tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-295870322024-03-07T21:51:23.096-06:00Esoteric TriviaTopics of discussion may include science, engineering and technology, sociology, psychology, economics, history, law, politics; literature, music, movies, art in general; theology, philosophy and the meaning of life; mathematics, architecture, shooting sports, aviation, space exploration; famous quotes and profound sayings, bizarre concepts, unpleasant facts, and pure whimsy; etc.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-11502597182158242802010-01-13T20:06:00.001-06:002010-01-13T20:15:45.540-06:00Why can't Microsoft hire competent programmers? I've been playing with Windows 7 since it was officially released several weeks ago. About the best thing I can say about it is that it sucks less than Vista. It is not as robust as XP is after years of "beta testing" at the expense of paying customers.<br />
<br />
The thing that I find ironic is that when Windows 7 does an Automatic Update, it boldly proclaims that a reboot is required because the OS can't alter important system files while they are in use. Somebody should rudely inform the cretins who claim to be software developers at MS that almost every patch and upgrade to numerous flavors of Unix and Linux has been installable without requiring a reboot since the latter part of the last century. It is amazing that anyone who has been responsible for any version of Windows would even show their face in public, much less mention the fact.<br />
<br />
Also, has anyone noticed how the POS known as Silverlight keeps showing up in Automatic Updates even when one repeatedly tries to bur^H^H^Hhide it forever? I've used Silverlight. Talk about a waste of time and computer resources! Ditto for anything MS tries to foist on unsuspecting consumers under the "Live!" brand. <br />
<br />
On the good news front, based on reviews I've read, Ubuntu 9.10 looks to be very stable and capable of replacing Windows for almost all practical purposes, and will almost certainly do its job faster and more efficiently without crashing almost as often time Obama tells a lie as he parrots what he reads on his teleprompters. When I return from vacation, I'm looking forward to seeing what new features Ubuntu 9.10 has to offer.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-79132667267237995172009-11-26T07:11:00.001-06:002009-11-27T01:14:24.565-06:00Winblows Vista comments (update)A few months ago, I bought an OTC computer (rare for me, as I usually like to design and assemble my own systems. But this one was very inexpensive -- I could not have built one as nice from components purchased over the 'Net for as nice a price. Now, I think it should have been free. The hardware is fine. The OS sucks: it is Winblows Vista and although I swore I'd never own or use a copy of such a crappy OS, the machine came with the promise I could get a free Windows 7 upgrade. I learned it actually costs $17 to have it shipped when I ordered the "upgrade" which is a sick joke, given one can ship a whole set of heavy books, not just a mostly air-filled box containing a DVD and a few thin booklets for $17.<br />
<br />
Vista brings a whole new meaning to terms such as "defective by design", bloatware, crapware, etc. If there were truth in advertising, it would have to be called malware. The pre-installed version of Vista Home Premium that came with the Lenovo K220 mini-tower that cost me $429 + tax at Fry's (minus $50 if I ever get the mail-in rebate from Lenovo). For example, it wants to tell me how to run <i><b>MY</b></i> computer and would not let me access certain directories (that's folders to any newbies reading this), even when I was running as Administrator. When I tried installing drivers for a lame HP Deskjet F380 All-In-One printer, they failed because the installation program couldn't access certain directories on the system, despite the fact that I was running it with administrator privileges. Mind you, I wouldn't wish an HP printer on my worst enemy, these days, because they gobble down expensive ink/toner and the drivers come with nagware to remind you are running out of same even though the cartridge in question is probably nowhere close to being empty. But I digress...<br />
<br />
There is a utility I found which lets one take ownership of a directory or file even when Vista stubbornly refuses to let one do so -- under unmodified Vista, the act of trying to take ownership of things Vista wants to keep control of is allowed, but fails with an error message. Since, while I like it a lot and use it often, I don't know much about the source of the clever little program, I won't provide a direct download link for it, but here is the <a href="http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/add-take-ownership-to-explorer-right-click-menu-in-vista/">article on "How-To Geek"</a> where I found it. Warning: using this utility properly requires a fair amount of knowledge -- about the same amount as editing the registry on a Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista/7 system does, I'd say.<br />
<br />
Vista also really tries to impose its will as far as the appearance of things goes. I like to see contents of directories displayed as detailed lists, but even when I tell it not to, it keeps trying show the files as a grid of space-wasting and useless icons. I like to keep my systems with a "Windows Classic" look, unless there is a legitimate, overriding reason not to. Changing a familiar user interface for no good reason is a sin. The changes in UI from "Windows Classic" to Windows XP offered no benefit. If there is a functional gain to be had from changing a UI, I'm all for it, but Vista's default look-and-feel is a canonical example of form-over-function. Of course there are a lot of vested interests in having to make hundreds of millions of non-technical computer users go through expensive re-training just because the new UI is unfamiliar to them. Think about it this way. How many automobile manufacturers make pointless changes in the basic layout of the major controls on the vehicles most people drive everyday? <br />
<br />
Of course, Microsoft wants to protect users from themselves and make Vista look oh-so-pretty rather at the expense of much poorer performance. As a rule of thumb, anytime a Microsoft program gives you a choice of two ways to do something, select the "Advanced" not the "Recommended" option. For example, when installing any software from MS that offers a choice of installation procedures, avoid the "Express Install (Recommended)" option like the Black Plague! Remember, Microsloth is your enemy, most definitely not your friend. By selecting the "Custom Install (Advanced)" option when you see that choice, you are able to deselect a lot of nasty or just plain useless things MS wants to do if you choose the "(Recommended)" option.<br />
<br />
Proof in point of the above: MS decided it wanted to snoop on people's computers, at the owner/user's expense when it came up with a program called "Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications" to compliment its overall WGA (what a misnomer! WGA offers the user absolutely NO advantage -- it exists for the benefit of Micro$oft) scheme. WGA Notification would have people's Winblows XP systems "phone home" when ever they booted, to let Microsloth spy on changes in those systems. At least <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=7&ved=0CCkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F126543%2Fwindows_genuine_annoyance.html&rct=j&q=two+lawsuits+wga+notification&ei=V18PS_32NYTinAfqtonKAw&usg=AFQjCNFXZ_fb-kKzHmpEvYeQIJjOUE7Nnw">two lawsuits</a> were filed against Microsoft for intentionally installing malware on other people's computers. One <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138825/Microsoft_battles_class_action_over_WGA_antipiracy_technology">trial</a> regarding Microsoft's grossly intrusive (and quite probably illegal) behavior is scheduled to begin in January 25th, 1010.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any version of Windows that was configured best from a user's perspective right out of the box. Vista is the most glaring example os deliberate misconfigureation, which is why it is know as such a resource hog. For example, what good does the Aero interface do on versions of Vista that offer it, except allow hardware vendors to sell more expensive systems than people really need? Some of the entries in Control Panel are there for Microsoft's Benefit, not the user's. I'm thinking of such space wasters as: People Near Me, Welcome Center, Windows Anytime Upgrade. These are guided promo tours for idiots or sales links to MS products and services. Many other times in the list should be grouped together under one heading, the way Administrative Tools are. Furthermore, headings with sub-trees ought to be easily distinguishable from headings that actually do something, e.g. Mouse. That ought to be dead simple for the developers at MS to figure out, since they already learned to provide visual cues to distinguish files from directories, and short-cuts from the objects themselves. But hey, Google has been hiring a lot of Miscrosoft's top talent away from them for years...<br />
<br />
MS rather quickly realized that <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&ved=0CBoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationweek.com%2Fnews%2Fwindows%2Foperatingsystems%2FshowArticle.jhtml%3FarticleID%3D210800478&rct=j&q=corporate+users+sticking+with+XP%2C+shunning+vista&ei=7XUPS9C6N8zbnAeW_t32Aw&usg=AFQjCNHWFm_PF5DAd7dYZqXrTDp8LlDPEw">Vista was a dog of a product, especially with the corporate users</a> who aren't forced to buy from retail chains stores that all to easily succumb to the Microsoft monopoly. People frequently went out of their way to stick with XP if they had a choice in the matter, and over write Vista with XP (or Linux) if not. If, somehow, antitrust law prevented the almost universal trend of OEMs selling computers with some MS OS pre-installed, Vista would not have nearly as many units sold as MS claims. Most machines with Windows pre-installed don't come with a disc containing an actual copy of said OS, but just a "restore" disk that trashes any user data on the machine it is run on, but which ensures that all the manufacturer's crapware will also be installed again. This means that the user can't even move the licensed copy of Windows to a new machine, because the "restore" disc is specific to the old hardware.<br />
<br />
If a customer has to buy a computer from a big box store these days, Microsoft is going to chalk up a Vista sale automagically. The customer gets screwed just as automatically. Let me emphasize, I think the US Government screwed up big time in the way it settled its anti-trust suit with MS. The only reason MS can claim to have "sold" so many copies of a piece of shit like Vista is that it is in a position to force ordinary people to eat it, and computer manufactures to bundle it with their machines. Needless to say Microsoft gets away with foisting Vista upon the masses because the Fortune 500 crowd and the federal government had enough clout to insist that Microsoft keep supplying them with XP, which, now on SP3, is finally well-known and about as stable an OS MS has had since Windows 2000 SP4. <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/air-force-windows/">The US Air Force, when it wanted a reasonably secure version of Windows, chose XP</a>, even though it does use Vista in places.<br />
<br />
It is hardly an accident that Vista was awarded the dubious honor of making the list of <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm">"Top ten terrible tech products"</a> by CNET-UK.<br />
<br />
When I dump Vista from this box, I'll be installing the Windows 7 "upgrade" in a dual boot configuration with Ubuntu 9.04. At least I know I'll never have to pay for Ubuntu, much less "Activate" it, or even reboot it almost every time I iinstall something under it, patch it, or just reconfigure it. In my opinion, Windows Vista is the best advertisement for Ubuntu Linux, or any other major version of Linux, that has ever existed, bar none.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-74903263878973187152008-01-31T00:57:00.001-06:002008-02-23T14:53:53.356-06:00Long overdue update...I suppose I should add something to this blog after a several month long hiatus, so here goes...<br /><br />The 2008 Florida primary is over. For the Dems, it was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/27/DI2008012702569.html">moot</a>, as no delegates were awarded to the winner due to some Dem Party infighting. For the Republicans, it might spell disaster. McCain won by 5 percentage points when the contest was considered a toss-up the day before. The problem is that <a href="http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/129_the_maveric.html">McCain has a strong negative rating</a> with many Republicans who simply won't vote for such a fickle, feckless old fart. For pertinacious Congressman Ron "Libertarian in Republican Clothing" Paul, it was politics as usual -- he got only 3% of the GOP primary votes in FL.<br /><br />Hillary "Conniving Canine" Clinton clobbered the only slightly less objectionable Barack Obama (he has a platform that is as counterproductive as Hillary's, but at least he isn't as shrill and won't have much of a political machine behind him if he wins). Super Tuesday should be interesting. Guiliani and now Arnold Schwarzenegger have endorsed McCain on the GOP side. Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy have followed Oprah's lead by endorsing Obama. Bitch Clinton has some less well known endorsements -- Maxine Waters?, she makes rocks look smart!.<br /><br />In other recent news, it turns out that even the French paramilitary police (the gendarmerie) are bright enough to <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news120930030.html">ditch</a> Microsoft Winblows in favor of the far superior Ubuntu Linux operating system. They've already adopted OpenOffice, Firefox, and Thunderbird instead of wasting money on Microsoft crapware such as Office, IE, and Outlook.<br /><br />But there is more good news for people who are sick of having to deal with the overpriced shit Microsoft foists upon the marketplace due to its monopolistic practices. Microsoft is placing the <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39292492,00.htm?r=1">blame</a> squarely on former monopoly, IBM, for shooting down OOXML as an international document standard. Way to go, IBM!!! One of the best things that could happen to the IT industry would be for Microsoft to go down in financial and legal flames. At least the EU has been more successful than the US government has at penalizing Microsoft by hitting it where it hurts: the wallet. It would be interesting if Microsoft had to start selling its products for the same price in the US and the EU as it does in some developing nations; say $3 per license for Windows or Office. Even at that price, those MS products would remain ripoffs due to their buggy, bloated nature.<br /><br />The "economic stimulus" bill that Prez Bush asked Congress to pass swiftly in his SOTU address seems to be about to start a legislative fuss, as the Senate could not resist <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003651.html?hpid=topnews">tampering</a> with what the House and Bush agreed on as a compromise. This is a <span style="font-weight:bold;">Good Thing™</span> as just giving out checks more or less willy-nilly at the taxpayers' expense is a brain-damaged idea. A far better way to stimulate the economy would be to implement the <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer">FairTax</a> and phase out the IRS. Reining in out-of-control government regulatory and law enforcement agencies (EPA, BATF (notice how they now like to go by a TLA, too? the acronym they prefer now is just ATF...I wonder why?), DOT, FCC, FDA, TSA, DHS, DEA, etc.) would only make us safer from government oppression, but far more prosperous. It seems that far too many Americans have become namby-pamby, mouth-breathing, scaredy cats -- all too willing to trade what little freedom they have left for a false sense of security.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-69137778781543722282007-08-27T01:11:00.000-05:002007-08-27T01:35:17.014-05:00Salad Nights: Wal-Mart wins againCaesar salad is one of my favorite foods. That was not always the case, but my father was exceptionally gifted at making the dressing just right, from scratch, as he was at cooking steaks on the grill when I was a kid, so it was one of the very few ways I could be encouraged to eat rabbit food way back then. Fast forward three decades...<br /><br />I now eat all kinds of lettuce and actually like it. A good friend tells me that lettuce isn't all that nutritious. I reply with a polite version of "Fuck off.".<br /><br />That brings me to this story. Why am I writing a blog entry about salad and dressing, particularly about Caesar salad? Well, as I finish this one, I am thinking I could not easily have had a reasonably fresh one as a child, especially at this time of night.<br /><br />I grocery shop at night. I am sort of nocturnal to begin with, but I absolutely hate competing with the Mommy Vehicles full of annoying shoppers during the day, so I tend to hit the aisles just after midnight.<br /><br />A few days ago, I bought some bagged "Hearts of Romaine" lettuce packaged by Fresh Express at a local Wal-Mart store ... at night, of course, when most stores were closed. I am currently eating the rest of the contents of said bag of rabbit food. I had a full dinner plate of it right after I bought it. Crunchy! It is still quite fresh. While it is not what I would expect/want to see on my plate for $8.99 at a fancy restaurant, it is plenty good and crisp enough for me here and now. The Caesar dressing I also bought at Wally-World: Cardini's "The Original Caesar Dressing". Not my favorite by a long shot (Dad made much better) but it works.<br /><br />My point? I couldn't have sat here writing this crap and eating this kind of reasonably good salad on a moment's notice a quarter century ago. Wal-Mart made it possible. Hmmm.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-23476596930808510372007-08-13T07:46:00.000-05:002007-08-13T07:53:11.807-05:00StorageI remember way back when disk space was metered out in kilobytes, yes, KB. We are talking a few hundred KB or thereabouts. Now, I sit here with a new 1/2 terabyte (500GB) drive in my hand. I could have a 1T drive, if I were wealthy...but this thing will suffice for backup purposes. 0.5 TB ... kool enuf 4 me!FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-53833926767411549862007-06-19T06:29:00.000-05:002007-06-19T23:07:10.369-05:00Apple's silly little customer base<b><h2><font color=brown>MacLusers</font></h2></b><br /><b><h2><font color=pink>iPodiots</font></h2></b><br /><h3>and, <i><b>Coming Soon!</b></i> to elevators, bars, restaurants, shopping centers, grocery stores and motor vehicle accidents waiting to happen near you:</h3><br /><b><h2><font color=orange>iPhonies</font></h2></b><br />Since (and with the exception of) the Apple II line of computers that first went commercial thirty years and two weeks ago today, have has anyone ever encountered a "successful" Apple product that wasn't dumbed down and made to look very shiny for the oh-so-trendy, fashion conscious, technologically impaired, mostly mindless drones who are Apple's biggest fanboys?<br /><br />"Successful" is in quotes because unlike the iPod, the Mac product line never achieved much market success (less than 5% market share these days) despite all the hype. The iPhone seems doomed to be another flash in the pan unless the total cost of owning and using one drops dramatically from current expectations when it is released at the end of this month.<br /><br />The iPod has achieved amazing market domination. One could even say it once drove the market for MP3 players, despite the fact that it is technically inferior and over-priced compared to many products made by companies such as SanDisk (Sansa), Rio, Samsung, etc. Now that other pocket sized portable music players are gaining market share, Apple has decided to join the cell phone fray, using its success with the iPod as leverage to try and break into the fiercely competitive mobile communications market.<br /><br />The Mac line of computers has less than a 5% share of the microcomputer market and peaked at about 13% in 1993 – ancient history in the hi-tech world. Today, he PC market is very much a Wintel environment, and even Linux-based systems have grabbed more of it than Macs recently. Microsoft isn’t really even worried about Apple as a competitor when it comes to computers, but is clearly reacting to the increasing popularity of Linux combined with FOSS office suites.<br /><br />A major problem with Apple products (and Microsoft and Sony products, too) is that they tend to be proprietary, locking consumers into very expensive platforms. Apple, Microsoft, and Sony are almost synonymous with harsh DRM and gross overpricing. “You can get better, but you can’t pay more…”<br /><br />Let us not forget how Apple foolishly decided to go with a built-in battery for the iPhone instead of the removable ones that savvy cell phone manufacturers have long known are far more practical for people who can't seem to pry their cell phones away from their ears.<br /><br />One has to wonder how many suckers will be duped into wasting money on an iPhone, only to deeply regret their blunder a mere few months later as the bills roll in and the novelty of the goofy menu system on a tiny touch screen as a keyboard alternative wears thin. Many people can use regular cell phone keyboards, especially the QUERTY kind without even looking at them – great for text messaging without being obvious about it. Try that, iPhonies!<br /><br />If iPhonies end up hating AT&T (formerly Cingular) they are SOL if they want to switch service providers after their mandatory two year contract with AT&T expires, because there won’t be any alternatives available until five years after the iPhone hits the market. By then, the iPhone will probably be a flop on the order of these other Apple blunders: Apple III, Macintosh Portable, and Newton Message Pad (thanks go to <a href="http://www.insearchofstupidity.com/m_products.htm">Insearch of Stupidity</a>.<br /><br />When all the (mostly artificial) media frenzy over the iPhone dies down, expect to see a lot of naive, gullible, former Apple fanboys whining about the money they wasted on their iPhones as they switch to far more functional, much less expensive phones which can be used with a variety of service providers besides AT&T...although this whole marketing ploy by Apple would be even funnier if suckered iPhonies into signing on with a pathetically lame yet truly obnoxious service provider such as Verizon Wireless--that sort of treatment is best reserved for asinine Apple apologists.<br /><br />Ah, well, the antics of the most loyal members of Apple's silly little customer base are almost always amusing when they aren't annoying.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-19052297458322726872007-06-09T02:29:00.000-05:002007-06-09T02:55:42.789-05:00The music *IS* getting louderAs has been known by people in the A/V gear sales industry for decades, people tend to associate louder/brighter with "better" when comparing sound systems or video displays (at least to a point, all else being equal). Back in the 70s when audio gear was becoming all the rage, it was considered news in the audio magazines that stereo dealers would often find a way to crank up the volume on the system they actually wanted to sell to a customer who was comparing various systems in a showroom. The audiophile magazines of the day (and probably now) would routine "expose" this somewhat deceptive practice.<br /><br />Likewise, it has long been a matter of routine for vendors of background music (Muzak, etc.) to heavily compress their audio tracks and generally omit any attention grabbing transients altogether. (When is the last time you heard any kind of drum solo in your dentist's office or on an elevator in a stuffy corporate office building's elevator?) Recycled Beatles tunes are common, but when turned into background sound, the beat is gone as well as most of the dynamic range.<br /><br />The article,<a href="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article1878724.ece">Why music really is getting louder</a>, explains a lot of things we all observe but may not put together. Just as advertising on city streets tends to get bigger, brighter and often louder in the face of intense competition, so too are many forms of consumer entertainment and consumer products in general. We all know that many of today's R-rated films would have been given the kiss-of-death X-rating back in the late 60s when such ratings were introduced.. Now, many studios pump up the sex and violence in their PG movies to obtain a R-rating because their target audience thinks of G and PG as "kid's stuff". DVD's are released in "unrated" versions that are now common even in relatively tame outlets such as Wal-Mart.<br /><br />It is quite enlightening to look at consumer goods these days and try to determine a sort of form/function ratio for them. Take for example a lot of today's trendy SUV's and pickup trucks. We know that the vast majority of people who buy and drive them will never intentionally take them off a paved surface, much less go off-roading for fun or work, so the idea of putting very low profile tires on a set of wheels with 18" rims on a pickup truck doesn't seem absurd to folks who aren't old enough to remember Jeeps, vans, and pickups as commercial/work vehicles. The same is true of a lot of today's trendy luxury cars: small greenhouse (tiny, gun-slit like windows over large body panels that look almost like armor), big wheels inside low-profile tires (that do little to promote the old notion of a luxuriously quiet, smooth ride), and a generally aggressive, intimidating, urban, "gangsta" look to them. It is rather amusing to see an elderly, wealthy, law-abiding couple driving around in a Mercury or Cadillac that one normally associates with the kind of vehicle driven by the meth-dealing pimp as he cruises around the 'hood selling his product and bitch slapping the night's proceeds outta his crack hos in the movies (and often in real life).<br /><br />But, let's not digress too far! Think about family restaurants, or places you might want to take a serious date for dinner before going to a show or party. It used to be that one could find a lot of reasonably good eateries what were definitely not fast food joints or bars where one could have an affordably upscale meal (realistically, taking a date to Mickey D's or KFC is tacky if one is old enough to drive, not to mention unhealthy; and most young people can't afford fine dining establishments except for the occasional homecoming, prom, promotion, engagement, etc.).<br /><br /> Today, young people and families often end up going to what are sometimes called "fast casual" restaurants, typified by the likes of TGI Friday's, Appliebees, Bennigan's, Ruby Tuesday's, Chili's, Chedders, steakhouses ( e.g., Texas Roadhouse, Lone Star, Outback, Ned Kelly's, etc.), or pizza places that have substantial seating (not Dominoes, Papa John's, or Pizza World, for example). While many counterexamples exist, the general trend is for these establishments to play some form of pop music in the background, and often so loud that one has to raise one's voice to be heard even if the restaurant is nearly empty. (This is supposed to make the place seem busy, happening, exciting and fun...even when it is anything but). Given that intelligent conversation is a decreasingly important part of a successful date or family dinner, the fact that many of the restaurants mentioned above just turn up the volume to make them seem "vibrant" is hardly surprising. One has to wonder when the patrons have to shout their drink and dinner orders to waitstaffers standing no more than a meter away... Then there is the visual noise created by all the monitors many of these reastaurants (and sports bars) have...one would suppose that peeps just can't survive for very long without a busy video display or ten within sight.<br /><br /> Think about the actual quality and nature of the music one is exposed to in these places and you will discover that the music itself really is getting LOUDER, just as the aforementioned article says. But is it any <i>better</i>, despite all the advances in recording and sound reproduction technology and all the interesting sounds and miraculous effects modern electronic musical instruments are capable of creating/reproducing for cheap? Or is it all becoming, as Frank Zappa (formerly the World's Greatest Living Musician) would say: STRICTLY COMMERCIAL.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-82129086384824275132007-05-12T21:51:00.000-05:002007-05-12T22:50:35.194-05:00Flame Mode: ON!Where to begin?...<br /><br />The US Postal Service, the most generally pathetic major delivery organization around, is raising their (monopolized) rate on First Class Mail from $0.39 to $0.41 in a couple of days...after imposing a previous rate hike only 16 months ago. I note they deliver junk mail and missing kids notices a lot better than they get important stuff to my mailbox. Let UPS and FedEx compete with the USPS on an equal basis! Eliminate the USPS monopoly on 1st Class Mail!<br /><br />The USSC, better than it has been in years, made the very stupid mistake of telling the EPA it is tasked with dealing with CO2 as a pollutant:<br /><br />http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf<br /><br />I'm dismayed that the SCOTUS would consider telling the EPA to regulate human exhalations, largely Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide. Does this mean the EPA can now get rid of politicians who bloviate too much? It would be fun to see Billary Clinton and Schmuck Schumer gagged (so they can't exude CO2) and thrown in prison for polluting the environment! I wonder if embedding Nancy Pelosi in a glass-like waste container (much like spend nuclear fuel is prior to disposal) would keep her from committing acts of outrageous pollution?<br /><br />Had the USSC been on the ball, the EPA would have been told to go suck its thumb.<br /><br />I'm quite certain that human endeavor has had some slight effect on the Earth's climate, but this "blame industrialized civilization for all climate changes we think we might have observed" is just nuts. In any given year, a major hurricane, earthquake, meteorite strike, wildfire, or volcano is very likely to affect the climate on Earth more than we mere humans manage to do.<br /><br />Instead of regulating existing technology we need and use, the government ought to focus on finding better alternatives. Fission, fusion, and solar power plants combined with the latest fuel cell tech could make for some very nifty, low-polluting transportation and home energy sources (until the USSC declares H20 to be toxic waste...) If the alternatives are better, the marketplace demand will shift.<br /><br />The 2008 US Presidential Elections: WE ARE DOOMED! None of the contenders have a clue.<br /><br />Flame mode: OFF, for now.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-81824586447162430642007-02-06T02:20:00.000-06:002007-02-06T02:25:49.380-06:00MySpace: targetting gullible but horny teensMySpace, like several decades of other businesses, most notably in the entertainment (including sports), clothing, and cosmetics industries, is just another effort to exploit the rather gullible nature of zillions of teens who are desperate to fit in somehow, in a way that they think is "fresh" and hope is rebellious enough to offend/disturb their parents?<br /><br />MySpace would sell pr0n to horny teens if it could get away with doing so, but exploiting their desire to be be trendy is the next best thing. A lot of filmmakers, music industry executives (not so much musicians themselves), and vendors of brand name clothing know very well that sex sells, especially to young people from the age of puberty on up, but also realize that society won't let them sell it the way they do to adults. MySpace is a company that takes advantage of the naivety of youth who are driven by hormones and not all that worldly (read: jaded or even cynical) yet. Kids just don't want to be left out and MySpace is based on exploiting that fear by making them feel as if they are outcasts if they don't use MySpace.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-53089225627767201912007-02-06T02:03:00.000-06:002007-02-06T02:07:35.822-06:00MS Vista doesn't just have issues, it IS an issue.Vista doesn't have issues. It <b><i>IS</i></b> an issue to anyone who cares about secure, reliable, affordable computing. I've been telling clients to avoid it like the plague that it is. The main problem with the plague known as MS Vista is that it is spread by the carriers known as computer manufacturers.<br /><br />One way the plague might be stopped is for the US and EU to re-open their anti-trust cases against Micro$oft with a minimum goal of having any system where an MS OS comes pre-infec^H^H^Hstalled boot up the first time to a screen that gives the customer a choice of alternative non-MS (FOSS) operating systems. Since none of the major vendors, Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway, Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo, etc. provide much in the way of technical support unless a customer pays them outrageous prices, they really wouldn't have anything to lose by pre-installing one or more flavors of Linux or Unix on the new boxes they distribute via the major chain stores.<br /><br />My point is that the typical PC buyer has little choice but to pay for and try to figure out how to deal with the Microsoft crapware that comes on almost all new systems. I suspect that many computer vendors would welcome an opportunity to stop wasting money on lame MS products and distribute FOSS equivalents. The neat thing is that MS has already implemented a system whereby it can charge only those customers who actually decide to use its buggy bloatware instead of one or more of the other OSes and office suites that manufacturers decide to allow the consumer to select from when she first boots a new computer.<br /><br />I truly wish new systems came bare by default, with consumers getting to choose which operating system(s) and office suite(s) they want to put on them. I fondly recall when systems came with complete sets of installation disks (not discs :-) That would be another great requirement of any settlement the US and EU might reach with M$: if a new system is shipped with an M$ OS as the default, it ought to include a full set of generic Windows install discs, with a license transferable to any other machine the consumer decides to put it on. Making that part of the agreement retroactive, so that current users of Win98, WinME, WinNT, and WinXP could easily obtain installation discs for their old OSes when they decide to upgrade their hardware would annoy MS but impose no significant burden upon it, as long as it could charge a nominal fee to people who want physical install discs instead of DLing ISO images and burning and burning their own. I think a fair price for a set of Winblows install discs could be pegged at what it costs to have a set of install discs for a quality OS such as Ubuntu delivred to one's door.<br /><br />Basically, in order to end the Microsoft monopoly and stop the spread of Microsoft Buggy Bloatware(tm), the anti-trust regulators need to force the supply chain to change so that costly MS operating system and office suite software is no longer the default. As much as I dislike MS these days, I have little doubt it could deliver a very high-quality OS (far superior to the flashy junkware known as Vista) if it had to compete on an even playing field. This would be especially true if big companies such as Google or Sun could put their own (new) OSes on new systems as options, right alongside the MS product, since all existing contracts MS has with hardware vendors that pre-install its OSes would be nullified as part of any reasonable anti-trust settlement.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-3879889973496758482006-12-29T13:21:00.000-06:002006-12-29T13:35:18.603-06:00Micro$loth funding EFF, indirectlyCheck out:<br /><br />http://laughingsquid.com/windows-vista-laptop-on-ebay-proceeds-going-to-eff/<br /><br />Micro$loth Windows Vista is a brain-damaged OS...a shinier version of XP that offers little of substance except for more proprietary crap from Redmond. Vista will feature (?) less security from a user perspective than XP, mostly because Micro$loth is doing its best to implement harsher DRM and cut other, better security software vendors out of the loop via inane things like PatchGuard.<br /><br /><br />Once again, I find my only true vista (in computing) is Ubuntu Linux. They send me the latest release, on discs, for free, and the new versions install correctly and are mostly stable, unlike Winblows, which has never known "stable" in my experience.<br /><br />BTW, have you ever heard of anything of real significance coming out of MS "Research Labs"? I haven't, and I pay attention to such things. IBM was once the 800lb. gorilla of the IT world. (Back when it was known as the DP (Data Processing) world.) But IBM labs has contributed mountains to human knowledge in a wide variety of important fields of study. Microsoft has contributed nearly nothing, but brags a lot... Go figure. DOn't believe me? Just do some patent searching (I recommend Google's patent search service, since IBM's might be seen as biased. *snicker*). What things that make a difference in your life has Microsoft done the pioneering research for? Compare that to IBM's patent list...many of said patents IBM gives away the rights to for a song, or less.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1162110180996464452006-10-29T03:11:00.000-06:002006-10-29T03:23:01.006-06:00New Canonical Oxymoron: "Microsoft Security Feature"[On Slashdot, it was written:]<br />"This week the security firm Authentium found a workaround for Patch Guard, the security feature Microsoft has embedded into the 64-bit version of Windows."<br /><br />Anything that highlights one of the many flaws in a typical Microsoft (in)security feature should not be considered an a mere exploit or even a workaround, but rather a tremendous public service! When said public service enables the installation of real security features (as opposed to the buggy bloatware which Microsoft Hype(tm) labels a "security feature"), Microsoft should not be allowed to use its monopoly power to silence or eliminate the very worthy competition. Of course the latter goal, getting rid of competitors, not protecting its users, is the real objective of Microsoft's attempted lock down of its 64-bit Windows kernel.<br /><br />One of the principles of any good security scheme is that it is not dependent upon obscurity. If Microsoft was truly confident of its code, it would make the code open source. In reality, Microsoft is quite aware of how lame its code is and knows that even without seeing the source, other people are making an honest living delivering fixes for Microsoft's blunders. Hence, Microsoft tries to exclude the competition by preventing their products from working.<br /><br />In the area of computer security, perhaps more than anywhere else, Microsoft is working very hard to lower the bar in order to increase its profits at the expense of ordinary users. I, for one, do not trust Microsoft. Just look at the spyware known as Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) notification that Microsft tried to foist upon the unsuspecting masses. Informed people refer to it as Windows Genuine Disadvantage...<br /><br />I want someone with a vested interest in pointing out the glaring design flaws, numerous bugs, and generally feeble nature of the so-called security features in Microsoft's products to be able to implement effective solutions that protect the users of Microsoft products from malware, crackers, and (hopefully) Microsoft itself.<br /><br />"Microsoft security feature" ought to be near the top of any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vuara/Greatest_Oxymoron_Defined2">list of canonical oxymorons</a>.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1160724354451580042006-10-13T02:01:00.000-05:002006-10-13T02:25:54.473-05:00The only vista on my horizon is Ubuntu (Linux)On /., someone replied to my comment to the effect that if MS Windows was a motor vehicle, it would have to be recalled, given all of its defects and safety issues. I pushed the analogy a bit further, saying that Windows would fall under many state's "lemon laws" for sure, if it were a car. That someone got picky and replied:<br /><br /><i>"So which OS are you thinking of that _wouldn't_ be classified as a 'lemon' ?"</i><br /><br />So I responded, more or less off the top of my head:<br /><br />Almost any OS that is free... After all, it is hard to argue that Ubuntu (for example), should be flawless when it costs nothing and is in fact shipped out at someone else's expense if one asks for a few sets of the install discs. I run Ubuntu and although I've used Red Hat back when it (as opposed to Fedora) was free, I never really got into Linux. Ubuntu I am working to learn well enough that I never have to infect any of my own systems with the buggy bloatware known as Windows again, at least not at my expense.<br /><br />The good thing about the news surrounding the impending spread of Vista is that it isn't likely to happen as fast as Microsoft wants or would have the general public believe. Why waste money on a bigger, slower, pile of crapware from Microsoft when it offers nothing substantial in the way of practical improvements over the mess that is XP? What I'm reading these days is that the Vista release is being given the yawn treatment by many IT professionals.<br /><br />As far as I can tell, since I don't care about cutesy but useless special effects (read: the Aero interface), there is nothing I want to do with an MS OS that XP doesn't do about as well as Vista is likely to, with much less risk of new bugs and security holes. The risk to my wallet is virtually nil with Ubuntu. There are other free Linuxes available and there is much better and affordable support for them than there is from Microsoft for Windows.<br /><br />Also, XP has been given the acid test for a few years now and a lot of serious problems with it have been corrected to a large degree with the numerous patches and service packs MS has deigned to release for it. In fact, I'm worried that security will be much worse on Vista than it is on XP since 3rd party security vendors are being prevented by Microsoft from hooking in at the level their code needs to run at to be most effective. I don't trust Microsoft to handle security issues. It has a pathetic track record. The programmers at MS clearly don't understand their own code.<br /><br />My copies of Ubuntu were delivered to me upon request, cost me nothing, installed and are updated easily, and work quite well. I run OpenOffice and use a lot of GNU programs as well as other FOSS.<br /><br />The only vista I see on my OS horizon is Ubuntu.<br /><br />--- [the end of my reply on /. ] ---<br /><br /><br />I guess I don't think of something as being a lemon of a product if it costs me nothing but whatever time and effort I put into trying to get some sort of benefit from it. I am not in the habit of looking a gift horse in the mouth. And the better flavors of Linux are quite suitable for mission critical use...arguably more so than Windoze, given the number of major sites on the 'Net that run Linux servers.<br /><br />My original post on /. (not the above follow up) pointed out that Vista has little to recommend it in the way of new or better features, unless one considers the Aero interface to be other than a cute but wasteful system resources hog. There is an extremely good chance that Vista will be buggier and less secure than XP, since it is new and has not been as well tested (and all too frequently patched) and also because Microsoft is trying hard to keep other vendors of Windows security software from hooking their products into Vista at a low enough level to work properly. It isn't as if Microsoft can be trusted to deliver safe, secure, reliable software...and now it is actively trying to block others from selling effective low-level security enhancements for Vista, which it will undoubtedly, desperately need if the history of other Windows releases is a reasonable indicator.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1158597750825607912006-09-18T11:37:00.000-05:002006-09-18T11:42:30.836-05:00High gas prices? Try lowering gas taxes![On slashot.org someone wrote:]<br /><i>Here in Finland a litre of 95 octane gas costs about 1.263e (1.295 for 98 octane and 1.008 for diesel).</i><br /><br />[I could not resist replying:]<br />Baahhh, baaahhhhh!<br /><br />How much of the price you pay in Finland for gas goes to taxes?<br /><br />One of the most effective ways to bring down gas prices in the U.S. would be for dealers to post just the price they charge per gallon with a "*" next to it, followed by an explanatory note: "(*) The federal, state, and local taxes on each gallon total $N -- blame your government for that!"<br /><br />That signage would be particularly effective in your country, if it was allowed by your government.<br /><br />Note that I said "your government", not "the government". Here in the United States, the People do retain some modicum of control over their government, but our government is always working to make us forget that fact. The People are a major inconvenience to government, except when it comes time to pay up.<br /><br />Finland is disgustingly socialist by U.S. standards, although we are letting our government slide in that direction. Right now, raising gas taxes to Finnish rates would be one of the few things that might inspire real political revolution in the U.S. There is no valid justification for such high taxes as you pay for gasoline...or many other things.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1157751488065963112006-09-08T16:03:00.000-05:002006-09-08T16:38:08.100-05:00BBB a joke, or what?Over the years I have seen a lot of journalists tell consumers to contact the Better Business Bureau (BBB) when they have problems with companies that are selling defective merchandise, don't honor their contracts, or don't even respond to phone calls or (e)mail.<br /><br />In my experience, the BBB is a toothless organization that offers little help to consumers. When I had some dress shoes resoled several years ago, the shoe repair shop owner would not lift a finger when his work didn't hold up for even a month. I said I would contact the BBB and he laughed, saying "Go ahead! I'm not a member."<br /><br />When I was doing some research for this article, I noticed that Equifax is a current sponsor of the <a href="http://bbb.org/">BBB</a> Web site. Hmmm. Not good. Why anyone would think a credit bureau would be interested in helping consumers instead of lenders and businesses is beyond me. Like the other two credit bureaus, Transunion and Experian, Equifax is busy trying to lure consumers into paying for their "credit score" when consumers can get all the relevant information free from each credit bureau once a year, per federal law, and every time they are denied credit because of the actions of a particular credit bureau. Credit bureaus do not have the best interests of consumers in mind.<br /><br />I wonder if BBB really cares much about consumers. I have been involved with start up companies that claimed to be members of the BBB before they ever opened for business...in a particular incarnation, anyway. Lots of small (and some large) businesses seem to go though regular cycles of opening, going out of business in a hurry with a mob of angry customers at their heels, and reopening with a new name or in a new location. As far as I can tell, the requirements for being a BBB member in good standing are laughable.<br /><br />But hey, that is what I have seen and heard. I'm curious as to what experience(s) any readers might have with the BBB actually helping to get an issue with a recalcitrant business resolved in a manner favorable to the consumer (assuming the complaint is justified).FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1154232747083466182006-07-29T22:23:00.000-05:002006-07-29T23:12:27.170-05:00What happened to "Big Science"?[Note: this essay is something I blurted out in reply to a <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1437231">Slashdot article</a>. It is by no means a comprensive answer to the question I came up with as a title for this post; a question that seems to be roughly what I was trying to address when I wrote the following:]<br /><br />What happened, as best I can tell, is that shortsighted corporate<br />executives forgot that (applied) R&D rarely produces new fundamental<br />knowledge about the universe while that is the main goal of pure<br />research. A lot of great research is done when true scientists are<br />given a budget that has already been written off by the bean counters,<br />as IBM and (the old AT&T's) Bell Labs demonstrated many times.<br /><br />The problem is that such research tends to be very expensive and<br />non-geeks just aren't interested in results they can't understand.<br />The only reason we have nuclear power today is that the United States<br />was willing to spare no expense to develop a bigger and better bomb in<br />order to win WWII quickly an decisively. Nazi Germany sponsored a lot<br />of good science and then took some of the results with military<br />potential and did a tremendous amount of R&D to create amazing new<br />military technologies...tech that just happens to have had amazing<br />commercial potential. Jet aircraft and booster rockets come to mind.<br /><br />You will hear NASA fans gripe because now that the Cold War is over,<br />NASA has to justify whatever it does to the drones in government who<br />get paid to eliminate government waste. NASA is no longer a great<br />source of new scientific and technical knowledge, but it probably<br />could be again. So could a lot of private enterprises if NASA and<br />other parts of the U.S. government didn't have a practical monopoly on<br />many interesting areas of research.<br /><br />For major research projects to get significant funding now, they<br />either have to have tremendous (and fairly obvious) commercial<br />potential, or be extremely trendy, in a politically correct sort of<br />way. No expense (to the taxpayers) is spared protecting "endangered<br />species" that (AFAIK) have no real significance except that they are<br />about to succumb to Darwin's Law -- despite all the bleating of the<br />ecowackos, wasting money on the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker is not going<br />to produce new knowledge or improve the chances of Man surviving<br />another century. Having plentiful, cheap sources of energy would.<br /><br />But try to get money on the scale of the Manhattan Project for the<br />purpose of finally developing nuclear fusion power plants... That is<br />not by any means pure research, but the amount of pure research that<br />can only be done with the kind of energy a large fusion plant could<br />produce is staggering. But why stop with fusion? Total conversion<br />seems about as likely to be a practical source of energy now as<br />utilizing light pipes and orbital spacecraft as the backbone of a<br />worldwide communications network did during WWII.<br /><br />Do you think the U.S. might have fusion power plants online and/or<br />total conversion reactors in the lab by now if such projects had<br />received oh, say $100 BILLION dollars in additional research funding<br />since WWII? That's a Big Pile O' Money! It also happens to be<br />roughly what the U.S. has wasted on handouts to Israel since that<br />nation was created by fiat in 1948. Why not just cut all foreign aid<br />for non-humanitarian purposes (Israel gets only about 1/3 of the<br />U.S.'s foreign aid largess, after all) and use the proceeds to fund a<br />pure research lab or ten that are operated by private sector<br />organizations that have track records of doing cutting edge research<br />and producing useful knowledge?<br /><br />Stop real government waste and use the savings to fund hard science<br />research projects that short-sighted bean counters consider waste<br />because they know no better, ignorant touchy-feely nitwits in search<br />of warm fuzzies and/or vote generating pork-barrel projects that they<br />are.<br /><br />[You can see my rant sort of fizzled out at the end -- I am constantly irked by the sort of lame but very PC research that gets government funding. I want to see more funding for the sort of research that expands human knowledge in new directions, regardless of whether or not it will result in anything that should be patentable (note the wording -- a lot of crap gets patented today that shouldn't be.) But I digress...]FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1153362556627750922006-07-19T21:28:00.000-05:002006-07-19T21:29:16.643-05:00The United States' Israel errorWhy is it that prior to the end of WWII, the forming of the UN, and the creation by fiat of Israel as a religious state, the Middle East was not much of a problem area as it is now (what is now Israeli controlled territory was certainly not a constant international hot spot) as far as the people of the USA were concerned? I think the U.S. made a huge mistake in aiding and abetting the taking of Arab land and handing it over to a small (largely European) group of people who had no right to it.<br /><br />Why the very nonsecular government of Israel was formed by UN fiat (with U.S. complicity) to control an historically and culturally important (but insignificant from a natural resources perspective) in a part of the Middle East that has been historically Arab and populated by Muslims and Christians for the most part is a question people need to be thinking about.<br /><br />If Israel the nation hadn't been created where it is for stupid and wrong reasons by the world's post-WWII superpowers, the Middle East would likely be a very different and much less threatening place. There wouldn't be a Palestinian Refugee problem because a very aggressive nation wouldn't have forced millions of people to flee their homeland. Yes, Israel is the aggressor. Israel has used and abused its bizarre relationship with the U.S. to bully its way into power in the Mideast.<br /><br />The U.S. can correct the problem by declawing the monster it helped to create: just stop selling anything to Israel that could be used to build or maintain its overgrown military and then let nature takes is course. Israel would not be the obnoxious bully defending land it grabbed from the people who lived there. It would have to live up to its (no bogus) claim of being a democracy and allow all the refugees it drove out to move back and have a say in government there, lest it be overrun. Israel without US support would change its belligerent behavior almost overnight.<br /><br />The U.S. ought to cease recognizing Israel as a nation, withdrawing all military and financial support, and demand that Israel pay reparations to those it has oppressed with its tyrannical behavior. Then, after truly free, open, and democratic elections, a new government of Israel, by the people who have a real historical claim to it dating to just before WWII (when the UN and US meddled in what was absolutely none of their business), Israel would have a chance at being run by its people for its people, regardless of any official religion.<br /><br />The U.S. is in a perfect position to put an end to the ongoing problems created by Zionist Israel and help the people of that region get back to the relatively peaceful (by local standards) existence they were used to from 1776 to 1948. If the U.S. told Israel to clean up its tyrannical act, be fair and play nice, there would be a lot more peace in a land many people of Christian, Muslim and Jewish faith consider holy. Why is the U.S. supporting Israel, a nation that is founded on religious discrimination and that exists by brutally attacking any people who don't agree with its bully boy behavior?<br /><br />The U.S. can't undo the mistake it make in the creation of Israel in 1948, retroactively withdraw the massive military and financial handouts it has given to Israel every year since then, and remove all ill will it has created in the bulk of the Middle East with its political meddling in affairs surrounding Israel, but it can certainly act in the interest of world peace and democracy and its own security and economic interests, by admitting its errors and letting the region return to some semblance of normalcy on its own.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1152993212224836362006-07-15T14:29:00.000-05:002006-07-15T14:53:32.236-05:00Microsoft Giveth and Microsoft Taketh Away: Private Folders<a href="http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hands+out+private+folders/2100-1012_3-6092153.html?tag=nl">Microsoft hands out 'private' folders...</a><br /><a href="http://news.com.com/Microsoft+shutters+Windows+private+folders/2100-1012_3-6094481.html?tag=nefd.top">Microsoft shutters Windows private folders</a><br /><br />As I like to do, I got involved on a discussion about the brief appearance of Private Folders, an option provided by Microsoft for Windows XP users who use computers in an administered IT environment. The original article can be found here:<br><br /><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/15/172236">Microsoft Retracts Private Folder Option</a><br /><br />Someone's reply and my response (heavily edited for clarity) are as follows:<br /><br /><i>I always find it amusing when you have IT people developing features for Windows that really don't understand IT in the real world. Then they release something and are shocked when IT managers are furious over it. One would think MS would have a real good understanding of the IT environment and what is and is not a good idea. Good stuff :)</i><br /><br> -- gasmonso on Saturday July 15, @12:51PM<br /><br><br><br />Many IT administrators are barely-in-the-closet fascists. They enjoy making sure that their user bases have no privacy, cannot use their organizations phones or computers for anything that isn't "strictly business", are constantly under surveillance at the workplace, etc. These admins are often on power trips -- they are frequently hated by the users of the systems they (supposedly) support and those users often take pleasure in working against them in subtle (or at least anonymous) ways. These "Users versus IT Gestapo" situations are sometimes entertaining to observe, as long as one isn't part of the problem.<br /><br><br />At the other extreme are the system and network administrators who allow (even encourage) users to do (or install) whatever they damn well please on their workstations (unless the action is obviously malicious or illegal). These admins must be masochistic -- the more computer illiterate the user base, the more likely it it is to figure out (read: accidentally discover) ways to create problems which require a week's worth of IT's time to correct, on a daily or even hourly basis. These nearly anarchistic computing environments are a lot of fun while they last -- which is rarely for longer than it takes for an oh-so-clever user to crash a server, delete someone else's files, sell organizational secrets, buy a drop-in pr0n site package and run it on the facilities at the workplace, make (what she thinks are) anonymous death threats, etc.<br /><br><br />Somewhere in the middle are the administrators who can usually leave their work at the office at the end of the day but who don't mind if users want to access and maybe save personal email messages or other files from work (where the spiffy color laser printer sometimes gets used to print pictures of a worker's newborn baby or a photo that an employee wants to hang in his cube), and realize that most sane people don't truly compartmentalize their work and personal lives; that overlap is normal and natural, usually inevitable, and often beneficial -- that most folks want/expect some personal privacy in the workplace and to be cut a little slack when using office resources for personal reasons.<br /><br><br />As someone who has tried to fall into that third, loosely defined group of IT administrators/managers when I've held such positions, I find it to be worth the effort to do the balancing/juggling act. Then again, I'm a practical libertarian and not a compulsive authoritarian by nature.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1152413538792601202006-07-08T21:20:00.000-05:002006-07-08T22:40:31.246-05:00Circuit City and mail-in rebatesI went to the local Circuit City store because they often have Kingston Technologies memory at very low prices if you count their (mail-in) rebates -- lower than the best prices one can find on the 'Net at times.<br /><br />I was going to buy a pair of 1GB memory sticks for a client's notebook computer that needed upgrading and reconfiguring, as well as a WiFi router/switch so he could network his home office. They had the memory I needed at a lower price than anyplace else, except that one had to mail in a rebate form to get that price. I was okay with that, since my client wanted to get his laptop computer working right ASAP. So I grabbed the two plastic display hangers with the memory plus a Linksys WRT54G WiFi router and headed to checkout.<br /><br />There I met Ron. Ron was brusque to the point of being rude. He wanted my name, address, phone number, etc. I said "Just print the rebate forms -- you don't need any extra info as I am paying with plastic." He said Circuit City needed it for the rebate and got annoyed when I said I didn't want to be in their marketing database and didn't care what he said about them not sharing my info; that I didn't believe Circuit City's empty promises. We were coming to closure on the deal when he asked me to sign on an electronic tablet. I said just hand me the paper voucher and I will sign with a pen. He told me I *had* to sign using their electronic system.<br /><br />We had a somewhat contentious conversation then and there, about mail-in rebates being a scam that Circuit City wouldn't use if it wanted to satisfy its customers. Ron coldly informed me that the mail-in rebate in question was from Kingston Technologies (the much nicer salescritter had told me to pay for each stick of memory separately since there was supposed to be only one rebate per household (mailing address) and had mentioned that it was a manufacturer's rebate), and Ron made damn sure I didn't blame Circuit City!<br /><br />At that point, with plenty of people backing up in line behind me, I calmly told him I didn't have to buy a damned thing there and that they had just lost a customer who was already tired of their mail-in rebate racket and didn't like the way electronic signature systems are easily used to enable identity theft. Then I told him, "Cancel it. I don't want to waste my money here."<br /><br />He had already charged my debit card, before I had ever "signed" anything. I was leery when he said I had to "sign" to get a refund, so I just scribbled my initials. While I was loudly but politely complaining about how mail-in rebates inconvenienced customers, he interrupted and said (I paraphrase), "Studies show that only 42% of the rebate forms are ever mailed in, so of course Circuit City and manufacturers prefer to advertise prices after mail-in rebates." I had him repeat the 42% figure, just to make sure I heard right.<br /><br />I did get a refund for the amount charged on my checking account and have never purchased another thing from Circuit City, despite their often attractive prices on computer memory. I just want to thank Ron for being honest enough to admit that Circuit City likes taking advantage of its customers via burdensome mail-in rebates that involve intentional hassles.<br /><br />Thanks for the brief educational experience, Ron! Now I guess it is official: Circuit City uses mail-in rebates to lure in customers because it expects only 42% of them will jump through all the hoops necessary to get their rebates.<br /><br />The price on the memory after the mail-in rebates was significantly better than I ended up paying an online vendor Kahlon, for similar RAM, but Kahlon delivered the memory in two days, as promised and guaranteed the memory would work in my client's machine. Kahlon was very professional and didn't expect me to run a bureaucratic obstacle course to get their best price on my purchase.<br /><br />The Linksys router cost much more at Circuit City than it did from another online vendor that I turned to as long as I was going to have to wait two days anyway. All in all, I saved a little money overall for my client and we both had the peace of mind that we had done business with reputable businesses not trying to weasel a few extra bucks out of us if we didn't stay right on top of the mail-in paperwork.<br /><br />I read on CNET that OfficeMax has said farewell to its mail-in rebates. Best Buy is rumored to be doing the same Real Soon Now. Maybe other stores will get the hint if we make a point of explaining (in front of other potential customers) why we won't buy stuff that requires a mail-in rebate if one wants to get the best advertised price.<br /><br />Take a stand and put your money where your mouth is: Just say "No!" to mail-in rebates.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1152281158809289212006-07-07T07:39:00.000-05:002006-07-07T09:07:09.800-05:00eBay? No way!I quit using eBay a few years ago for two main reasons:<br /><br />1) eBay is not secure, safe, or fraud-free, despite all its highly touted, very annoying efforts to appear that way. I was almost ripped off by a scammer on eBay who tried and succeeded in fleecing about six other buyers. Luckily for me, the scammer was not very bright, as he accepted a personal check as payment. I stopped payment on the personal check (my banker was amused and didn't charge me a fee for that) minutes after I had used it to pay for the COD delivery at a USPS office and discovered that what I had been shipped was not what I had bid on. I got two 16MB SIMMs I found in the package, not the two 32MB sticks I had paid "COD" for with a personal check.<br /><br />The seller had not thought to specify cash or cash equivalent only as a means of covering the COD delivery, and the postal clerk had actually preferred I write a check to save myself the expense of having her create a Postal Money Order for me that she could send back to the seller, as I initially started to pay with cash. I tried to contact the seller, even though I knew he had tried to swindle me, but, not surprisingly, he had disappeared. So much for eBay's safety and security measures!<br /><br />How do I know he'd scammed others? I contacted everyone else who had a winning bid on any of his recent/only auctions under that username and warned them. They sent me back their horror stories about being defrauded/scammed on eBay by that seller. I got one email from a guy in law enforcement whose wife had been ripped off by the seller on eBay. He was going to contact a buddy of his in the city in which the seller purportedly resided, but did not have high hopes that that city's police department would catch the scammer.<br /><br />Judging by my experience and that of his other victims I contacted, he was careful to ship something that was close enough to what was auctioned off to claim that it was a mistake -- not fraud (which might make it harder to get Postal Inspectors to pay attention to his scheme). His shipped me two sticks with half as much memory as I expected, the LEO's wife got a digital camera with lower resolution than was advertised in the eBay listing, someone else got a lower capacity hard drive than they bid on (IRRC), etc.<br /><br />2) eBay is far too politically correct and is happy to impose harsh restrictions or outright bans on listings for things that might upset the sorts of mindless drones who get all excited about buying/selling "collectible" faux depression era Cobalt blue miniature tea sets.<br /><br />Don't believe me? Try to bid on or list firearms on eBay. Since eBay is not a party to the transaction itself, why did it prevent firearms from being listed? They are legally bought and sold all the time in the U.S. and most civilized parts of the world. I guess eBay has something against a woman who might want to defend herself effectively against sexual predators, or a father who wants to sell the youth-sized .22LR rifle he bought for his daughter to learn how to shoot with, now that she is an adult and buys her own firearms.<br /><br />I quote the following from the eBay Policies page:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"> Are you sure your item is allowed on eBay? Do you suspect that some one's item is counterfeit and aren't sure what eBay's policy is? You can learn more about prohibited and restricted items here. These items include alcohol, animals, credit cards, food, fireworks, tobacco and weapons.</span><br /><br />Since eBay isn't actually buying, selling, or ever in posession of the items listed on its auction site, why does it get involved by prohibiting legitimate, legal transactions from being negotiated there? Does anyone with a clue really need or want eBay as a nanny?<br /><br />3) [Yeah, that's more than two, but I found out about this yesterday, long after eBay had lost me as a customer.] eBay is not allowing Google Checkout to be used to pay for items bought through eBay:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Payment Services not permitted on eBay: AlertPay.com, anypay.com, AuctionChex.com, AuctionPix.com, BillPay.ie, ecount.com, cardserviceinternational.com, CCAvenue, ecount, e-gold, eHotPay.com, ePassporte.com, EuroGiro, FastCash.com, Google Checkout, gcash, GearPay, Goldmoney.com, graphcard.com, greenzap.com, ikobo.com, Liberty Dollars, Moneygram.com, neteller.com, Netpay.com, Nochex.com, paychest.com, payingfast.com, Payko.com, paypay, Postepay, Qchex.com, rupay.com, scripophily.com, sendmoneyorder.com, stamps, Stormpay, wmtransfer.com, xcoin.com</span><br /><br />(See: eBay's Accepted Payments Policy at: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html )<br /><br />Now, since eBay bought PayPal (another reason to dislike eBay), I can see why eBay would want to engage in uncompetitive business practices and use whatever monopolistic powers it has to keep Google from making PayPal irrelevant. The Funny thing is that eBay gets a lot of its business from Google. I think it would be funny if Google returned the favor -- eBay needs Google a lot more than Google needs ebay, I suspect. But Google has a good reputation to uphold, while eBay has little to lose it seems, given all the cautionary tales one hears from users who have been burned on eBay.<br /><br />One thing Google could do far better than ebay ever has is run a huge online auction site. Google has more than enough infrastructure in place and it need only buy one or more existing online auction sites that have been around a while, then scale them up to and beyond eBay size. That would serve eBay right and certainly fits in with Google's mission statement, since online auctions are very information intensive and often involve a lot of search. I wonder if Google could start a new auction service called Gbay? I'd do business there!<br />---<br /><br />eBay tries to distance itself from transactions by claiming to be just a venue, while it strives to make its more gullible, technophobic users feel all warm and fuzzy, safe and protected, while they are actually very exposed and at risk if they trust eBay to prevent them from being taken by online auction crooks. Just Google "fraud scam ebay" if you want proof that eBay is rife with scam artists.<br /><br />As a rule, one can find better, safer deals elsewhere on almost anything non-trivial than one can on eBay. Some fantastic (read: more useful, less noisy and less obnoxious) auction sites have sprung up all over the Web because eBay is so bad. For example, <a href="http://auctionarms.com">auctionarms.com</a> and <a href="http://gunbroker.com">gunbroker.com</a> provide popular alternatives to eBay for those who wish to buy/sell firearms and gun-related items that eBay stopped listing so as not to offend the shrilly vocal, but oh-so-PC fanatics opposed to our 2nd Amendment rights.<br /><br />After reading and hearing about the rampant fraud on eBay, its pandering to the ignorant AOHell crowd, and its generally anti-competitive behavior, I find it easy to just say "No way!" to eBay.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1152092980330956712006-07-05T04:42:00.000-05:002006-07-05T04:49:40.340-05:00What do you think of Microsoft corp?[Below is how I answered that survey question posted on http://www.arcon5.com/ .]<br /><br /><br />Microsoft, along with IBM, played a crucial role in legitimizing the personal computer as a serious tool that can be useful to almost anyone. IBM was smart (or not greedy) enough to base its PC product lines on open standards. Microsoft took the low road and went proprietary with as much as it could.<br /><br /><br />I'm not sure that Microsoft could compete effectively on an even playing field, say one after it lost an antitrust case and was forced to "open its standards" to competition the way IBM did by choice. Would you really buy Vista from Microsoft now if you knew you could get a clone for free from Ubuntu or some other Linux vendor, where user-feedback is taken seriously and nobody is trying to invade your privacy with spyware such as WGA?<br /><br /><br />Microsoft has never been an innovative company. It didn't invent DOS (for PCs) but got the contract to do PC-DOS for IBM because Digital Research screwed up when they could have had DR-DOS become the standard OS on early PCs. The WIMP (windows, icons, mouse, and pointer) interface was invented at Xerox PARC, snagged by Apple then appropriated by Microsoft, as any serious student of the history of modern computing knows.<br /><br /><br />Microsoft makes decent developer tools (Visual Studio), mostly good office tools (Office; with Word, Excel, Access, Outlook (Outlook Express is not so good), and PowerPoint (yech! -- so one can bore people to death with business graphics? -- but hey, it does what some people want to do), and and an acceptable "heavy-duty" DBMS (SQL Server). But, the *only* reason Microsoft has achieved dominance in any of the areas it currently leads in is predatory business tactics.<br /><br /><br />WordPerfect is as good or better than Word. Oracle makes DBMS that rival the best Microsoft can produce at the moment (one of the few areas that matter to it where Microsoft has real competition). Lotus 1-2-3 / Symphony could easily have become the spreadsheet / office suite of choice, had it not been for the way Microsoft used its position as OS vendor to ensure that it could develop software for the latest versions of its OS more effectively than its competitors.<br /><br /><br />While IBM had a slew of clone makers to contend with and eventually changed its business model to do what it does best (consulting, support, and specialized development projects for corporate clients) rather than compete with Compaq, Gateway, AST, Dell, Quadram and the many other vendors who could make IBM PC compatible hardware better and/or cheaper. Note that some of the ones I mentioned are no longer household names, while others competed and thrived, especially when they delivered complete hardware platforms, just as IBM did.<br /><br /><br />I'd have little problem with Microsoft if anyone could market Microsoft compatible systems and application software and Microsoft made sure the specs that had to be met were very publicly available. Microsoft would be placed in a somewhat tough position if it actually had to compete with other companies on an even playing field, even if it set the (open) standards. I strongly suspect Microsoft has the cash on hand and the ability to gather/keep the resources it would need to stay very competitive over the short and long term. It would (probably) have to learn to play nice with the rest of the industry instead of being the monopolistic bully.<br /><br /><br />Competition breeds innovation and excellence. Microsoft is sorely lacking in both of those qualities, to the detriment of the computing industry as a whole. If Microsoft had to make its core products competitive on their merits rather than because it has exclusive control of the relevant standards, people all over the world would be better off and Microsoft probably would, too. More importantly, it might (this would be a first for it) win the hearts and minds of its user base. It might even stop losing its best thinkers to Google!FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1151901318410871152006-07-02T23:30:00.000-05:002006-07-02T23:35:18.420-05:00Turning the FUD tables on Microsoft, Big Time!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.<br/><br/><strong>Take a look at the following excerpt from the Microsoft Windows XP EULA</strong>:<br/><br/>[....]<br/><br/><i>16. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants<br/>that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90)<br/>days from the date of receipt.<br/>If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits<br/>disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED<br/>DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS<br/>DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY<br/>KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the<br/>above limitation may not apply to you.<br/>Any supplements or updates to the Software, including without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes<br/>provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or<br/>condition, express, implied or statutory.<br/><br/>17. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty<br/>made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any<br/>advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the<br/>maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if<br/>any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express,<br/>implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of<br/>merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of<br/>responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the<br/>Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content<br/>through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR<br/>CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION<br/>OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.</i>[....]<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>Wouldn't it be interesting if Microsoft was obligated to live up to its marketing blather?<br/><br/>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.)<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>It would not take much to put a lot of public pressure on Microsoft to clean up its sorry act. A few million pissed off, justifiably unsatisfied, ripped off, mistreated or otherwise seriously unhappy users who are willing to take things to court, possibly with help from the hordes of greedy lawyers out there, are all that is needed to make Microsoft become more responsible and far less monopolistic in its behavior.<br/><br/>BTW, lest you think I welcome strict regulation of software companies or, even worse, licensing of IT professionals, I do not. I am very content to leave the government out of things, as long as companies such as Microsoft don't expect to go running to the government and have it help them stomp "the little guy" (read: you and me).FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1151820810558802722006-07-02T01:09:00.000-05:002006-07-02T01:13:30.573-05:00Microsoft's buggy bloatwareI 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In fairness, I consider gaping security holes to be bugs. Excel is king of the spreadsheets in a different day and age than 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.<br /><br />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.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1151400806270321832006-06-27T04:29:00.000-05:002006-06-27T05:04:41.286-05:00feedback to NPR on Network Neutrality[This is a slightly revised and extended version of my feedback to NPR regarding an article they did on Network Neutrality.]<br /><br />The objective of Network Neutrality is to define (and, if need be, regulate) the way consumers such as you, Google, Yahoo, Craigslist, and I buy and pay for bandwidth that is carried over the public airwaves or using government granted rights of way for hard wire infrastructure by telecoms, cable companies and wireless service providers (SPs).<br /><br />Network Neutrality is all about the idea that if you want to buy a certain quantity of bandwidth, you can get it for the same price (measured in bits-per-second per dollar) as anyone else.<br /><br />All the people and organizations that use the Internet already pay for the bandwidth they use and should not be subject to extortion by the SPs based on the content, source, or destination of the packets we send or receive, any more than we should get degraded service from TeleCo A if we call the sales office of Teleco B. The latter is what the greedy SPs want to make sure they can do. They should NOT be allowed to base bandwidth prices on content or addressing information.<br /><br />The price you pay for Internet access should be content and address neutral. That is what has made the Internet so great.<br /><br />[end of my letter to NPR]<br /><br />A fairly good description of the net neutrality concept and related issues can be found at:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality<br /><br />The definitions of terms presented there are useful, so I quote them here:<br /><br /><h3>Definitions</h3> <p><b>Non-discrimination</b> means that all traffic over the network (typically digital packets or bits) is treated the same by the network, including the traffic originating with the network operator. This principle of 'bit parity' means that all bits are treated as 'just bits', and no bit traffic is prioritized over other bits, and none is hampered or disabled.</p> <p><b>Interconnection</b> means that network operators have both a duty of interconnection and a right of interconnection to any other network operator. Networks must be constructed so that there are a reasonable number of accessible interconnect points; that traffic is carried to and from rival networks at reasonable rates; and that the network is built with sufficient excess capacity to accommodate the reasonably foreseeable traffic that may be presented at the head-ends or peering points. Proponents of neutrality regulations argue that without a right of interconnection, there is no network.</p> <p><b>Access</b> means that any end user can connect to any other end-user. End users may be people, but the term could also mean devices (modems, routers, switches) or even other networks. Access means that a piece of content, say, an email message, has a right to enter the network, and if properly addressed, be received by the other end user, even if said user is on another network. In other words, traffic can begin at any point on the network and be delivered to any other point.</p><br /><br />I am very interested in how Network Neutrality legislation might be patterned after Common Carrier laws that the telecommunication industry has had to deal with for years. Despite the (probably accurate) comment in the Wikipedia article and that of a friend about how I (usually rather libertarian and therefore against government meddling/regulation by default) think that some sort of government action to keep those who enjoy Internet infrastructure monopolies do not abuse them but rather use them to provide quality service to all who want to move bits over the 'Net.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29587032.post-1151034593184497132006-06-22T22:48:00.000-05:002006-06-22T22:59:59.540-05:00Democrats Need To Get A Clue, Then A New ScriptHelen Thomas wrote one of her typical OpEd pieces today. She got one thing right though: The Democrats need a new script!<br /><br />I found Helen's article on the Seattle Post Intelligencer's site:<br />http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/275029_thomas23.html<br /><br />I replied to her comments there and thought it would be something worth putting here as well:<br /><br /><br />#45496<br /><br />Posted by Mr. Wizard at 6/22/06 6:32 p.m.<br /><br />The Democrats definitely need a new script. It would help if that script was based on some sort of clear, relevant agenda instead of their usual tax and waste policies.<br /><br />The war in Iraq is not pretty. War never is. WWII was far uglier, but it was popular as far as wars go because the threat against the people of the USA was fairly obvious. Even so, the US dragged its heels before getting fully involved. It took Pearl Harbor to force the US to make the commitment to removing the threat the Axis powers posed to the world.<br /><br />The Democrats to not seem to realize that events in places such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea and even as close as the border we share with Mexico affect the health and well being of US citizens. The Democrats do not favor doing anything to grant to the oppressed people of the world the very rights and liberties the United States of America was founded to protect and preserve.<br /><br />The Democrats need a new script. It would be nice if they had a clue too.FZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03674982111722981132noreply@blogger.com0