Malik
(6/1/10)
It's not really news that the days of anonymity on the internet is
fading. While the wild west days of the net saw so many untraceable
screen names on random as hell blog sites and so forth, there's a
hell of a trail we all leave now. Sometimes the trail is there
because we want to get the facts known for whatever reason (I know I
once put my name on this site in reference to Comcast having some
really poor service at the time...not that it's all better now, but
it's tolerable most of the time), and sometimes the trail is only
there because the average internet user is too ignorant to realize
what they are putting online and what their settings are for what is
public versus private.
How many times does someone basically post their entire biography
online, in small pieces, on various sites and not even understand
how much of their personal information is out there? You say one
minor fact on Facebook, then Twitter something else, then you add
some online photos to a photo sharing site with some more
information, then you go to Linkedin...and you top it all off by
connecting all of these information hubs to your Facebook page. Next
thing you know, you're entire life story is there, in pieces, for
the world to see and abuse.
The problems with this is two-fold. If you're incredibly stupid, you
end up with enough personal information out there to invite identity
theft. The other problem is that the internet still suffers from a
few "wild west" style problems. The largest one being that
SLAPP lawsuits can still exist thanks to unusual rules with
information traveling across state lines.
A SLAPP lawsuit is basically when a person speaks out against a
company, group, or whatever due to bad service or just venting
frustration. The company sues the individual for defamation in order
to both intimidate others away from venting about issues and in
order to sometimes score some extra cash in monetary damages.
Sometimes the lawsuits involve actual defamation (for example, "
is teh evil! They rape babies!1!"), but usually it's just a case of
someone trying to vent about a real experience (for example, "
wasted my time by failing to show up for a service appointment. If
they don't want to look like they give a damn about their customers,
then I'll happily go with who hasn't jerked me around like
that.") and maybe steer others away from less than quality of
businesses.
Many states have adopted anti-SLAPP laws to prevent companies from
bringing litigation against people who just speak out against poor
services/products. However, with the increased ease many of us leave
in tracking us down on the internet, it's pretty messed up when we
have to constantly double and triple check anything we say to ensure
that we will not bring the wrath of "defamation" and "slander". It's
even worse, however, when SLAPP lawsuits can still exist in some
states. While a company will usually have the resources to bring an
individual to trial, the individual often times has a harder time
fighting back...even if in the right. This essentially adds a bonus
level of censorship to the internet. While you can fight against
someone trying to sue you for defamation of character, you will lose
time and resources. Meanwhile, many companies will offer such
possible solutions as allowing a person to remove the offensive
comments and offer out an apology in the same venue as the supposed
"slander".
I don't know why I'm bringing this up. Possibly because I have
nothing else to post today. Possibly because I'm surprised I've
never known someone to face such dirty retribution from a company.
Probably because I just think it's time that state governments fall
in line and bring about anti-SLAPP laws universally across the
nation. Then again, while this is a problem that especially is
important due to the internet, the state and federal governments
still all seem to be about a decade behind in anything dealing with
understanding the potential of what the internet brings about. Then
again, the government is what brought about, in a way, the whole
"series of tubes" meme, so what else can you expect from them?
Malik |
Malik
(6/2/10)
I said this recently (a
few weeks ago), but I'll say it again;
Steve Jobs really leaves me with an uneasy feeling when he opens his
mouth. Maybe some parts of the stories have not been told fairly
so each side gets fully explained, but I see so much seething rage
coming from Jobs that I can't help but wonder...
I mean I wonder if
there could be a second side to these stories that just isn't coming
to light. When people debate, explain, or try to sound civil, but
are portrayed as evil in the media, I tend to agree with the old
adage that you cannot judge a book by it's cover. A civil and
rational person usually is someone who can try to be a good guy.
However, when someone is talking like Jobs, I cannot see anything
beyond blatant egotism.
The side I heard
on the iPhone/Gizmodo saga basically focused on how Gizmodo and the
person who found the iPhone tried to contact Apple support to return
the thing, but the lousy customer service led to neither party
having a way to return the phone. I mean you cannot just magically
wish the iPhone to it's correct home...you need information, which
Apple should be supplying, on where to send it to. Maybe this
attempt at doing the right thing never happened, but judging from
some of my past Apple support experiences (in particular when I had
iTunes fail to load after a version update), I can see more easily
the failed support side of things.
"You shouldn't go
after a journalist because they bought stolen property and tried to
extort you," is what Jobs says. Well, I have not seen any form of
extortion mentioned outside of Jobs angry remarks, and I just cannot
see it. Why would a journalist of any sort try to extort in this
position? There's two logical options for the Gizmodo people; run a
story on the iPhone prototype or return the iPhone and maybe run a
story on that about the lack of security shown at Apple with
protecting valuable prototypes. To extort leaves no room for any
news story, since it would only draw attention for the reporter and
his illegal activities. If I'm a reporter and I pull some illegal
shit, then I, as a citizen, know that the criminal justice system
will be able to come down on me...and if I then try to report on my
own activity, then I've basically signed my confession.
"We don't think
Flash makes a great product, so we're leaving it out. Instead, we're
going to focus on technologies that are in ascendancy," is another
Jobs claim. Well, on one hand, while HTML5 is going to bring about
the demise of Flash, in theory, the truth still remains that HTML5
is not current. This means that Flash is about the only constant
that can cross various platforms and deliver the type of content it
provides. Well, on the iPhone, there's also Apps that can do the
same general stuff, but Apps have a cost issue added, as well as the
hassle of needing to pass Apple's censorship to become public. Also,
when you have a large group of your core loyal followers clamoring
for something, like Flash, maybe it's time you stop telling your
customers what they want and instead deliver upon a nearly ideal
solution...
Unless, of course,
the entire reason to omit Flash is because Apple wants 100% control
over iPhone software. I mean when Flash can supply a similar
experience to most Apple Apps, then it's hard to see Flash as a
flounder waste of software coding and actually as the free and easy
to use alternative that will allow people to avoid censoring of
iPhone delivered content.
Anyway, this is
all just a long confusing joke, in a sense, to me. I grew up in the
days when Microsoft was called "The Evil Empire". Microsoft
controlled everything, but you basically had to use their stuff
since the competition was Apple, and Apple just never was the number
one place to look for software solutions (unless you're a graphic
design type). Now, Microsoft is no longer evil...just stoic and a
bit out of touch with reality. However, Apple was previously the
cool groovy hippies who would not always get you what you wanted,
but you'd feel guilt free using their limited software options.
You'd be supporting the "good guys" by using a Mac. Now, Apple just
feels evil in many ways, if not also out of touch with reality (even
more so than Microsoft...Microsoft doesn't tell their customers, "No
Flash for you! You don't really want Flash!"), with Jobs not helping
matters when he opens his mouth and sounds like someone who is out
to tell us what we really think..."You don't want a PC, since that's
old fashioned crap! You really want an iPad...which can't really do
anything except serve as a larger, more unwieldy iPhone without the
phone abilities...but you do want it!"
Of course it's
only fitting that Google is feeling more like that old crazy hippy
that Apple no longer is. They make a browser that is less than
dominating the market, but it's good and guilt free. They made a
phone OS that doesn't offer nearly as much as the iPhone OS...but
it's guilt free. They designed a cool phone, that is lacking a bit
versus the competition (less than 1GB of internal RAM is just not
worth it in this age)...but it's different and feels, with the lack
of a required contract, guilt free.
Malik |
Malik
(6/4/10)
Not much to say today
since I'm still keeping my distance from gaming for the most part.
It's not because I needed a break, but because it's late spring and
that calls for some other activities...or at least when the
unusually cold and rainy Seattle weather lets up long enough to
enjoy the great outdoors.
I think, after
this week is fully closed, it will be seen as a strange and sad week
for baseball. On one hand, it showed
the single largest argument possible for replays or events in
baseball. It's one thing when a questionable out occurs in the
5th inning, or the start of the game, or during a game in which the
play in question makes no difference and the game is not anywhere
near interesting. However, seeing how Jim Joyce blew a close call in
what should have been the final out for Armando Galarraga's perfect
game, it's another matter. A perfect game all of a sudden becomes a
unimportant game (at least outside of the controversy) by being a
one hitter.
I don't know where
I stand on replays, since they tend to weigh down games when handled
incorrectly. Still, if it's done right, any sport can use replays
with distracting from the momentum of the game. It's a gray area
that shouldn't exist, but it's also an occurrence that, sadly, does
exist. Then again, that's where the idea of opening
Pandora's Box can come into play, if you follow my meaning.
Then you also have
Ken Griffey Jr. retiring. The last of the 1980's generation of
sluggers. The only one who seems to have done amazing in his career,
and still been clean of controversy (and I don't count that whole
stupid napping "scandal"). On top of that, Jr. is a hell of a good
guy. Maybe he had some less than awesome years, both as a player and
as a person who fans would love to see, but he has always maintained
an A average.
Unfortunately, I
think he called it quits a hair early. Yes, he stunk in May...but so
did the entire Mariners organization (with Ichiro being the only
solid standout). Now that the M's are playing at their expected
level (three W's in a row now...finally), it would be good to have
seen if the funk also could be gone from Jr. before he left. Maybe
go out on a pinch hit walk-off home run and never look back.
Some of my first
baseball memories are of Jr. Yes, there were the seasons before he
arrived (when Alvin Davis and Harold Reynolds were the big names for
the M's) that I liked as a child, but it was when Griffey arrived
and started to make fielding in deep center into an art beyond words
and making some damned amazing homers that baseball became a real
part of my childhood. Griffey will definitely be missed. Too bad he
loves calling another region of the country home, because I'd love
to see him stick around in some mentoring or coaching position.
Malik |
|
For Those Who Don't
Have Flash Plug-Ins...
Rested
XP News
Reviews
Videos Features
Forums
Archives Search
This Site Links
Contact Us Disclaimer
|
|
|