10.30.07
Which Supervillain Are You?
Again, thanks to Rob Sama, who seems to find an endless supply of these time-wasters.
I hate wearing the mask, but I gotta admit, if the shoe fits… er, mask…
Your results:
You are Dr. Doom
|
Blessed with smarts and power but burdened by vanity.![]() |
10.11.07
Which Superhero Are You?
Thanks to Rob Sama for wasting fifteen minutes of my life. Now I’d like to forward the favor to you.
At least I’m only 34% Robin. Honestly, I think most men would prefer to be Wonder Woman before the yellow-caped pansy. And I’m a Batman fan, too.
Your results:
You are
Green Lantern
|
Hot-headed. You have strong will power and a good imagination. ![]() |
10.09.07
Chargers woes… and who to blame
Jim Trotter has an excellent article over at Sports Illustrated, shedding a lot of light on the departure of Marty Schottenheimer from the San Diego Chargers, and the subsequent woes of the team. Apparently, the usual scapegoat – General Manager A.J. Smith – can only be blamed for hiring that coaching disaster, Norv Turner.
10.08.07
Touching my info (part II) – Microsoft responds (after a fashion)
Mike Torres, a Microsoft employee (and, in the interest of disclosure, my brother-in-law), commented on my last post. From Mike’s comment (emphasis mine):
“there aren’t a bunch of evil people running around the halls wondering how we can get people to give us information so we can lock it in a vault. It’s actually quite the opposite. Windows Live Spaces is actually a leader when it comes to freedom of information sharing…”
I wouldn’t be against them “locking my personal information in a vault” – my problem is with the “freedom of information sharing;” specifically, freely selling my valid email address.
Admittedly, I’m being a bit snarky with your comment.
However, on a more serious note: While I doubt Microsoft is doing this (mostly because they would not get away with it for long), here’s the trouble:
As Microsoft creates this “barrier for entry” (even if for understandable reasons), and the public culture accepts it, it opens up the floodgates, by way of example, for other less scrupulous companies to use this method – as I suspect many of them do – to harvest information for their own annoying purposes (junk mail, “special offers,” etc.), or, more dastardly, to sell it to third parties. Anyone who’s ever looked into spamming knows that it starts with a service selling, “verified addresses – guaranteed!”
Basically, if we come to expect that we must enter our name and email to use something, sooner or later, less-savvy net users (the same people who must be told over and over again not to open .exe files from strangers) are going to blithely and blindly continue to do so even if the website isn’t something as, er, ahem, “reputable” as say, Microsoft. It’s a bad example to set.
And while spam is annoying, I am never in favor of trading my privacy for security (to mangle the famous quote usually, and apparently, incorrectly attributed to Ben Franklin: “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”).
Again, I think a set of (user-selected) rules that puts the onus on the blogger to moderate things that violate those rules is the best solution. Lazy people can always check off all the rules. Anything else is just suspicious, invasive, and annoying.
Don’t touch me there! (my personal data & Microsoft & Kodak)
There is a deeply annoying trend in online services. I hadn’t really bothered with commenting on it until it finally annoyed me on a very personal level, but now it’s war (more on the personal later).
The trend is this: companies forcing you to “register” with them before you may use their services. Most recently, the trend has rudely invaded me with Kodak’s online photo sharing site, and with Windows Live Spaces (formerly MSN Spaces, I think – the “re-branding” has been nothing but confusing).
Now, granted, some of this may be a privacy setting – you only want people you know viewing your photos or commenting on your blog. Fair enough. But the messages don’t remotely indicate that you’re facing a privacy setting, put into place by your friend/loved one. No, they simply bluntly inform you that you have to, “create an account/ID/way for us to sell your data to a third party like a big dirtbag.”
For example:
“You must sign in using a Windows Live ID™ to add a comment to this space. Sign in
Don’t have a Windows Live ID? Sign up now”
Nothing turns me off faster. Luckily, I’ve been able to get around the Kodak deal with the fact that my mother visited and logged in, and now I have her ID in my passkeys (yay, Mac). Which, by the way, tells me it’s not about a privacy setting put into place by the originating album creator – why else would my mother’s ID work for photo albums created by people whom she has never met?
The truth is, this is just another contemptible butt zit method for these companies to “harvest” user data, either to come knocking at your virtual door, or to sell your valid email address to those nadir of the net world pustules – spammers.
And I refuse.
There are two far more elegant ways for companies to handle this:
- Tell me that this is a privacy level enabled by the blogger/creator. Of course, this is bogus anyway – blogs can be put on a moderator status if you’re worried about invasive comments from strangers – just choose to delete comments you don’t want. So why do I need to create a frickin Microsoft radio tag so they can track me in the wild? Oh yeah, underhanded sneakiness to get my valid email… and study my migratory mating habits, I guess.
- Just come out and say, “You want to use this free service? Then you’re going to have to give us a little something-something in return, you internet slut.”
At least then I could appreciate the honesty.
Now, I could be totally wrong about this – but there isn’t enough transparency as to WHY they want my data. Given that, I have to use Occam’s razor (to paraphrase, the easiest explanation is usually right), which yields the explanation that they’re holding the content of my friends and family hostage, for the ransom of my data.

