Don’t overthink it…

Yeah, I know, it looks a little “soft.” There was a smudge on the lens that I didn’t see until it was all done. That being said, it’s still the best take because I tried 3 times to recapture the “thought” on this one and it never really came out as good as the original.

Technorati Tags: censorship, flickr

Enough bullshit, already. We have a problem. Let’s stop denying it and try to solve it in some way.

Update: Call off the dogs folks. I should clarify. I’m not talking about specific people in this post. More about the concepts as Smorty and its first batch of bloggers seem to put them out there:
1. It is not the same as an ad in your sidebar which is separated from your content. PERIOD.
2. It is unethical to have a paid link in a post and not disclose it for the world to see. PERIOD.
3. Referring to point 1, I find the rationale that this is the same as a link block in your sidebar dumb, not the people saying it. PERIOD.
4. I think the whole process is completely unethical and Smorty is getting away with what PayPerPost was crucified and almost run out of business for as far as disclosure and ethics. In fact, I think Smorty is worse because they actually advise against doing negative posts.

To anyone I’ve offended, I’m sorry. If you think Smorty is a good thing and you can make a quick buck using them, go right ahead, but you should consider separating your Smorty posts out in some way so that people know what’s paid content and what’s your content. When I see a whole assload of posts extolling the virtues of a service in the same way, I see it as nothing more than linkspamming and search engine result bumping..

Though it’s never been actually written in any law, there is an understood separation of church and state in the United States of America. We don’t have Priests running the government, and we don’t have politicians running churches. It’s just the way it is. In publishing, there’s a similar church - state issue, and it’s usually between advertising and editorial content. Advertising is a separate department and should have no influence on editorial content whatsoever.

Recently, however, we’re seeing a change in that. Services are springing up like moles in a wack-a-mole game offering to pay bloggers for doing their linkspamming for them. Not content with spamming comments sections with ads for various erection enhancing drugs, they’ve now resorted to buying bloggers off to mention their links inside a post.

The first to offer such a service was PayPerPost. You’re paid per post for taking an “opportunity,” you write about a topic, and once your post is approved you make some coin. Originally, in full sleazy linkspamming fashion, PayPerPost didn’t require disclosure. It was optional to tell readers that you were being paid for writing on a topic or product; the presumption of course being that you could just slap it into your content, “forget” to mention that you’re being paid to write it, and call it a day. Money made, link spammed, and everyone is happy.

Luckily for the blogosphere, people like Jason Calacanis jumped all over this sleaze and helped create a backlash of people who saw this for exactly what it was: linkspamming.

Since then, of course, PayPerPost has began requiring participants to disclose that they’re being scummy linkspammers, but the bad taste and poor ethics of the company tarnished their reputation in a profound way that they may never recover from, and you know what? Good. I hope they do go out of business.

Then the folks that do ad buys for this site decided that they too would try their hands at the paid content model also with a venture called ReviewMe. You’re paid to write reviews of products or services and you must disclose the fact that the post is a paid post. I’m not particularly thrilled with this model either, as people do have a habit to write favorable reviews when paid. I for one do all reviews with review samples requested from the manufacturer or products I’ve purchased myself. In that way, I feel no obligation in any way to be “kind” to the company that makes the product or service I’m reviewing.

To their credit, ReviewMe did learn from PayPerPost’s mistake and required disclosure from day one.

Smorty, on the other hand, is infinitely more sleazy.

Smorty has a word limit on posts that you write and insert a paid link into. Your post must be between 150-400 words. You’re encouraged to post multiple versions of the same post to different blogs because that will earn you more money. One of my favorite parts of Smorty is this in the rules section:

You do not have to necessarily endorse the advertiser’s website products or services, just mention them in your blog. It is entirely your opinion to post, however, please keep in mind that the advertiser has the opportunity to dispute each individual post based only on our terms. If your post fits within Smorty’s terms then Smorty administrators will still approve your post so you get paid.

In other words, beware of the pissed of advertisers. They go a step further, of course, in their FAQ, advising you not to write something negative at all:

What are the rules of writing an opinion article?
Please refer to our blogger rules page for all rules, however here are a few points

* Each opinion must be unique and especially written for that campaign and must be relevant to the campaign subject.

* We advise you not to write negative opinions as these are more commonly disputed.

* Each post must include the anchor text with a direct link to the advertisers page provided.

* Each post must include only one (1) outbound link which must be the campaign owners provided URL.

* Posts should be a minimum of 150 words and not exceed 400 words

The funniest part of Smorty, for me, was doing some digging on the company and its procedures. Aside from a metric assload of posts announcing that the blog owner had sold out to linkspammers, I’ve yet to see any kind of disclosure on any blogs that work the program. I’ve seen a lot of similar links, though. In fact, just about every post that announced the blogger had joined Smorty had some variation of the search engine baiting text that appears on each page of Smorty’s website:

Advertise on blogs, the best online advertising method of all. Blog advertising builds quality relevant inbound links to increase search engine rankings. Make money from blogging, get paid to blog weekly. Get paid for blogging your opinions by writing articles.

Another funny aspect to Smorty, and I reckon PPP also, is how people try to wrench those links into their post. Typical Smorty posts looked something like this:

I was walking to the store the other day and I passed a BURGER KING, crossed the street, and walked into a grocery store.

Seriously. They’re that bad.

I’ve seen a lot of the same justifications / rationalizations for using Smorty, the main one being the absolutely ludicrous argument that doing sponsored linkspamming is no different than accepting text ads or banner ads on your site. No one can possibly be dumb enough to actually believe that. I’ll accept that people are just justifying a deal that’s somewhat shady as enough for me to not pursue that angle any further, but let me just say this. If you think throwing content onto your blog is the same as running a clearly marked ad in your sidebar, you seriously need to evaluate your content better.

People have every right to make money however they want on their blogs. I won’t fault anyone who can’t do this entirely as a hobby. Hell, I was always dead against running ads, but now run 2 or 3 links a month that I clearly define as sponsors in my upper right corner. I don’t write about sponsors. I don’t necessarily use their services (and if I do, I don’t pimp them), and I don’t let the fact that they’re sponsors reflect on my opinion on them.

I also don’t give them ink in my content. PERIOD.

To anyone thinking that this expands your horizons of blogging, seriously, you need to get a grip. You can expand your blogging horizons by flipping through a Sears catalog if that floats your boat, but don’t hand me a line about how writing about something you have no interest in just so you can place an irrelevant link in the middle is somehow making you a better blogger with wider appeal.

I’d just ask the people doing this crap one thing. If you saw comments that had some weird text surrounding a link for no exam life insurance, getting paid while blogging, or some other obscure and silly sales pitch, would you unspam it?

If you’re honest with yourself, you already know the answer.

Yep… Apparently, the Bush administration is to blame for homework.

Yep… Didn’t exist before ole W. took office.

No Child Left Behind has to shoulder some of the blame here. No Child Left Behind and standardized testing not only turns your child into a slave to her test-scores, but they can even affect your property values: a school with low test-scores brings down the neighborhood property values. That means that whatever your approach to your kids, the chances are that the other parents in your neighborhood are busting their asses to get their kids great test scores, drilling them, sending them to tutors, helping them with assignments that they were meant to complete themselves. If you don’t do the same, your kids will suffer by comparison.

The authors report on an elementary school in North Carolina where at least twenty standardized test books have to be replaced after their use because the stressed out elementary school kids working to them have vomited on them.

Pardon my french, but are you fucking kidding me?

When the fuck did schoolkids become such whiney little shitheads that something like a textbook could cause them to vomit? Holy shit, if schools are changing because of shit like this, they deserve to be six feet under a fucking avalanche.

Of course Mr. “I’m against all kinds of authority except money when it’s buying my books” Cory Doctorow who everyone keeps calling brilliant for some reason is all for abolishing homework because some anti-homework advocates have said it cuts into play and family time.

No shit? I mean hell, Cory, what the fuck did you do when you were in school? Oh right, you overcame all of that and no one else can because no one is as fucking strong as you are.

GOD I hate this touchy feely education bullshit. We have to throw more money at education, make classes smaller, abolish tests, abolish homework, teach sexuality to kindergartners, and all the while reading scores aren’t moving, math scores are non-existent, and for some reason girls still don’t bother trying to get into computer science type fields.

One thing Mr. “Smarter than the rest of the room” Doctorow didn’t take into account, or at least didn’t mention is his fellatio of this book is that education budgets were lower when I went to school, tests were harder and scores were much higher, graduation rates were higher, classes were bigger, and homework was much more demanding.

Somehow generation after generation of student went through that system and not only survived, but thrived. In fact, Mr. Professor of DRM Sucktitude is my wife’s age. My wife, who went through a system tougher than the one I went to, somehow managed to graduate Junior High, High School, earn a bachelor’s degree, and at the end of this year a Graduate degree. And no, she didn’t do it by memorization. She’s had multiple internships and externships, clinical hours, practical experience, and so on, and all of this related to her education.

That same system, including homework, that Doctorow says the pussified little shits of today just can’t compete in.

Cory Doctorow is full of shit. So are the authors of this book, and so is anyone who thinks the reason kids aren’t succeeding in school has anything to do with the work being too difficult. Maybe he should do more than teach some bullshit class on DRM and write alien and time travel books at a liberal California school loaded with slackers and potheads and familiarize himself with the educational system in this country like my wife, the teacher and graduate student has.

A wise man once said one should not comment on that which you know nothing about.

In other words, shut the fuck up Cory and stick to what you know about, whatever the fuck that is.

Source: Boing Boing; where the fuck else?

Technorati Tags: cory doctorow, know-nothing, homework, boing boing, fucking morons

I read this with my mouth hanging open. I couldn’t believe the arrogance of someone claiming that censoring in the name of a TOS is not censoring.

Censoring is censoring, Heather. Period. I don’t care if you do it to save kittens from lightning strikes.

I’m not debating the rightness or wrongness of censoring at this point, but saying that it’s not what it is because it’s done to enforce a TOS is ludicrous.

Thomas Hawk (a friend of mine) is right as he usually is. If only the fanboys in his comments would realize it, they’d be a lot happier in life.

I can’t believe what Flickr has become. I just can’t.

XM today suspended Opie and Anthony because they didn’t take their admonishment over the Condi Rice “rape” skit seriously enough.

No, I’m not shitting you. Apparently, XM in its infinite wisdom has suspended Opie and Anthony for 30 days, and there are rumors on the O&A fan sites that Opie and Anthony have indeed been fired from XM.

When I signed up for XM in March of 2006, it was only for Opie and Anthony. Everything else was gravy, and some of it wasn’t even good gravy. In the end, I was listening to an occasional hockey or baseball game, and a few of the music channels, but it was all about O&A for me.

Well, O&A are not going to be on for 30 days, so I called XM and told them they can turn my 2 radios off immediately and I would not be turning them back on unless O&A come back. I meant it.

In fact, I meant it so strongly that not only would I not get XM if O&A got fired, I’d go buy Sirius.

That’s right. I’d have Sirius in a minute. Oh sure I’d never listen to Hoo Hoo Howie, but I figure turning off one AND turning on the other is even better than just doing the turn off thing.

We’ll see what happens tomorrow. Ironically, FreeFM which fired JV and Elvis, and is owned by CBS who fired Don Imus, has enough balls to keep O&A on the air. Good on them. I’ll be listening to FM radio tomorrow morning because that’s where O&A are.

Where they go, I go, because that’s what it means to be a fan.

Technorati Tags: opie and anthony, o&a, xm, xm satellite radio, sirius

I don’t use that word often, but I couldn’t come up with another one. Maybe it’s a bit harsh, but something he’s doing really burns me. The kooks over at the Westboro Baptist Church were planning on protesting the funerals of the Virginia Tech shooting. It’s a cowardly, lower than low, garbage act that only a complete piece of garbage would take part in, hence the fact that it attracted these kooks like a bright light attracts moths.

But that being said, it is also their constitutional right to do so, and Mike Gallagher is doing nothing more than silencing the free speech rights of others here…

You may recall that when they were planning to protest outside the funerals of the slain Amish children in Pennsylvania, I offered an hour of airtime on my radio show to Westboro Baptist Church in exchange for their written promise to stay out of Pennsylvania and leave those grieving families alone. They accepted my offer and were guests on my show for an hour. When I found out that they were planning to hold protests outside the Virginia Tech victims funerals, I’ve made the decision to offer them more airtime. On Tuesday, April 24, Shirley Phelps-Roper and other members of Westboro Baptist Church will be my in-studio guests for the entire program. They have formally announced that they are cancelling all of their scheduled protests for the Virginia Tech shooting victims funerals as a result of receiving this invitation to be on my show.

Congratulations, Mike. I should also post his weak explanation:

I know that many people disagree with my decision. I have also received many notes and calls of support. Please allow me to state why I’m doing this: I truly feel called, on a spiritual level, to allow my radio show to be a tool that prevents these angry, hateful people the opportunity to hurt grieving families. I fully comprehend the arguments against doing this (”giving in to ‘terrorists’, “allowing them a national platform”, etc.) but my heart is telling me to do something positive here. If my radio show can prevent a circus atmosphere of protests, counter-protests, police protection, and media coverage from taking place in front of churches where grieving families are trying to say good-bye to their loved ones, then I think that’s a good thing. I feel with all of my heart that this is the right thing to do.

No it isn’t. It’s a self-aggrandizing load of crap.

No one is agreeing with what those pieces of trash have to say. Hell, Shirley Phelps Roper left a pretty scathing and incoherent comment on my last post about her proving that her education level is probably one step higher than that of a 7 year old, but even so, I never deleted her comment, and I invite people like her and her slimy family to post here any time they want because I believe that the only way to have an open honest discussion about ideas is to hear all of them. You can argue with them. You can call people names. You can spit at their feet if it makes you feel better.

In the end, however, you don’t protect speech by silencing it.

Over the years, anyone can tell you I’m a free speech absolutist. I believe people have a right to say whatever the hell they want, and you do not have a right to not be offended. I don’t care if people say the most hateful thing you’ve ever heard; that’s the penalty you pay for living in a free country.

I’m sure Gallagher got a lot of happy pats on the back from various people around the country. I’m sure this raised his profile from obscure to semi-obscure. I’m even sure that he probably made a few friends and admirers doing this.

But, when all is said and done, Mike Gallagher has done nothing to promote the ideals of this country; ideals he supposedly believes in above all else. At the top of that list is freedom of expression, and that right isn’t tied to who you are or what you’re saying.

Case closed.

Well, I guess all is forgiven. Don Imus has been fired. The black community can now safely go back to calling each other niggers, bitches, and hos without having some white interloper jump in the middle of it.

For years I’ve been consistent on one thing. You have the right to say whatever you want and no one has a right to not be offended. For this stupid off-color remark to blow up into what it did proves only one thing: you can say what you want, just not about black people.

Doubt it?

Think about it for a second. Do you really think this is the first time a radio host made an off-color comment about a race? Or a religion? Or a sexual orientation? Hell, this wasn’t even a racist comment. It was, at worst, a comment about the players being from the ghetto. So fucking what?

Here’s a piece of advice for the losing non-national-champion Rutgers basketball team: Get some thicker skin. People aren’t going to like you and they aren’t going to have a lot of good things to say about you at every turn in your life. Hell, if you had actually won the tournament, he wouldn’t have said anything either, but you lost. You didn’t win second. You lost.

Which brings me to the point of this post.

One of the idiots on the Rutgers team actually had the stones to say that this “spoiled all their accomplishments.”

You lost.

I repeat.

You lost.

Apparently losing a national championship is nowhere near as bad as being called a nappy headed ho.

Talk about needing some perspective.

Don Imus made a stupid remark. He did not make a remark that required him to be fired. He certainly didn’t deserve to be lectured on racism by two of the biggest race baiters in the world, Al “White Interloper and Tawanna Brawley” Sharpton and Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson.

The good news is that Al Sharpton says this is only the beginning. I’m sure he’s going to go after the 3 urban stations in New York City where they fling around the word nigger, ho, pimp, slut, nappy-head, hooker, bitch, and so on. After all, they’re demeaning black women left and right.

I can’t wait to see that happen.

It’ll probably happen around the time a monkey flies out of my ass.

Technorati Tags: al sharpton, jesse jackson, rutgers, don imus

Apparently you can be as cruel as you want to animals in the UK.

A woman who killed her boyfriend’s cat by putting it in a clothes washing machine after an argument was given a four-month suspended prison sentence on Monday.

Diane Hannon, from north Wales, was looking after the white fluffy cat called Paws last summer while her friend Duncan Carthy was away.

She put the six-year-old cat, which was deaf, into the washing machine before switching it on. Paws died from a heart attack and suffered loss of hair and scalding.

Inspector Kevin Patin of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) said in a statement: “This is the worst act of deliberate cruelty I have ever seen.”

Hannon, who suffered from depression, told a Welsh court that she and Carthy had argued before he went away, causing her to feel wounded and angry.

Hannon, who admitted last December to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal, was banned from owning animals for life.

You should be wounded.

Inside a dryer.

Share and share alike!

Source: Yahoo! News

Technorati Tags: cat, cruelty, animal, horrible, drop dead

Fucking hell this pisses me off. Forbes magazine credits Getty for using their images and completely violates the License attached to non-Getty images (for example, they jacked one right off Thomas Hawk’s page).

What the hell, Forbes?

read more | digg story

From Time Magazine:

Recently in New York City, an unarmed black man was shot to death by police officers who thought he might have a weapon. Why do you think incidents like this keep happening?

The police are addicted to a contagious need to expel rounds of deadly bullets. They cannot control themselves because they see their fellow companions do it. They don’t carry the same standard they would in more affluent communities. Race only plays a role because there are more blacks and Hispanics in poor communities.

It doesn’t happen in affluent neighborhoods because:

1. Most affluent neighborhoods don’t follow the ghetto mentality of “stop snitching” and actually respect the police.
2. Most affluent neighborhoods don’t shoot at cops for giggles.
3. Most affluent neighborhoods aren’t packed with gun-toting drug-dealing teens.
4. Most affluent neighborhoods don’t have gang problems.
5. Most affluent neighborhoods don’t have pieces of garbage like Charlie Rangel, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson pushing their “f**** the police” agenda.
6. Most affluent neighborhoods aren’t loaded with kids that worship thug pieces of garbage like Biggie and Tupac.
7. Most affluent neighborhoods aren’t filled with single mothers who can’t control their kids.
8. Most affluent neighborhoods aren’t in need of constant police presences just to exist.

That’s just a list for starters.

Charlie Rangel is a race-baiting and polarizing piece of garbage; plain and simple.

Technorati Tags: charlie rangel, time magazine, garbage, crap, trash

My good friend Vidiot got all bent out of shape over Peter Roskam saying Tammy Duckworth wanted to cut and run from Iraq, the implication being that since she served in Iraq and lost her legs there, both the accusation that she wanted to retreat from Iraq was uncalled for and the choice of words was outwardly offensive. From the MSNBC article:

During an election debate at the weekend in the outskirts of Chicago, Peter Roskam, the Republican candidate for Illinois’s sixth district, trotted out the familiar line that his Democratic opponent wanted America to “cut and run” from Iraq.

His opponent, Tammy Duckworth, a former National Guard pilot who lost both her legs in Iraq last year when her helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade, was visibly angry at the exchange. “I just could not believe he would say that to me,” said Ms Duckworth, who now walks on artificial legs with the help of a cane. “I have risked my life to serve my country and you cannot question my patriotism.”

This is the problem with Democrats. No one questioned her patriotism in that statement. He questioned her wanting to leave Iraq. If he did it in ads, no one here has seen the ads to tell otherwise.

Secondly, there’s this quote:

“I am sick and tired of the Republicans saying ‘Either you agree with us on national security or you are not patriotic’,” says Ms Duckworth, whose campaign has ignited the highest level of volunteer door-to-door support the Democrats can remember in this district. “It is total baloney – in fact I have a better army word, but I can’t use it. We must never forget that it is patriotic and it is American to question people in power.”

The typical Democrat talking point that everyone is allowed to question those in power, but no one is allowed to question the questioners. Ever. Period.

Cindy Sheehan cannot ever be questioned on anything because Casey died in Iraq.

Kristen Breitweiser (and her gaggle of 9/11 widows) cannot be questioned on her position on 9/11 because her husband was killed.

Max Cleland’s judgement on defense matters cannot be questioned because he lost his limbs in Vietnam.

John Kerry’s courage because he got some purple hearts that he still won’t release the records that explain the wounds that explain them.

And now, Tammy Duckworth cannot be questioned on her plan to leave Iraq and “cut and run” as her opponent calls it because she served there. Apparently, serving in Iraq makes you an expert on it who cannot be questioned for any reason whatsoever. Unless of course you’re pro-war, in which case serving in Iraq means only that you’re a puppet of the Bush administration.

Why this gets any more attention than any other political pissing contest is beyond me, except that Democrats have once again set themselves up as unquestionable on an issue. For all the talk about how people inside the Bush Administration will immediately call you unpatriotic, isn’t a war veteran holding up her war service as a shield against all criticisms of her war beliefs the same exact thing?

Of course it is. Anyone not looking at it through partisan glasses can see it.

Which basically means nobody.

Technorati Tags: tammy duckworth, peter roskam

There’s always one. One old broad who can’t bear the thought of walking 10 feet to the store. One who thinks that because she was there when the Grand Canyon was simply “The Large Pothole,” she only has to follow laws when they’re at her convenience.

Such is the case with this spectacular example of human inconsideration.

1. She parked in a handicapped spot without a tag on her mirror or without the plates, either of which is required in New York State.
2. She parked well outside the boundaries of the actual spot she’s not supposed to be in, blocking at least partially the ramp for the handicapped people who need it for their wheelchair, etc.
3. She parked at least 3 feet from the curb and left the rear of her car sitting in the aisle where cars need to pass.

And most notably, as far as I can tell, she got up out of the car and walked into the store.

Why do people think it’s okay to do this kind of crap?

Anyway, it’s all well and good. Maybe a little internet shame will change this waste’s ways.

Technorati Tags: handicapped, disabilities, inconsiderate, inconsideration, disgrace

The fourth position from which to regard Gawker is abject fear (and probably consequent loathing) from brand owners. Of all Gawker Media’s titles, Consumerist.com has the most fear-provoking potential. This is because Consumerist.com is a brand killer.

“Capitalism is broken. We’ll help you fix it,” reads the closing to the “about us” section of the Consumerist site. Billing itself as a guide “through the delinquencies of retail and service organizations,” Consumerist promises to highlight “the persistent, shameless boners of modern consumerism” along with “the latest hot deals, discounts, and freebies.” But mostly it does the former, and its favorite targets are cellphone companies, fast food joints, airlines, hotels, and computer manufacturers — all capital “B” Big Brands.

On June 13, 2006, Vincent Ferrari made a recording of his tragically hilarious attempt to cancel his America Online (AOL) account. Despite rumors that he went fishing for such a bad example of customer service, Vincent was soon all over the Internet and the televised news. Consumerist smelled blood and has since made AOL its whipping boy. Recently the site got its hands on an AOL customer retention manual. You can imagine how that went.

Where’d you hear those rumors, Abram? Or are you simply starting them?

It’s not unusual to see a hit piece about me since the AOL incident. Lots of pre-pubescent AOL fanboys think it’s the best thing evar on teh internets!!!1!!!!!!1111!! But to see something like this in a “respectable” publication is aggravating to say the least. In fact, the worst part of it is he seems to completely misunderstand the story.

First of all, Consumerist didn’t propel the story as much as Digg did.

Secondly, there were no rumors of any kind about me fishing for bad customer service examples at AOL until some troll who worked at AOL posted a link to a slapped together blog with a post about how I contacted AOL 170 times fishing for a bad experience. The logic of that notwithstanding, how does one attempt to cancel 170 times without setting off a red-flag of some kind?

Apparently Abram Sauer thinks that’s perfectly rational.

In other words, Abram Sauer is spreading an untrue rumor about me under the guise of reporting that a rumor out there exists. In his obvious desire to take on Gawker, he had to take his shots at me too.

Maybe I’ll pay a call to Mr. Sauer and see what gives.

That is, if he has the stones to actually talk to me.

Technorati Tags: aol, consumerist, gawker, interbrand, abram sauer

What is it about AOL that makes its employees Kool-Aid consumers? I’m starting to wonder because either their employees are all brainwashed or really well-trained not to say anything to upset the corporate suits. Check out this question and answer from Download Squad and the CEO of recently-acquired AOL Property, Userplane.

DLS: Given recent headlines about AOL–the Vincent Ferrari call and the search data release–did you have concerns about AOL’s public image or practices going into the acquisition?

Jones: AOL has a long history as pioneers behind the consumer internet. Their recent headlines are unfortunate but not long lasting. After spending time within their organization and seeing where they are headed I could not be more excited about their direction and have no doubts on their handing of sensitive data. Userplane is extremely concerned about confidentiality within our network - if anything - I believe AOL will further enhance the security and privacy we already have in place.

Damn. This guy’s been a member of the AOL team less than a week and he’s already tip toeing on that line.

Their recent headlines are not some abomination, but an exhibition of what they’ve been better at keeping from view over past years than recently.

I’m not trying to bash AOL. They’re a company that has its good points and bad points, but let’s understand what they’re about. AOL has major issues up and down its heirarchy. My call, the woman whose dead dad was still getting billed, and the recent leak of thousands of search results are not some flash in the pan as Jones suggests. They’re emblematic of a corporate culture that sees its users as property with which they can do as they please.

I’m sorry but that’s not the way to operate.

And if you don’t believe me, here’s a point that proves it.

When the recording of John and I hit the media, John was fired instantly. The issue was “resolved” as far as AOL was concerned because they fired the offending employee and everything was all well and good. They got to the bottom of the issue, acted quickly, and something got done.

Point? It made AOL look bad, hurt AOL, and AOL acted quickly and authoritatively.

Now contrast that with the reaction to the data leak.

Surely you’ve seen it. Oh wait, you couldn’t have.

There hasn’t been one.

In fact, I e-mailed Nicholas Graham from AOL the following question:

Hey Nicholas,

Hope all is well.

Lots of my readers have been writing me to ask me what I thought about the recent data leak from the research department, and I’ve read lots of comments from various people inside the company, but none of them answered one question. What happens to the guys who let this out there? They apparently didn’t check with anyone before doing so (at least if you hear the comments being bandied about by various AOL Execs) and they clearly violated the privacy promise AOL makes its customers.

What’s AOL’s next step? Are there some terminations about to happen? Is someone going to be held accountable for doing this, apparently without the blessing of the folks higher up the ladder than them? The impression is that nothing is going to be done, and all the distancing is being done after the fact because of the bad publicity.

Inquiring minds want to know!

Thanks,

Vincent Ferrari

To which I received the following reply:

Vincent. I got your email, and I hear ya. These are fair questions and we’re getting to the bottom of it through a thorough investigation of the facts. These questions fall under the internal review we’re conducting. Stay tuned, Nicholas

Now, I understand that Nicholas Graham is not in a position to fire / hire anyone. I also understand that he’s not the kind of guy who can pull strings and make people disappear. He’s just a spokesperson, and I’m fine with that. I wasn’t e-mailing him to ask him to do something, I e-mailed him to ask him what was being done.

The answer basically amounted to “We’re looking into it.”

What exactly is there to look into? They know who did it and who was responsible. Is a head going to roll or not?

Point? It hasn’t made AOL look as bad to the average consumer and it would appear that they’re going to just ride this one out and hope people forget about it (although, only time will truly tell).

Both stories go a long way toward showing off the attitude of AOL, but they also demonstrate the kind of company it really is. It also shoots down Jones’ argument that these headlines are short-lived. It isn’t about the headline, Michael, it’s about the underlying story. The sooner you learn that, the sooner things are going to be better for you there.

There are good people at AOL. Lots of ‘em. But you’ll never convince me that the atmosphere at that company is anything but toxic and even the best are going to succumb to it sooner or later.

Technorati Tags: aol, userplane

Cory seems to be outraged that the recent restrictions on certain kinds of materials in carry-on luggage doesn’t effect those who fly on Air Force One.

I know Cory’s a lib. That’s all well and good. In essence it means he is completely incapable of saying George W. Bush without saying something irrepressibly stupid immediately thereafter, but when you read something like this, you just have to laugh:

Here’s a question: Does Tony Blair get to bring his laptop on his government plane? Can Laura Bush keep her lipstick with her on Air Force One? Does Dick Cheney take off his shoes and get them x-rayed before he flies? How about Condi Rice’s knee-high lace-up boots? Is her mission to Israel delayed while she tries to re-lace them while balancing her laptop bag on one shoulder and trying to get her watch back on?

It seems to me like our glorious leaders are pretty good at setting out the “minor inconveniences” that the rest of us have to put up with, but when was the last time you heard of any of them enduring the same measures?

Now, GW Bush may say, “But I’m no terrorist! Why shouldn’t I be able to bring my hip-flask onto Air Force One with me?” But I’m no terrorist either. I don’t see why the man should be exempt from his own rules. If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the butcher.

Dammit, dude, are you really that frigging stupid?

Wait.

He is.

Cory, here’s a piece of advice for you, you whiny piece of idiotic trash.

When you submit to security checks, background checks, a complete and thorough vetting by the government, and an oath of office, then I’m sure you can fly on Air Force One without leaving your shampoo behind or your marvelous Ubuntu-loaded Chinese-made Thinkpad in your stowaway luggage. Until then, shut your mouth, quit your whining, and stop pretending George W. Bush is the first President to set rules that don’t apply to them.

I know that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter waited for every traffic light in their motorcade, and got on the security lines at airports just like you and I, but the world has indeed changed.

Moron.

And now you know why Boing Boing doesn’t allow comments.

Technorati Tags: cory doctorow, idiot, moron, schmuck, dope, dumbass

I knew it was only a matter of time before these stories started showing up:

Earlier this month a few of the blogosphere’s geek elite publicly switched from Mac OS X to the Linux Ubuntu operating system, citing the Mac’s proprietary data format and expensive hardware as the reason.
Given the chance to run an operating system as nice as OS X for free on less expensive hardware, I’d jump right on that bandwagon. The thing that keeps me from full-time Ubuntu (besides, you know, writing about the tech that most of the world uses to make my living) is fear that it just won’t work as well as Windows or Mac OS X.
But that’s just me. What would it take to get you to switch to Ubuntu? If it’s something you’ve considered, what’s holding you back? Current Ubuntu users, is the OS ready for primetime? Let us know what you think in the comments or to tips at lifehacker.com.

Let’s look at a couple of the switchers cited before addressing the utterly silly claim that someone could switch from MacOS to Ubuntu and be equally happy.

Mark Pilgrim: Switched to Ubuntu because his iTunes library got corrupted, his iPhoto library got corrupted, iMovie wasn’t powerful enough for him, Safari wasn’t good enough for him, and so on and so forth. So what did he do? He switched to a Mac, which has zero equivalents for any of the above. Oh well. I’m sure he’ll be pleased because he’s fighting the “man” who’s locking down his content. Woopdeedoo.

Cory Doctorow: As much as I like Cory, his philosophy is generally if it isn’t free and stealable, it isn’t worth owning. All content creators should allow 100% unfettered use of their content and so on, and just trust that people won’t be bad about it. His way of fighting the power was buying a chinese-made laptop (surely you know China? The repressive country Boing Boing is always on about?) and installing Ubuntu to liberate his content. In doing so, he would also follow Mark’s “essentials” list, which, oddly enough, included no content production software. Surely you remember content. It was the reason Mark switched to begin with!

I’m under no delusions here. I think Ubuntu is a great operating system. I have an Ubuntu box and I have Ubuntu running on my Windows desktop in Virtual PC. Frankly, I think it’s a great OS, and easily the best distro of Linux thus far. As a content creator, however, not only do the apps fall short, but the available apps don’t come close to what’s included with a Mac, let alone what’s available commercially from third parties. The same goes for Windows XP.

Another problem is that often the most basic of hardware doesn’t install properly on an Ubuntu machine. Period. Windows users don’t have that problem, and Mac users don’t have to deal with it because their hardware is mostly integrated. No one is making “Linux” hardware, though, meaning if you want to get something as obscure as the ubiquitous Linksys WPC54g WiFi card working, you have to wait for some guy in some forum to hack out an install for you if you don’t know how to code a driver. Does that sound appealing to you? Certainly not to me.

Ubuntu has its place, and even from version 5 to 6 (Breezy Badger to Dapper Drake, for those of you up on the lingo), the improvements are not only noticeable, but profound, but there is no mass market appeal for Ubuntu. At least not now. That doesn’t mean there won’t be any in the future, of course. In fact, throw in a few more content-creation apps, some better hardware compatibility, and a good way to partake in formats that every other platform can. Mark’s assertion that Apple locks down his content is utterly laughable. Last I checked, you could easily produce a DVD with iDVD. If you don’t want to produce Quicktime or H.264 / MPEG 4 encoded movies, don’t use iMovie; use Final Cut, Avid, or any of the myriad of other options. In Windows, you can use Premiere Elements (or Pro), and so on. Photos are manageable through so many other apps, it doesn’t even pay to mention them. Your content is as free as the software you use, not the platform you use it on.

I’m not surprised that someone like Cory Doctorow would make a move like this. It seems right up his alley. For some people, though, content creation is still number 1. I prefer creating content to tweaking an OS. Taking pictures to organizing them, and editing video to getting my firewire connection going.

I have a damned good desktop PC, and an even better Black Macbook. Nothing on Ubuntu hardware or software-wise can touch either one of them. As the saying goes, however, you get what you pay for, and Ubuntu is free after all. Some day people may switch to Ubuntu from Mac or Windows and be able to make that move stick. In fact, many people can do it right now.

I’m not one of them.

Technorati Tags: ubuntu, mac os, windows, osx, operating systems, geeky, os

It’s becoming an epidemic these days. Customer calls customer service. Customer service doesn’t listen to customer. Customer gets enraged. Customer service still talks around the issue but never addresses it.

Here the recording here.

At least in this case, the drone on the other end of the phone had the presence of mind to stop making himself look like an ass (namely by saying because there were multiple T1’s in the airport in question, there’s no way the connection would drop) and just give the guy a credit for his day pass to come back some other day in the future and use the service again.

Rudy’s been doing this his whole life. Anyone else surprised by the fact that someone with that much experience but that little intelligence is still a low-level customer care drone?

I’m not. Companies never put their best people into customer care.

Just for the record, David did actually get a call from someone claiming to be from T-Mobile:

One day after this blog was published, a person by the name of Cornell Cunningham claiming to be a Senior Manager of Customer Care at T-Mobile contacted me by phone to issue an apology and comment on his thoughts about the call and his expectations of T-Mobile’s customer service personnel. I asked him to send me his response in writing so that I could share it with ZDNet’s readers. When and if that statement arrives (I had no way of verifying the caller’s identity), I will publish here on ZDNet.

via Consumerist

Technorati Tags: t-mobile, hotspot, customer service, consumerism

So everyone is all a-twitter over the recent decision by a judge that basically outlawed companies that were “sanitizing” movies from doing so and providing them to their paying customers as cleaned-up versions.

One such person that was all righteously pleased with a raised fist was Charlie over at Gizmodo, who, I’m guessing from his go-getter attitude about the whole thing is a movie-maker or at least a wannabe, had this to say:

Rightfully so. These movies already had one editor. That job was done by a trained professional. As a director, the whole idea of some hack editing my work and then re-selling it makes my skin crawl. If someone doesn’t want to hear certain words or phrases, the movies containing such language are well-marked. They can simply choose not to watch those movies.

Justice is done. The judge said it’s up to the moviemakers to decide what’s in their content. CleanFlicks plans to appeal that ruling. To those who want to censor movies, cleaning them up for their own prudish devices, here’s a choice phrase, specifically edited just for them: fuck you. – Charlie White

2 very important points that Mr. F-Bomb missed.

This back-room third-party editing goes on all the time. That’s right folks. These people aren’t the first people to do it, and they won’t be the last. There is a big-time offender that we’re much more familiar with. We know it as television.

Every single movie that’s shown on television is hacked to death before it’s aired. Hell, just get a listen at any of your favorite movies when they show up as the ABC Movie of the Week. They not only hack it up for content purposes, but sometimes they even cut it for time. They often take creative liberties with movies shown on their channels.

What’s that, you say? They aren’t charging for it? Ya know those things in the middle of the movie? Sure you do. They pop up every couple of minutes and usually go for about 5. They’re commonly known as commercials. Surely you’ve seen ‘em. I know for a fact, I have. They (the companies you see) pay to have their ads put in the middle of movie sections. That’s right folks, the companies that advertise during television movies are paying, and doing it to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, for you to watch that movie that’s all hacked up, edited, and walking around with the words, “monkey flipper” instead of “mother f***er.”

Secondly, there’s such a thing as fair use, and this is a definite example. Editing a movie to remove objectionable content is no more a violation of copyright laws than closing your eyes during the scary parts of a horror movie. Objections to this are more likely based in the hatred for the people doing it than the thing they’re doing. It’s as obvious as the “f*** you” remark Charlie made.

I’m not a prude. In fact, most of the time, I make the inappropriate joke, remark, or comment. It gets me in trouble on a regular basis; it’s who I am. My point in telling you this is that I’m not supporting this because I would go out and buy a movie that’s been cut up and sit at home praising God for such a great re-cut. I think it’s silly and stupid, but I also think people have a right to it if they want it. Seeing as most of the arguments against this service is that it ruins the artistic integrity of the movie, it makes you wonder if ABC, CBS, or NBC were to buy the rights and air a movie cut for time and edited for content if the Charlie Whites of the world would have a word to say about it.

My guess is no. If you throw enough money at artistic integrity, it tends to have very little problem moving into the back-seat.

Technorati Tags: movies, sanitizing, charlie white

The New York Post has posted an amazing story. An exclusive! No one has ever done this before!

Camera phones are becoming the frontline defense for women to stop subway perverts in their tracks, experts say.

Self-defense pros say the power to humiliate flashers and gropers by exposing their overexposure with a snapshot is an even more powerful weapon for women than a can of Mace or kick in the groin.

“The simplest thing that someone can actually do with zero training is to employ public humiliation,” said Rudy Zadwarny, 50, who teaches martial arts and women’s self-defense. “These guys try to do it when they think no one knows it.”

To those ends, photos of convicted gropers and flashers may soon be posted inside subway cars under a plan proposed by City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr.

Wow. The New York Post has discovered something that a group of individuals has been doing for quite awhile now.

Dubbed Hollaback NYC, they’ve been catching scumbags with camera phones all around the city, not just on subways. Why? Because the Police never seem to be around to catch the scumbags that are harassing women openly on the street. Hell, read this story:

I hopped on the downtown 6 train tonight at about 7:30. It was a very crowded car, and so of course everybody was bumping up against each other. There was an arm against my rear - or so I thought - so I moved up a couple of inches. Then, there it was again. And again. And again. Eventually I realized that it wasn’t an arm at all - it was a hand that was getting friendlier and friendlier as the train moved from 51st to 42nd.

Nice. And no one around to protect her.

Face it Pete. People have already started doing this. It’s best you don’t start taking credit for it.

And shame on the post for being so oblivious that they didn’t know about HBNYC.

Found on Lifehacker

Technorati Tags: hollaback, ny post, peter vallone, perverts, sickos