When I first read the story, it just sounded too good to be true. I'm not denying that an ex-musician, a black woman, or anyone else is incapable of earning degrees, especially a Ph.D. (I'm working on one myself). However, it seems odd that a music company would allow that clause to appear in a contract, much less let it stay upon signing. However, I believe the original article said, essentially, that Warner didn't expect it to be used.
It is interesting that this story spread so much, considering it's not true. She even admitted it wasn't true, though she still claims that she has degrees but there is no evidence of it. Obviously everyone wanted it to be true, whether as a story of the "little person getting one over on the big, faceless corporation" or because a "disadvantaged, inner city black woman makes good and helps others".
But I wonder how the story started and spread in the first place. She's not a Doctor, though she apparently claims to be one. She isn't licensed by the state and doesn't have a practice. That was another thing I thought was fishy; she has an "unconventional" clinic yet details weren't provided. What was so special about it?
All in all, there were a lot of problems w/ the original story that, obviously, fact checking would have uncovered. Essentially, the whole story is bogus. So where did it come from and why?
I recently wrote a book (plug:http://pythone-ebook.blogspot.com)and I debated for several weeks about how to license it. Because CC was the buzzword on the Internet, I seriously considered using a CC license. But I couldn't decide which one to use; at the time, the CC website wasn't easy to navigate nor figure out how each license worked.
Ultimately, I released my book under the GNU Free Document License. I know CC has a similar license but, honestly, I think the GFDL explains the reader's rights more succinctly. It doesn't use copyright but copyleft to ensure everyone has the same access to it, much like software. People are free to share it and improve upon it but they must provide their changes back to the community at large.
I am a firm advocate of this. Granted, creating a sudo account with this type of limited abilities us much easier using *nix or even Macs than trying to configure Windows this way. Windows prefers to make users Admins, limited users, or guests, by default. It's possible to create a limited user with install rights but it is such a pain that most people simply don't bother.
I give computer security training to military personnel and we are required to use the approved presentations by the DoD. However, I give the briefings a personal touch. Though I show the slides, I also explain some of the truth behind what the presentation says.
For example, one brief talked about how commercial email sites can be avenues for viruses, ergo only DoD email accounts are allowed for using email on DoD computers. I also add that, even though Yahoo, Google, et al. offer email that _does_ have built-in virus checking, it's not DoD approved and therefore untrustworthy. That's why users can't use commercial email systems, not that commercial email is a virus vector.
Additionally, I did take the training mentioned in this story. And I did get the question wrong for the exact reasons stated; the question is misleading because it's not truthful. However, I don't think anyone takes the training seriously. The tech savvy people blaze through it, giving the expected answers while knowing they may be wrong. The more clueless people simply ignore the training after it's done.
So, in the end, the training is mostly pointless, except for the few who may actually learn something. I haven't found of them, though.
Several years ago there was a comment on Slashdot. I wish I could find it, because it was something I had been thinking about for a while but was glad to see a real world case.
The commenter worked for a company that required a certain level of computer savvy to get the job. This is because they were looking to lower IT support costs. Each applicant had to prove a certain level of competence by building a computer and installing the OS; if the applicant was hired, the computer they built became his office system.
Employees had the opportunity to take the company supplied parts or they could purchase their own parts for the computers. They could also choose which OS they wanted to use. Employees who weren't technical, e.g. admin assistants or other "office" type people, could either build their own systems or use a Mac purchased by the company.
The benefits of this were significant. Since Linux, Windows, and OS X were used, a single virus or other malware infection couldn't take down the entire company. Because each work computer was an employee's "own", they were expected to maintain them; no IT support was given except to people who chose the standard corporate computer (Macs). If a virus was found on the network, the person responsible for it was canned because everyone was responsible for their systems and behavior.
Since all the tech workers had a minimum level of computer knowledge, they were expected to know about computer security and maintenance. IT costs were nearly non-existent because people maintained their own systems. Even if a problem did occur in the office, there were many people who could help out, reducing the number of dedicated IT employees. And because Windows wasn't the standard OS, there were fewer problems with malware and support issues.
If I'm ever in a position to make IT policies, this is almost exactly what I will advocate implementing.
I won't deny that the government has the potential to come up with good IT ideas. However, one needs to remember that this is the same government that wasted millions of dollars on the new FBI computer system then scrapped it because it didn't work.
Additionally, the military is in dire need of someone with new ideas regarding better use of IT resources. It seems to me that a large source of IT problems develop from the ol' boy network. Someone retires from the military, gets a job at a gov. contractor, then proceeds to use his contacts in the military to swing the good deals. These deals don't help the military, considering how many piss-poor projects I've seen and worked with, but I'm sure they are helping the bottom line of someone.
There are many stories on the net about computer systems crashing and effectively taking down Navy vessels or the abomination that is the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. IMO, the people making the decisions aren't the ones who have to use the technology. And if they are, they are of a sufficient level that they simply bypass the rules they created; the rules are good enough for the "little people" but not the higher mucky-mucks.
So, I don't see how a new federal CIO will be able to accomplish very much, simply because maintaining the status quo means big money for lots of people. Unless a juicy new contract can be created for a new project.
What did people expect? The gov. is running this and very few gov. projects are successful. Plus, these sorts of projects are, almost by nature, designed to help the incumbents and maintain the status quo.
BTW, whatever happened to that billions of dollars that was given to the telecom companies to install broadband across the nation? That was over a decade ago and they never fulfilled their obligation. Now we're giving out more money to do effectively the same thing?
College isn't necessarily where you go to get job skills. You want that, go to a trade school. College is for learning ideas that can help you in your job or other future endeavors. Why do you think they allow people to audit classes without taking the tests?
Plus, no school will guarantee that you get a job. That's up to you, not the school.
The article never mentions what sort of degree she got, other than it's a "business" school. Not all business degrees are the same; not to mention business grads are a dime a dozen. It's a slightly better degree for jobs than, say, art major but unless you have something to back it up I doubt prospects are great.
How about start your own business? Small business loans are relatively easy to get from the fed, especially now.
Whenever I hear about stories such as this, or those surveys that show people will give up passwords for free items, I always have the same question: why not give out a fake password? No one will no whether it's correct or not until they try to log in, then they won't know whether you deliberately gave the wrong password or simply changed it.
And that's an alternative: Give the right password and then change it ASAP. Or you can use some of those encrypted password holding programs that generate a random password for each of your sites. You can then legitimately say you don't know what your password is.
Exactly. The bonus features in normal DVDs are not a selling point for me. BD movies that advertise gobs of special features, especially that BD-Live thing that gets the latest updates online, is worthless to me.
I rarely watch the special features and when I do, it's only once. How many times do you need to here the director's commentary or view the storyboards? What's even worse is when the commentary tracks aren't even talking about the movie. I don't care about how your kids are doing in Little League; I want to know how/why this particular scene created.
But what about the DRM Sony put in the BD spec that can "cripple" a disc if it is pirated and becomes available on the 'net?
IIRC, these movies can be killed by a special code sent to your player via its Ethernet port (assuming you are connected to the 'net) or by simply viewing a BD movie that has the latest list of "verboten movies". The code is written to the firmware of the player itself.
Not to mention the fact that you have to jump through hurdles to copy/convert the BD file to hard drive or another format. It's possible, but not nearly as easy as DVDs.
Apple makes great hardware and the software is good. It even goes to extremes to show how much better Apple products are compared to other companies. Yet, by doing blocking some applications, it shows that retards are running the company.
I love Apple's products but I don't like its policies. The only reason I bought an iPod Touch was for the PDA functionality and music/video capabilities. Applications are useful but I still prefer a full-blown computer.
The cyberpunk culture more or less predicted this. The RPG "Shadowrun" talked about it back in the late '90s, before all of this became big.
It said that music, because of the digital nature, would become free to the masses. Music companies would go so far as to have Song-o-Matic systems that could create music according to a formula, even making it sound like a specific artist.
Hence, the soul of the performer became key. Concerts and other live events were how performers made a living. Computers could recreate the sound but only a person can put their energy and essence into the music.
I see this happening now. That's why live performances are so key to musicians; the music gets their name out there but the show is what makes a fan.
I don't know about you, but when I'm on the phone, most of my attention is focused on the call. If someone tries to talk to me while I'm using the phone, I either have to ignore the person on the phone or the person next to me. I can't track both conversations; usually I will miss what one person is saying.
Ergo, I believe that, hands-free or not, talking on a cell phone is bad because the focus is moved to the phone call, not driving. Driving simply becomes an automatic action, much like when you get "road hypnosis" and suddenly realize you are miles down the road from when you last paid attention.
When driving becomes automatic, any changes to the situation become dangerous. You over-react to objects in the road or other drivers swerving or braking.
I suspect that the "under 21" law is trying to account for new drivers not having as much experience. The thing is, there is really not much difference between cell phone use, texting, messing w/ the radio, eating, etc. They are all distractions and most people are incapable of multi-tasking.
I too lost my faith in Sony because of MiniDiscs. I was a firm believer in MDs when they came out and spent several hundred dollars on MD recorders/players and the discs themselves. I even had an MD player installed in my car.
Even though nearly all of the music on my MDs was copied from my personal CDs, I found I couldn't upload the songs to a computer easily. Even though MD players have a USB port, you can't upload; the only way to transfer songs is to use an analog cable connected to the earphone jack. And you have to transfer in realtime. With more than 80 MDs, most using 2-4x compression, that was just a lot of sitting around.
I even sent a letter to Sony's customer service complaining about that, and the fact that their proprietary software only worked with Windows, and requested that they release some changes to allow customers to better utilize MDs. They pretty much ignored my complaints/suggestions and told me it was a tech support issue. (A "review" of this issue can be found at GIDForums).
That was the first big strike against Sony, for me. Then I heard about the limitations and DRM attached to BlueRay. Finally, the rootkit fiasco was the last straw and I swore I would never voluntarily buy another Sony product again. I've been keeping that boycott going for more than 6 years.
I currently live in Japan and go out of my way to avoid Sony products. I don't care how great they may be; my money goes to their competitors, sometimes out of spite but often because the competitors are cheaper for the same items.
I recently wrote an ebook about programming that I licensed under the GNU Free Document License. I currently distribute it via The Pirate Bay.
Anyone can download, read, modify, and anything else allowed by the GFDL. But according to Facebook, people who want to tell others about it and include the link are in violation of the terms of agreement. I could effectively say that Facebook is limiting the audience of my book, even though it's a perfectly legal item to torrent.
No links but personal observations and thoughts I do have.
Being in the military for more than a decade, and nearly half of that in the IT field, I can say that most of the government employees responsible for technology are out of their league. Something as simple as running a defrag on a computer are beyond them.
Military-wise, most IT work is geared towards radio communications; computer-oriented work is mostly on network connectivity. Very few people are competent in regards to "big picture" IS work. Supervisors are promoted based on collateral duties and the good ol' boy network, not on actual competency.
Leadership is ham-stringed in effective policy making because they have to spend so much time doing "military" stuff that they don't have to time to think of how to do something better. It's simply easier to continue with the status quo. Even if someone does come up with a better idea, it's a pain in the butt to implement it.
Another big problem is that people are usually more interested in advancement than doing their jobs. They will look for non-work related things to do so it looks good on their evals; you are expected to do your job so it's not impressive, unless you do something completely stellar. Often, the least competent people are promoted because they are the ones who are out and about in the command, doing all sorts of non-work related jobs, that everyone else things they are amazing. But their actual technical abilities are almost nil.
Finally, most of the "heavy lifting" in regards to IT comes from contractors; if it's not in the contract, it doesn't get done. Normally, they aren't paid to think about the best way to do something but to create what the government employees have designed. Unfortunately, the gov employees are the least likely to know how to effectively create the desired systems. And don't get me started on all the political shenanigans that go on behind the scenes.
In a nutshell, these reasons (and more) are why the government can't design, build, and implement effective IT systems.
This is my question. GPS is for navigation: tracking where you are, where you've been, and where you are going. It has nothing to do with tracking miles traveled, except in an incidental manner.
Creating some sort of "government certified" device that acts like an odometer and gets looked annually when you register your car seems like a more plausible idea. That way, you truly are only being charged for the miles you have driven.
Plus, this so-called "opt-out" only applies to users of IE and Firefox. Safari, Opera, et al. need not apply.
Why is that? If it's just a cookie, then why is it browser specific? This means that a large portion of Mac users or alternative browser users are SOL.
On the post: That Story About Warner Music Paying For A Rappers' PhD? Well... Not So Much
Somehow I suspected this
It is interesting that this story spread so much, considering it's not true. She even admitted it wasn't true, though she still claims that she has degrees but there is no evidence of it. Obviously everyone wanted it to be true, whether as a story of the "little person getting one over on the big, faceless corporation" or because a "disadvantaged, inner city black woman makes good and helps others".
But I wonder how the story started and spread in the first place. She's not a Doctor, though she apparently claims to be one. She isn't licensed by the state and doesn't have a practice. That was another thing I thought was fishy; she has an "unconventional" clinic yet details weren't provided. What was so special about it?
All in all, there were a lot of problems w/ the original story that, obviously, fact checking would have uncovered. Essentially, the whole story is bogus. So where did it come from and why?
On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?
Re: That's why I use the GFDL
On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?
That's why I use the GFDL
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Gov't Briefing For All Employees: All Music Downloads Are Stolen, Risky
Gov IA training is laughable
For example, one brief talked about how commercial email sites can be avenues for viruses, ergo only DoD email accounts are allowed for using email on DoD computers. I also add that, even though Yahoo, Google, et al. offer email that _does_ have built-in virus checking, it's not DoD approved and therefore untrustworthy. That's why users can't use commercial email systems, not that commercial email is a virus vector.
Additionally, I did take the training mentioned in this story. And I did get the question wrong for the exact reasons stated; the question is misleading because it's not truthful. However, I don't think anyone takes the training seriously. The tech savvy people blaze through it, giving the expected answers while knowing they may be wrong. The more clueless people simply ignore the training after it's done.
So, in the end, the training is mostly pointless, except for the few who may actually learn something. I haven't found of them, though.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Make users responsible for their own systems
The commenter worked for a company that required a certain level of computer savvy to get the job. This is because they were looking to lower IT support costs. Each applicant had to prove a certain level of competence by building a computer and installing the OS; if the applicant was hired, the computer they built became his office system.
Employees had the opportunity to take the company supplied parts or they could purchase their own parts for the computers. They could also choose which OS they wanted to use. Employees who weren't technical, e.g. admin assistants or other "office" type people, could either build their own systems or use a Mac purchased by the company.
The benefits of this were significant. Since Linux, Windows, and OS X were used, a single virus or other malware infection couldn't take down the entire company. Because each work computer was an employee's "own", they were expected to maintain them; no IT support was given except to people who chose the standard corporate computer (Macs). If a virus was found on the network, the person responsible for it was canned because everyone was responsible for their systems and behavior.
Since all the tech workers had a minimum level of computer knowledge, they were expected to know about computer security and maintenance. IT costs were nearly non-existent because people maintained their own systems. Even if a problem did occur in the office, there were many people who could help out, reducing the number of dedicated IT employees. And because Windows wasn't the standard OS, there were fewer problems with malware and support issues.
If I'm ever in a position to make IT policies, this is almost exactly what I will advocate implementing.
On the post: Is The Federal Government The Most Interesting Tech Startup For 2009?
If only the military would follow
Additionally, the military is in dire need of someone with new ideas regarding better use of IT resources. It seems to me that a large source of IT problems develop from the ol' boy network. Someone retires from the military, gets a job at a gov. contractor, then proceeds to use his contacts in the military to swing the good deals. These deals don't help the military, considering how many piss-poor projects I've seen and worked with, but I'm sure they are helping the bottom line of someone.
There are many stories on the net about computer systems crashing and effectively taking down Navy vessels or the abomination that is the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. IMO, the people making the decisions aren't the ones who have to use the technology. And if they are, they are of a sufficient level that they simply bypass the rules they created; the rules are good enough for the "little people" but not the higher mucky-mucks.
So, I don't see how a new federal CIO will be able to accomplish very much, simply because maintaining the status quo means big money for lots of people. Unless a juicy new contract can be created for a new project.
On the post: Broadband Stimulus Plan Keeps Looking Worse And Worse
It's a government project
BTW, whatever happened to that billions of dollars that was given to the telecom companies to install broadband across the nation? That was over a decade ago and they never fulfilled their obligation. Now we're giving out more money to do effectively the same thing?
On the post: Entitlement Society: Grad Can't Find Job, Sues Her College For Tuition Back
When are you guaranteed a job?
Plus, no school will guarantee that you get a job. That's up to you, not the school.
The article never mentions what sort of degree she got, other than it's a "business" school. Not all business degrees are the same; not to mention business grads are a dime a dozen. It's a slightly better degree for jobs than, say, art major but unless you have something to back it up I doubt prospects are great.
How about start your own business? Small business loans are relatively easy to get from the fed, especially now.
On the post: Student Files Lawsuit After Teacher Demands Facebook Password, Logs Into Account & Distributes Private Messages
How about change your password?
And that's an alternative: Give the right password and then change it ASAP. Or you can use some of those encrypted password holding programs that generate a random password for each of your sites. You can then legitimately say you don't know what your password is.
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: Blu-Ray Still Not Catching On
Re:
I rarely watch the special features and when I do, it's only once. How many times do you need to here the director's commentary or view the storyboards? What's even worse is when the commentary tracks aren't even talking about the movie. I don't care about how your kids are doing in Little League; I want to know how/why this particular scene created.
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: Blu-Ray Still Not Catching On
Re: Online Delivery
IIRC, these movies can be killed by a special code sent to your player via its Ethernet port (assuming you are connected to the 'net) or by simply viewing a BD movie that has the latest list of "verboten movies". The code is written to the firmware of the player itself.
Not to mention the fact that you have to jump through hurdles to copy/convert the BD file to hard drive or another format. It's possible, but not nearly as easy as DVDs.
On the post: Apple Drops Another Arbitrary Rejection On An E-Book App, Because Somebody Might Read The Kama Sutra With It
Apple is bipolar
I love Apple's products but I don't like its policies. The only reason I bought an iPod Touch was for the PDA functionality and music/video capabilities. Applications are useful but I still prefer a full-blown computer.
On the post: More Artists Recognizing The New Business Model: Sell The Scarcity
Cyberpunk predicted this
It said that music, because of the digital nature, would become free to the masses. Music companies would go so far as to have Song-o-Matic systems that could create music according to a formula, even making it sound like a specific artist.
Hence, the soul of the performer became key. Concerts and other live events were how performers made a living. Computers could recreate the sound but only a person can put their energy and essence into the music.
I see this happening now. That's why live performances are so key to musicians; the music gets their name out there but the show is what makes a fan.
On the post: Missouri: Text Messaging While Driving Is Fine, As Long As You're Over 21
Re:
Ergo, I believe that, hands-free or not, talking on a cell phone is bad because the focus is moved to the phone call, not driving. Driving simply becomes an automatic action, much like when you get "road hypnosis" and suddenly realize you are miles down the road from when you last paid attention.
When driving becomes automatic, any changes to the situation become dangerous. You over-react to objects in the road or other drivers swerving or braking.
I suspect that the "under 21" law is trying to account for new drivers not having as much experience. The thing is, there is really not much difference between cell phone use, texting, messing w/ the radio, eating, etc. They are all distractions and most people are incapable of multi-tasking.
On the post: Sony Says It Should Have Been More Open... But It Said That In 2005 Too
Re:
Even though nearly all of the music on my MDs was copied from my personal CDs, I found I couldn't upload the songs to a computer easily. Even though MD players have a USB port, you can't upload; the only way to transfer songs is to use an analog cable connected to the earphone jack. And you have to transfer in realtime. With more than 80 MDs, most using 2-4x compression, that was just a lot of sitting around.
I even sent a letter to Sony's customer service complaining about that, and the fact that their proprietary software only worked with Windows, and requested that they release some changes to allow customers to better utilize MDs. They pretty much ignored my complaints/suggestions and told me it was a tech support issue. (A "review" of this issue can be found at GIDForums).
That was the first big strike against Sony, for me. Then I heard about the limitations and DRM attached to BlueRay. Finally, the rootkit fiasco was the last straw and I swore I would never voluntarily buy another Sony product again. I've been keeping that boycott going for more than 6 years.
I currently live in Japan and go out of my way to avoid Sony products. I don't care how great they may be; my money goes to their competitors, sometimes out of spite but often because the competitors are cheaper for the same items.
On the post: Legal Questions About Facebook's Blocking Of Links To The Pirate Bay
I use torrents to distribute my book
Anyone can download, read, modify, and anything else allowed by the GFDL. But according to Facebook, people who want to tell others about it and include the link are in violation of the terms of agreement. I could effectively say that Facebook is limiting the audience of my book, even though it's a perfectly legal item to torrent.
I don't like that.
On the post: FBI Unable To Properly Manage Terrorist Watch List
Re:
Being in the military for more than a decade, and nearly half of that in the IT field, I can say that most of the government employees responsible for technology are out of their league. Something as simple as running a defrag on a computer are beyond them.
Military-wise, most IT work is geared towards radio communications; computer-oriented work is mostly on network connectivity. Very few people are competent in regards to "big picture" IS work. Supervisors are promoted based on collateral duties and the good ol' boy network, not on actual competency.
Leadership is ham-stringed in effective policy making because they have to spend so much time doing "military" stuff that they don't have to time to think of how to do something better. It's simply easier to continue with the status quo. Even if someone does come up with a better idea, it's a pain in the butt to implement it.
Another big problem is that people are usually more interested in advancement than doing their jobs. They will look for non-work related things to do so it looks good on their evals; you are expected to do your job so it's not impressive, unless you do something completely stellar. Often, the least competent people are promoted because they are the ones who are out and about in the command, doing all sorts of non-work related jobs, that everyone else things they are amazing. But their actual technical abilities are almost nil.
Finally, most of the "heavy lifting" in regards to IT comes from contractors; if it's not in the contract, it doesn't get done. Normally, they aren't paid to think about the best way to do something but to create what the government employees have designed. Unfortunately, the gov employees are the least likely to know how to effectively create the desired systems. And don't get me started on all the political shenanigans that go on behind the scenes.
In a nutshell, these reasons (and more) are why the government can't design, build, and implement effective IT systems.
On the post: More Congress Critters Want To Track And Tax Your Driving Habits
Re: Why GPS?
Creating some sort of "government certified" device that acts like an odometer and gets looked annually when you register your car seems like a more plausible idea. That way, you truly are only being charged for the miles you have driven.
On the post: Google's Behavioral Ads Are Just The Start
Re: Not really an opt-out...
Why is that? If it's just a cookie, then why is it browser specific? This means that a large portion of Mac users or alternative browser users are SOL.
Next >>