorized entry permitted" signs that are quite common most buildings where the general public is not supposed to be in certain areas but where stout doors with serious locks, (armed) guards, metal detectors, etc. would be overkill.
The issue of encrypted transmissions from content providers or delivery services and providers is a slightly different matter. What about sporting events, concerts, airshows, fireworks displays, and private outdoor events/celebrations perceivable from public property? If you happen to live near a drive-in movie theater, a ballpark, or anyplace you can easily enjoy some of the things listed above without paying for admission, why shouldn't you do so? Many sports centers, concert venues, and other locations where admission charges for major events are the norm go to great lengths to make sure that those who don't pay to get in don't get to enjoy the show. I think Chicago was trying to figure out a way to skin a buck off people who observed sporting events at a ballpark from rooftops that overlooked it. I know some cities don't like it when private landowners offer to let event-goers park on their conveniently located property for much lower rates than the city charges to park on the fairgrounds.
In a perfect world, you couldn't charge for a signal that you already send to someone. If they get it, they should be able to do with it as they please. If I don't like
IANAL (yet)
As I understand it, when he was asked to leave the parking lot of the cafe with the open WiFi by the management of the establishment, failed to do so, and ignored a similar demand to respect their property rights made by the police, he could certainly be detained (almost anyone can for almost any reason -- this is no longer a free country) and can probably be arrested and charged with trespass. I don't think he'd have much of a prayer in court.
The WiFi aspect of it is what interests me. I've long held the strong belief that people should be free to do as they please with *ANY* signal that impacts them or their property. Guess what? The law as it is enforced today doesn't agree with me. Else I could put up a satellite dish, figure out how to descramble the signals from DirectTV, DISH Network, XM Satellite Radio or StarBand...or cellular towers, or secure police radio transceivers, etc. and use them as I pleased for my own purposes, under the assumption that they were freely given to (forced upon) me.
If it were up to me, the burden would fall entirely upon people who transmit over the public airwaves to provide whatever security they deem necessary for their signals. I would favor laws that openly encourage people to entertain themselves however they please with any transmission they receive, and make full use of unsecure wireless network nodes such as the open AP in question.
Why? Well, if you don't want someone to see what you are doing in your home, or don't want to see light from cars, the neighbors' homes, police helicopters, etc., you should just close your blinds or curtains! Visible light is just electromagnetic radiation within a certain part of the spectrum. So are radio signals. I used to be able to read the newspaper in my bedroom by the lights mounted on a building next door. I certainly don't consider that any kind of theft of service! Since it was more annoying than useful, I went over to the parking area below that building, stood on top of my car (which I parked there since the same guy owned both buildings and I liked the covered parking) and duct taped a piece of cardboard to block the light that was shining in my apartment. The parking area was still well lit, the owner was okay with my solution, and my next door neighbor thanked me. The point is that EMR just keeps going until it is stopped.
If stray EMR in the form of communication signals hits you or your property (including the antenna(s) of your wireless gear) you should be able to do as you please with it, just as the people who sent it your way are. That makes sense, doesn't it?
That being said, I would draw the line in favor of keeping laws against denial of service (DoS) "attacks" using the supposedly public airwaves. If the guy had been on his own or public property and been using significantly more bandwidth than the intended users of the AP inside the cafe, then the law(s) against DoS attacks should apply.
The lawyer wannabe in me wants to know if the cafe has any signage indicating that their WiFi AP is wide open and that any communications their patrons engage in via that AP are easily captured by anyone with a modern WiFi-enabled laptop within range. What made me think of that? Well, when a sex offender has easy access to one's email, for example, he might pay attention to messages to one's communications to see if he can identify and locate new prey. Should the cafe be liable if harm comes to someone because communications via that open AP somehow leaked into the wrong hands?
Hmmm... If I were a greedy lawyer, I might be handing out business cards to patrons I spotted using that cafe's open WiFi AP, especially if they had children in tow.
You would think whoever can buy the most votes would win, but don't forget that the telcos and cablecos don't actually control more than a small fraction of the content they carry. I hope that Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. prevail in their effort to make Net Neutrality the law of the land. In every other comparable industry I can think of, the price one pays for a good or service tends to vary with how much one uses. Businesses get better rates when they buy phone service in bulk. As far as I know, no telco is allowed to provide "enhanced" for callers trying to reach Kmart and mere "regular" (read: degraded) service to those trying to call Wal-Mart just because Kmart pays them an additional feel. In essence what the bandwidth providers are trying to do is protect their ability to extort money from popular sites on the 'Net that happen to have deep pockets. The Network Neutrality folks are saying that content providers and consumers alike should pay for the bandwidth they use, regardless of how they use it. What could be more fair? If purportedly unbiased news outlets started giving preferential treatment to politicians who gave them the most largesse at the taxpayers expense, most people would object if they knew about it. Telcos and cablecos are supposed to be unbiased in this sense, since they exist because of government granted regional monopolies. FractalZone esotriv.blogspot.com
My real world experience with InsightBB is that I routinely get at least the 4Mbps I expect and often (just now, at 5:47pm, for example) get over 5Mbps. Upload is usually at least 512Kbps and sometimes closer to 1Mbps. I think I am getting the premium service at the regular service price. I note that while there are the usual delays in contacting tech support, they are available and are usually helpful rather than evasive when there are problems. I am very concerned about the effective cost to the consumer of high-speed Internet access going up for no technically valid reason (when the cost of providing the bandwidth is fixed or dropping, in other words). I'd like to see the telcos and cablecos required to sell bandwidth as bandwidth to anyone who wants to compete with them in the phone or ISP business. They'd maintain the physical infrastructure but would not be allowed to benefit from their monopolies over it in any significant geographic region. That way we, as consumers, would be assured that if the cablecoes or telcos started jacking up rates or charging extra for "premium" service (read: the plain old network neutral service we've come to expect) we could take our business elsewhere...maybe even to a competitor who uses the same infrastructure more efficiently. Their competitors would be in a much better position to cry "Foul!" when the companies that provide the physical infrastructure abuse their control of it in an unfair manner. I'm very libertarian, but realize that cablecos and telcos are wont to use the monopolistic benefits they get from the rights of way they have been granted by the government to shove their competition right out of the market. We need more competition, not less, so Network Neutrality is a Good Thing(tm)!
'Nuf said!