Big Brother ^H^H^H^^H^H Microsoft knows what's best for you

I wanted to share something that I just noticed on this PC. I'm running Windows XP Pro SP2 on this desktop, and apparently Microsoft is assuming that they know what security and update settings I want. Yesterday I had the little yellow shield come up in my clock tray informing me that my system was downloading updates automatically, as I had set. I had chosen the "download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them" setting. I was checking my system today, since I didn't remember choosing updates to install after that, and lo and behold, the automatic updates setting had been changed. Hmm, I wonder who did that...

If you want to check your own system, open Start->Settings->Control Panel->Automatic Updates and look for the setting. I had mine set to "Download updates..." but it had been changed to "Automatic(recommended)". Screenshot is below.


Why does this matter? Well, it seems the latest round of "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" bullshit (read: You're a fithy pirate until we say otherwise) will keep you from being able to download security updates until you prove to MS that you've actually paid for Windows. Which I guess is fine, if it works right, and if Microsoft can be trusted to not demand people arbitrarily buy new copies of Windows because their old versions didn't "pass" for some reason.. oh, wait. Fuck.

Also, I don't want MS's fucking Spyware Removal Tool or Malicious Software removal whatever installed on my PC. MS can't be trusted to objectively say what is and isn't spyware/viruses. They've already proven their decision can be bought if there's enough incentive for them to do so. There's just too much potential for abuse here; we really don't want MS to be selling weapons to both sides in this war.

Take 5 seconds to check your settings. Drop me an email if you have any questions.

Traffic slow? Too bad, pay us more and we'll fix it.

So the big telecom companies are trying to assram through some legislation that basically would specifically allow them to shape network traffic (i.e. give priority to some traffic over others) based on how much the web site (likely targets are Yahoo!, Myspace, Google Video, Amazon, etc., the biggies) has paid them for their bandwidth. By paying more for their service, their traffic will be sent more quickly than those who are paying less. IOW, if there's four other people in your neighborhood watching Google Video, and you're trying to download a grant proposal form .PDF from a non-profit, your ass is out of luck until some bandwidth frees up.

Right now this does happen, but not intentionally. Every packet (bit of Internet information) has an equal chance at being sent from point A to point B. Under the proposed scheme, if A has paid more than B, A's traffic gets sent while B's traffic just sits there.

"Gee, that's a nice .com business you've built up there, it'd be a shame if anything ....'appened to it.." That's right! It's a Protection racket! The organizations with all the power (in this case, the fiber and copper that carry the Internet's traffic) are demanding money from businesses in return for not destroying them. It also means that unless you've got the cash to effectively bribe them with, your startup is doomed to obscurity and failure.

What does ths mean, practically? It means that 1) the big bandwidth providers, namely telcos and cable companies, get to extort more money from sites on pain of having their traffic shitcanned, and similarly, 2) they get to choose what companies can succeed, instead of the consumer making their choice based on silly things like customer service and/or value.

You might be thinking that "well gee, if they want to pay a premium for premium service, what's wrong with that?" If this were any other medium, I'd agree with you. But previously, companies would pay more money for more bandwidth, and the usual economies of scale would apply (if you buy in larger quantities, you'd get a better price per unit, etc.). Under the new proposal, you'd still be paying for that bandwidth, but then paying more to make your bandwidth more important than the other guy's. It's kind of like the carpool lane; you get access to a faster lane if you meet some requirements, like carrying several people or driving a hybrid. But the difference is, you'd have to pay an extra toll to drive in that lane, meaning the rich could get around that much faster, making it that much harder for the less rich to do what they need to do. Replace cars with Internet traffic, and you've got the idea.

Doesn't really seem fair, does it. Companies already pay for bandwidth, as do consumers. But double-dipping isn't enough apparently, now they want to triple-dip. Apparently they've learned that there's still some money out there that isn't in their pockets (those damn consumers! How did our money get in their checking accounts?) and of course, they can't allow that!

Tell your congresscritter that this is bullshit (but don't use that word, please be polite.) Hopefully there will be enough of them that haven't completely handed over the titles to their souls to big business to make a difference.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

O_O

This health shake contains brewer's yeast. I vomit.

So it's not bad enough that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond got a 150 MILLION DOLLAR (/drevil) retirement package. $150 million for NOT WORKING ANYMORE. Add that to the fact that he made something like $170,000 PER DAY last year and the fact that I'm paying $3 for a gallon of gas. Pretty disgusting in and of itself.

Then there's what he said at Columbia University last night. Apparently, the fact that we're all disgusted by this is our fault: (from CNN Money)

"People don't understand the time frame that we operate in. We operate in terms of 10-, 20-, 30-, 40-year cycles and to put that in context, that's 20 (U.S.) Congresses. A single quarter or a single year, which may mean everything from a political circus point of view, is not really all that significant in the time frame that we operate in," Raymond said.

He added later: "It's not like we didn't say it. But the only conclusion I think you can come to is, it didn't penetrate."

Let me translate for the bullshit impaired: "We know better than you, you're fucking stupid for not believing what we say, shut up and give us your money. After all, where the fuck else are you going to get gas? Chevron? Sunoco? I play golf with those guys. We decide gas prices over $50 Martinis at the 19th hole. Then we call our buddies at OPEC and cut them in for a taste."

It gets better:

"I have never had a conversation in my whole career about my compensation," he said.

OK, this just completely defies the entire concept of credibility. Are we to believe that he's never, EVER, discussed what he gets paid with the board of Exxon? That he's just said "Oh whatever you guys want to pay me is just fine."? Are you fucking kidding me?

He has the balls to defend his compensation! Anyone with any shame at this point (if they haven't decided to donate the whole kit and kaboodle to charity out of a sense of decency) would slink off to whatever tropical locale they happen to like, spend their money, and be fucking QUIET. But NOOO, this asshole has to insist there's nothing wrong with it, and if we disagree, we're stupid!

He's right. We are stupid. Stupid for allowing this cuntrag to get away with this. Stupid for not storming his goddamn mansion and stringing him up by his testicles. Stupid for not choking him to death with his own chins.

That's right, Lee. I'm advocating your slow, painful, public, drawn-and-quartered, choking on your own entrails, it's-too-good-for-you death. You fucking deserve it, you fat piece of shit. Do you have any idea how many sick children you could help with that money? Do you know how much damage you're doing to the middle class by squeezing every last cent out of their budgets? Do you know how many poor families will be unable to heat their homes this winter because you had to have a big payday? Do you even care that you're quite possibly the most disgusting example of a pigopolist IN THE FUCKING HISTORY OF MANKIND?

There's a limit to capitalism. Most people call it "human decency". You, however, need to surrender your human license.

I love recruiters. No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad.

> Dear Evil Otto,
>
> I came across your resume today on Monster.com and
> wanted to send you the following job description.

Unlikely. More likely is that Monster spat a bunch of
random email addresses from people who'd recently
updated their resumes at you.

>
> Are you a highly organized, self-motivated person?

No.

> Do you enjoy multi-tasking and dealing with people?

No, and fuck you.

> Do you have the self-discipline to work at home?

Not really, pass the Cheetos.

> Would you like to work for a smaller company that
> really cares about your success?

Pull the other one.

>
> If so, you might be perfect to become the Marketing
> Manager for StupidEducationRecruiters.fuk, the nation's
> premier teacher recruitment website.

Not so much. And who says you're the "premier" site?
Your marketing department?

In the role of
> Marketing Manager you will report directly to the
> CEO

Because I don't have enough pressure in my life as it
is.

and will be charged with implementing a
> marketing plan, teacher recruitment campaign and
> partnerships with national education associations.

*Parses grammar*
Segmentation fault, core dumped.

> In addition, you will manage the marketing team,
> including recruitment specialists, graphic designers
> and copywriters.

Swell. I'm sure that won't be like herding cats at
all. Add a couple prima donna creatives, a few empty
suits and some marketing slimeballs and you've got
yourself a party. I'd rather have my legs fed into a
wood chipper. Slowly. In a vat of alcohol. On fire.
In Hell.

>
> Requirements:
> -Degree in education, business, marketing or
> communications

Nope, nope, nope and nope. Again, read the fucking
resume.

I chose to study something of substance in college,
and didn't major in projectile vomiting, hazing, and
date rape.

> -at least five years of experience in marketing or
> public relations

Hello!! McFly!! READ THE GOD DAMN FUCKING RESUME YOU
PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A BOIL ON THE TAINT OF LIFE.

> -lives within three hours of New York City

Map. Read it. Massachusetts. Do the math.

>
> A successful person on our team has:
> -experience implementing marketing plans aimed to
> help companies accelerate their growth,

Nope.

> -experience in tradeshows and conferences,

Does the Adult Video News convention count?

> -strong computer skills, including the Internet,
> Excel and PowerPoint,

What kind of skill is "the Internet"?

> -the ability and desire to work from home,

Great, you're too cheap to have an office. And I'm
sure you're just falling all over yourselves to
reimburse me for my home expenses. After all, why buy
an office when you can make me buy my own workspace?

> -experience working in a virtual environment,

What the fuck does that mean?

> -experience in the field of education,

Um, I went to school, does that count?

> -experience in interactive marketing,

HEY YOU! BUY THIS! WHY NOT? FUCK YOU!

> -an IBM-compatible laptop computer (minimum 2.2GHz
> processor and 512MB RAM),

Buy it yourselves, you cheap fucks.

> -the ability to travel throughout the United States
> as necessary, and

As necessary. Meaning "all the fucking time". And
I'm sure they reimburse you for travel RIGHT AWAY...
what? they don't reimburse?

> -a high speed Internet connection (DSL or cable
> modem).
>

Gee, I have one, but it's busy pirating movies and
downloading horse pr0n.

> We are looking for someone who is highly motivated,
> persistent and personable.

I don't feel like it. I give up. Fuck you.

Compensation depends on
> qualifications and experience.

"Prepare to be insulted by the offer."

We also cover
> Internet, phone, travel, mailing expenses, and offer
> a competitive benefits package.

You "cover" a benefits package? What, you're a
journalist reporting on people who actually get these
benefits?

>
> Please email your cover letter, salary requirements
> and resume, with your name in the subject line, to
> jobs@StupidEducationRecruiters.fuk
>
> Thank you,

> Stupid Bitch
> Human Resources
> StupidEducationRecruiters.fuk
>

IKEA = teh win

This was taken in a bathroom display at IKEA in Stoughton, MA.  Sadly, there are probably people who need this.

IKEA rocks.  You can't go 10 feet in that place without seeing something you want in your house.  We're planning on redoing our bathroom in the next two years, and I think it's safe to say everything AND the kitchen sink will come from there when we do.

Random flowery type picture

Some creeping phlox that seems to have survived the hideously mild New England winter that we had this year.  By my estimation, the phlox should cover my entire lawn by the first of May.  Extra level of difficulty here; I took this picture while I had my dog on a leash, and he's got this uncanny talent for pulling my arm when I'm trying to take a picture.  (Note: this time I actually attached the picture.)  (dammit.)

Bank of Wal-Mart? Fuck that.

The following is an e-mail I recently sent (through Wal-Mart Watch) addressing the Acting Chairman of the FDIC Board of Directors, Martin J. Gruenberg.

-----------------------------

Mr. Gruenberg:

We've all seen how Wal-Mart has swept through this nation with a combination of blatant greed, deception and predatory marketing tactics to become the largest corporation on the face of the planet. We've seen the stories about local businesses being driven out of existence by their inability to compete with the "big box" a mile down the road, who (not coincidentally) will raise prices on the products or services in question nearly immediately after those businesses have folded. Time and again Wal-Mart has proven that they will use any means necessary to secure their short- and long-term goals in a given community.

It's clear to me that Wal-Mart is bad for any economy which is based on competition. Rather than concentrate on providing the best value for a consumer dollar, Wal-Mart is burning both ends of the candle: They put as little as possible into the local economy through strongarm lobbying tactics and obscenely low wages (not to mention the additional financial and social strain of increasing the ranks of the medically uninsured), and the value of the product that they are selling to members of that community is, nearly without exception, substantially lower than the industry average.

Now Wal-Mart wants to do for the banking industry what it's done for retailing: Wal-Mart wants to crush it under its heel. Not only will local businesses now have to compete with Wal-Mart for customers; if Wal-Mart has its way, they'll have to go to the very company they're competing with for financing. Given Wal-Mart's poor reputation for ethical behavior, I have no doubt that they would leverage that situation to drive the competition out of business even faster by either refusing to provide financing, or, if they can't get away with that, charging exorbitant interest rates and requiring other onerous terms. In the meantime, Wal-Mart would be applying the same strategy to the banking industry that it does to retailing: Undercut your competition's prices just long enough to eliminate them, then drive prices up, cut customer service and limit product offerings to the point where you make a profit, and all the while treat your local employees like disposable cameras.

There can be no question that putting this much power in the hands of one company is a very dangerous situation; should Wal-Mart as a company begin to fail due to incompetence, natural disaster, legal action, or other unforseen circumstances, the impact on the retail and financial sectors would be devastating. The American economy would be in serious jeopardy of a Great Depression-scale collapse, as there would be no viable alternatives for retail goods, groceries, gasoline, checking accounts, credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and other vital economic components in a significant number of markets. It wouldn't mean you could no longer buy the (infamous) $3 jar of pickles, it would mean that you could very well lose your house, your car, any credit you might have, and your life savings - as I am sure that Wal-Mart will do everything in its power to avoid any regulatory restraints that would otherwise protect its customers.

All this being said, it is incomprehensible to me that the board of directors of the FDIC is considering not attending this hearing! I cannot fathom why a decision of this magnitude is not worth the effort to attend. Were I prone to conspiracy theories, I might suggest that this is another symptom of the sort of back-room deals and unethical shenanigans that Wal-Mart is (in)famous for. Wal-Mart's argument for this charter based on the fact that one of their major competitiors, Target Stores, holds a similar banking charter fails to hold water when you consider that Target Stores has one-sixth the revenue of Wal-Mart; they're not even in the same league.

Wal-Mart has its fingers in enough pies as it is. Allowing Wal-Mart to enter the financial industry would be a blunder of unimaginable proportions. The benefits of the "Bank of Wal-Mart" would only exist in the pockets of Bentonville's richest, and the risk of catastrophic damage to the American economy far outweighs them.

I urge you to deny their petition, on behalf of those of us who like having choices in our retailing (and financial) decisions.

------------

I invite your comments. I also reserve the right to tell you how wrong you are. If you would like to send a similar letter (don't send an identical one, it'll get ignored), visit this link at Wal-Mart Watch.

Why does everyone hate how everyone else parents?

Friend of mine asked me to plug a post on her Livejournal with a thoughtful question regarding parenting styles:

Everyone knows how to parent except you

Personally, as I'm not a parent, I am probably ill qualified to offer an opinion. But that's never stopped me before.

I think people are basically insecure about how "well" they're raising their kids. People want it all laid out in a book or a video or a class or something easy like that. Being a parent is hard. It involves all kinds of decisions that aren't black or white, but need to be one particular shade of gray. What works for one kid doesn't work for another. What some parents consider to be important is seen as completely irrelevant by others. And, worst of all, the way some parents choose to raise their kids is frequently attacked as "immoral" or "indulgent" or "irresponsible" simply because they're being raised with a different set of values or beliefs than the observer.

I want to be a father someday. Recently a story I saw on the news hit home; it was basically an analysis of birth rates as they relate to political alignment. What it boils down to, is that conservatives have more kids than liberals. (I'm not going to get into why I think that is, but rest assured the word "hypocritical" is probably involved somewhere along the line.) This made me reflect on the fact that my wife and I aren't getting any younger, and we've always talked about having at least one child, possibly two. It's my hope that I can raise children to be critical thinkers, not necessarily raise them to believe precisely what I do. (You don't have to be a parent to know that trying to force your beliefs on your kid only makes them want to believe the exact opposite anyway.) There comes a point when your kids are going to make decisions for themselves, and IMHO the best thing you can do is to give them the right tools to make the right decision for themselves.

But that's hard. There isn't a list of things you can check off after you teach your kids each one. It requires thought and consistency. (It's also my opinion that kids need boundaries, but also need to know WHY those boundaries are there, even if the reason is "Because I'm your father, and I have more experience than you do.")

Go read the post. Comments are requested.