It is ironic that papers and persons reviewing science and scientists do not hold themselves to the same standards of transparency that they demand from same. The Economist uses several "hot button" terms, words which were NOT used in the report, to damn and to inflame emotion regarding the 'climate data' fiasco.
I will not use the suffix -gate regarding the climate data leaked emails. That's asinine and not at all the same. "That's not what the word means." Watergate involved the violation of laws, and then a coverup of the violation of laws through yet another illegal act. The destruction of evidence was but the final step for Nixon.
Nothing like that happened here. In fact, more than 90% of the data was already released as public information.
The newspapers have spun this into a very emotion-driven, logically fallacious, and stupidly reported political issue. Why? Because NEWSPAPERS ARE CORPORATIONS, and corporations drive/pay/control politics.
The more scared and angry you are, the more you vote the way they want you to, and the less you complain about having your civil rights dissolved.
Good job America, good job at being suckers.
RE: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15826384
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
things slowly go back the way they were...
I have one brief message today. TRY THIS.
http://code.google.com/p/youtube-html5-chrome/
Go to the plugin directory from Chrome and just search html5. Install it. Suddenly, youtube works like it never has before - clean, fast, and well.
I remember shocking the scientist Vince Cerf in the early 00's with my suggestion that he should promote and support HTML5 because I hated the poorly implemented XHTML B.S. and contradictory codes that were being abused by multiple browsers in the market dominance wars. HTML was sucky and still is, but version 5 cleans up a TON of problems. I threatened to release my own version of HTML5. He actually wrote back.
One thing it does is kick MSFT in the A$$. SGML is the patented basis for HTML, and that's something IBM invented in the freaking forties.
FORTIES, man. Think about it. IBM rocks, and never let anyone tell you differently. Best servers around apart from high-end specialty graphics systems by SONY, which partners with IBM by the way. PS3 Cell chip, anyone? Runs the fastest computers on the planet.
Anyway, I finally got flash replaced, since it doesn't even HAVE an installer for 64 bit OSes. No great loss. Viva la HTML5.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Microsoft stumble caught on film. Funny online.
MSFT
On the same day that the big lawyer company admits to major, systemic, security failures in their flagship product, they turn around and admit that Windows Mobile is terrible. That's not exactly what they said, but it's what everyone heard. When you screw up at work, then blame the secretary for not answering the phone fast enough, everyone immediately knows that you fucked up. We all know what CYA is.
This is microsoft's CYA
Yeah. Linux is behind the android, HTC, nexus one, and everything else important on the market in phones - including the iPhone. Yeah, and Mobile 7 is a year behind or so on the release schedule. So, how is linux falling behind again?
Hiring Film
Since I've started working with people in the movie industry in the 80s, I've seen no end of lies, bullsheep, and outright fraud in and around Hollywood. One of the worst industries is 'the agency' industry, a scam-filled hate festival populated by charlatans on a good day.
I've seen so many friends and acquaintances go to these actor and modelling agencies, be told that they're 'in consideration' for a part, but that they 'recommend' a model or photo class in order to 'be sure' to get the role. After 2000 dollars or more, no further mention of job offers materialize. They make money in only one way and that's by tricking people into paying for classes.
NO ACTOR on Earth has ever been in any film you've seen in any theater, who came from one of these agencies. That's not how it works.
NO actor, NO model, and NO talented staff should ever be required to pay even a penny. The entire point of being a model is that YOU are the one to get paid. REAL agencies take a percentage of your income. They do not require up-front fees, and although they may suggest a class or two - they will point you to a reputable state college. It's unlikely that an agent would accept you as a model AND suggest that you take classes. What the 'take a class' suggestion means is that you don't know what the hell you're doing and you have no natural talent.
DO NOT PAY UP FRONT. DO NOT PAY AT ALL, except as a percentage deducted from your earnings. Agents, scouts, managers, et al get paid on PERCENTAGE unless you're already a megastar. They may then want a salary on TOP of the percentage if you're a 'name actor' or 'name model' who's already been on Vogue or in several movies. That's not likely to be you or me.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Are all hosting companies incompetent?
It is amazingly difficult to get accurate information about some things, and one of those things is hosting. So many host companies are "affiliates" of other companies that it's almost a joke. There is apparently only one real host in the entire United States, and everyone else leases services from them. Warning: They're terrible.
I have had absolutely rock-bottom service from hosts that are trumpeted as the best in the business: Pair.net, lunarpages.com, 1and1.com, and many others. I would never use any of them again. They are not robust, they have awful ping times, they don't do regular maintenance or backups, and they don't notice outages for weeks at a time.
In short, the best host in the world is YOU.
Host your own services. It's easier, you have more control, and it's far less expensive once you get set up.
All other hosts except yourself:
I give pair.net, lunarpages.com, 1and1.com, godaddy.com, tucows.com, and all the rest, a BIG FAT 'F'. A -10 for the entire service. [-10 to 10]
You need two things to be a host: A computer, and a pair of IP numbers. That's it! Done.
If you need help setting up your own host, contact me for instructions. The net cost of a new computer and a pair of IP numbers is about 300.00 for a dedicated machine and 10.00 a month for two IP numbers. This beats ALL hosting plan rates that I've ever seen in my life.
All hosting plans are like extended warranties: They sound awesome, but in fact they are too good to be true, and actually are a waste of your time and money.
Google results for "host companies": The first three hits, and the three ads that always appear at the top of any google search. Ads first, all in order.
http://www.thetop10bestwebhosting.com/usg
http://www.the10besthosts.com/
http://www.hostcritique.net/
http://www.hostcompanies.com/
http://www.hostaz.com/
http://www.findmyhosting.com/
Note:
It is fairly obvious to even the newest of noobs that these are all advertising sites designed to appear as neutral ratings pages. This sort of problem is systemic on the web. Nothing you read on any website should be taken as a literal truth. Not even my own, this one.
Few of these pages even carry the same suggested host companies, and only one appears on most of them - apparently the biggest advertiser. Funny that I've dealt in hosting for 12 years and never heard of them! Two of them are red flags: Yahoo is an abysmal host and should never be used by anyone in business. There was once a website for corporations that used to sell kits to allow corporations to auto-mail all instant messenger, group, club, and mail users without an opt-out or opt-in policy. I once had a copy of that kit that I kept as proof. I suspect that they still allow their services to be spammed for pay. I respect Yahoo about as much as I respect dung. The other red flag is the fact that the small amount of data that IS published on one page does not match the other pages proclaiming similar data. The pricing doesn't all match, and the rates of speed, and other measures of performance are apparently self-stated and not really metered.
I have metered websites before, and they'll perform to an extremely consistent rate when metered correctly. Proper metering takes out randomness and performance variables to obtain a solid number. One of many methods to do so is to take the average of more than 20 measurements of the same data. When you start to average and accumulate real data, you will see a solidity to the numbers on any website. That is their actual performance.
None of these six pages give any excuse, reason, or methodology of how they are an actual rating company or organization. That's because they are not. They are advertisers. There is no disclaimer, commitment, or process disclosed because an advertiser doesn't need to do that.
What sort of ethics does a company have when they willfully use "shill" services or deceptive advertising? Not good ethics, that's what. None of these companies should be trusted. Even my own last used host is listed on one of these pages, and I have to say that I am less than impressed with their abilities or service. I can, and do, provide better service to myself with my own computer - an old simple DL360 server. You can get old servers for less than 100.00. I paid 35.00 for mine.
Conclusion:
It is readily apparent that there is no honest review. All of these review sites contain advertising. Again, if you accept advertising for a service that you are reviewing, that's a conflict of interest.
Google ads don't count? Yes, they do. Selling advertising, even random ads that you don't know of, makes you a part of the problem and ads to confusion for the consumer. When someone comes to you for a review, and they see prominent ads for a company that you've negatively reviewed, they are still likely to select that company because they are more likely to notice that advertising than your review of it.
Your landing page for a review site can not have advertising that applies to the services you are reviewing or it is a breach of ethics. Period. Ethics are strict, m'kay? The fact that all these sites do just that proves that they are unethical even if they intend to be ethical. They failed.
Co-location? Dedicated servers? You can do that yourself too, and for less than you'll pay someone else to do it. Rent an office in Seattle - a high rent area, and it'll cost you about 450.00 a month. Your telco bill will be about 250.00 a month for multiple lines. Your equipment cost will be about 100.00 a month if you lease a single rack server. You add capacity as you need it, in line with your profits. Total cost to you is 800 a month. Most commercial hosts will hit you for more than that for dedicated hosting and access to the room! In fact, none of them want you to come anywhere near their server room. It's not security - they wouldn't want you to see what you're really paying for.
On average you should be able to set up your own dedicated host [hosting at your own home] for less than a hundred a month. If you have a corporation and need to be on a bigger phone trunk, then you may need to actually rent an office downtown in your city. Otherwise, if you do self-hosting THAT IS dedicated hosting. Tada.
Why would you pay someone else a thousand a month to do that? That's like paying 300 a day to have someone clean your kitchen [ten times the average rate] when you could just do it yourself for nothing. It's exactly like that.
~D
I have had absolutely rock-bottom service from hosts that are trumpeted as the best in the business: Pair.net, lunarpages.com, 1and1.com, and many others. I would never use any of them again. They are not robust, they have awful ping times, they don't do regular maintenance or backups, and they don't notice outages for weeks at a time.
In short, the best host in the world is YOU.
Host your own services. It's easier, you have more control, and it's far less expensive once you get set up.
All other hosts except yourself:
- Lease services from someone else, and have no direct control. Thus, there is a defacto breach of promise to deliver services. They are also inable to make improvements or repairs, do backups, or restore backups, because they are not the actual provider. They're just taking your money.
- Claim to be on "the backbone" but none of them are.
- Claim to have amazing customer service, but you get hostile people with no knowledge or skills when you call, IF you get through to anyone.
- Claim to save you money, but in fact charge you outrageously for a pitiful service that you could perform better yourself.
I give pair.net, lunarpages.com, 1and1.com, godaddy.com, tucows.com, and all the rest, a BIG FAT 'F'. A -10 for the entire service. [-10 to 10]
You need two things to be a host: A computer, and a pair of IP numbers. That's it! Done.
If you need help setting up your own host, contact me for instructions. The net cost of a new computer and a pair of IP numbers is about 300.00 for a dedicated machine and 10.00 a month for two IP numbers. This beats ALL hosting plan rates that I've ever seen in my life.
All hosting plans are like extended warranties: They sound awesome, but in fact they are too good to be true, and actually are a waste of your time and money.
Google results for "host companies": The first three hits, and the three ads that always appear at the top of any google search. Ads first, all in order.
http://www.thetop10bestwebhosting.com/usg
http://www.the10besthosts.com/
http://www.hostcritique.net/
http://www.hostcompanies.com/
http://www.hostaz.com/
http://www.findmyhosting.com/
Note:
It is fairly obvious to even the newest of noobs that these are all advertising sites designed to appear as neutral ratings pages. This sort of problem is systemic on the web. Nothing you read on any website should be taken as a literal truth. Not even my own, this one.
Few of these pages even carry the same suggested host companies, and only one appears on most of them - apparently the biggest advertiser. Funny that I've dealt in hosting for 12 years and never heard of them! Two of them are red flags: Yahoo is an abysmal host and should never be used by anyone in business. There was once a website for corporations that used to sell kits to allow corporations to auto-mail all instant messenger, group, club, and mail users without an opt-out or opt-in policy. I once had a copy of that kit that I kept as proof. I suspect that they still allow their services to be spammed for pay. I respect Yahoo about as much as I respect dung. The other red flag is the fact that the small amount of data that IS published on one page does not match the other pages proclaiming similar data. The pricing doesn't all match, and the rates of speed, and other measures of performance are apparently self-stated and not really metered.
I have metered websites before, and they'll perform to an extremely consistent rate when metered correctly. Proper metering takes out randomness and performance variables to obtain a solid number. One of many methods to do so is to take the average of more than 20 measurements of the same data. When you start to average and accumulate real data, you will see a solidity to the numbers on any website. That is their actual performance.
None of these six pages give any excuse, reason, or methodology of how they are an actual rating company or organization. That's because they are not. They are advertisers. There is no disclaimer, commitment, or process disclosed because an advertiser doesn't need to do that.
What sort of ethics does a company have when they willfully use "shill" services or deceptive advertising? Not good ethics, that's what. None of these companies should be trusted. Even my own last used host is listed on one of these pages, and I have to say that I am less than impressed with their abilities or service. I can, and do, provide better service to myself with my own computer - an old simple DL360 server. You can get old servers for less than 100.00. I paid 35.00 for mine.
Conclusion:
It is readily apparent that there is no honest review. All of these review sites contain advertising. Again, if you accept advertising for a service that you are reviewing, that's a conflict of interest.
Google ads don't count? Yes, they do. Selling advertising, even random ads that you don't know of, makes you a part of the problem and ads to confusion for the consumer. When someone comes to you for a review, and they see prominent ads for a company that you've negatively reviewed, they are still likely to select that company because they are more likely to notice that advertising than your review of it.
Your landing page for a review site can not have advertising that applies to the services you are reviewing or it is a breach of ethics. Period. Ethics are strict, m'kay? The fact that all these sites do just that proves that they are unethical even if they intend to be ethical. They failed.
Co-location? Dedicated servers? You can do that yourself too, and for less than you'll pay someone else to do it. Rent an office in Seattle - a high rent area, and it'll cost you about 450.00 a month. Your telco bill will be about 250.00 a month for multiple lines. Your equipment cost will be about 100.00 a month if you lease a single rack server. You add capacity as you need it, in line with your profits. Total cost to you is 800 a month. Most commercial hosts will hit you for more than that for dedicated hosting and access to the room! In fact, none of them want you to come anywhere near their server room. It's not security - they wouldn't want you to see what you're really paying for.
On average you should be able to set up your own dedicated host [hosting at your own home] for less than a hundred a month. If you have a corporation and need to be on a bigger phone trunk, then you may need to actually rent an office downtown in your city. Otherwise, if you do self-hosting THAT IS dedicated hosting. Tada.
Why would you pay someone else a thousand a month to do that? That's like paying 300 a day to have someone clean your kitchen [ten times the average rate] when you could just do it yourself for nothing. It's exactly like that.
~D
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Bad Business - Treating owners like Lessees.
MSFT has a startling new statement that it made this month, one which bodes ill for any MSFT fans going forward. You do not have the right to sell or buy MSFT hardware on the open market.
[Microsoft's Major Nelson put it bluntly. "This would also be a good time to remind you that the warranty on an Xbox 360 console is not transferable and if you purchase a used console that has been previously banned, you will not be able to connect to Xbox Live," he explained.]
- http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/cheap-to-good-home-used-360-pirated-games-slightly-banned.ars
So, the hardware warranty is ONLY honored IF you are the original purchaser. Not even car dealerships do that to their customers, the warranty in most states goes with the car, not the owner. Dealerships are prohibited from denying warrantied service. I certainly would not buy any car, or any game console, if I can't transfer the warranty.
Secondly, MSFT is also stating that you may not go online with their Xbox if you buy a used machine because they are assuming that it's pirated. Way to stay classy, Bill. That is equal to stating that all used car dealers are illegal.
MSFT doesn't seem to understand the law in the United States, and maybe that's why they keep running afoul of it!
Most businesses are GLAD to accept new customers, even if they are coming on board with used hardware. Take your cell phone for example, you can buy a phone on Ebay or Craigslist, or any garage sale and your preferred phone company will activate it for you. They care not about the origin of the hardware and are happy to accept your money. That's what business is all about, isn't it?
Ford will perform free recall repairs on used Ford vehicles. Ford honors all Ford vehicles which are still under warranty, regardless of whom the current owner is. RIM will honor the warranty on their phones no matter who you are. Most hardware manufacturers ship hardware to multiple clients, and have no vested interest in who the retail customer is. They're glad to provide warranty service, and the warranty is a form of company reputation. Nobody wants to buy a Fiat or Ford Pinto for good reasons.
This again highlights some of Microsoft's more questionable attitudes, that the hardware still belongs to Microsoft, and that they have both reason and ability to dictate the use of their hardware to the consumer. This attitude lead to the antitrust suits that continue to accumulate against the corporation. Unless the consumer signs a LEASE, the hardware is PURCHASED. It does not belong to the manufacturer any more.
Although I have no particular love for any one company over another, I now buy "bare box" computers and just put my own software in them. I save hundreds on hardware costs, but thousands on software costs. I've written about the deceptive practices of major computer vendors before, and this is little different, seeing as the xbox is really nothing more than a Microsoft produced PC that is painted green. Little power button and special video card aside, it's really rather marginal as a game console.
I know my Sony PS3 has never had a single power issue or 'red light of death' problem. Sony has some margin of respect for both its clients and its customers.
Microsoft, in my opinion, has very little respect for anyone.
[Microsoft's Major Nelson put it bluntly. "This would also be a good time to remind you that the warranty on an Xbox 360 console is not transferable and if you purchase a used console that has been previously banned, you will not be able to connect to Xbox Live," he explained.]
- http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/cheap-to-good-home-used-360-pirated-games-slightly-banned.ars
So, the hardware warranty is ONLY honored IF you are the original purchaser. Not even car dealerships do that to their customers, the warranty in most states goes with the car, not the owner. Dealerships are prohibited from denying warrantied service. I certainly would not buy any car, or any game console, if I can't transfer the warranty.
Secondly, MSFT is also stating that you may not go online with their Xbox if you buy a used machine because they are assuming that it's pirated. Way to stay classy, Bill. That is equal to stating that all used car dealers are illegal.
MSFT doesn't seem to understand the law in the United States, and maybe that's why they keep running afoul of it!
Most businesses are GLAD to accept new customers, even if they are coming on board with used hardware. Take your cell phone for example, you can buy a phone on Ebay or Craigslist, or any garage sale and your preferred phone company will activate it for you. They care not about the origin of the hardware and are happy to accept your money. That's what business is all about, isn't it?
Ford will perform free recall repairs on used Ford vehicles. Ford honors all Ford vehicles which are still under warranty, regardless of whom the current owner is. RIM will honor the warranty on their phones no matter who you are. Most hardware manufacturers ship hardware to multiple clients, and have no vested interest in who the retail customer is. They're glad to provide warranty service, and the warranty is a form of company reputation. Nobody wants to buy a Fiat or Ford Pinto for good reasons.
This again highlights some of Microsoft's more questionable attitudes, that the hardware still belongs to Microsoft, and that they have both reason and ability to dictate the use of their hardware to the consumer. This attitude lead to the antitrust suits that continue to accumulate against the corporation. Unless the consumer signs a LEASE, the hardware is PURCHASED. It does not belong to the manufacturer any more.
Although I have no particular love for any one company over another, I now buy "bare box" computers and just put my own software in them. I save hundreds on hardware costs, but thousands on software costs. I've written about the deceptive practices of major computer vendors before, and this is little different, seeing as the xbox is really nothing more than a Microsoft produced PC that is painted green. Little power button and special video card aside, it's really rather marginal as a game console.
I know my Sony PS3 has never had a single power issue or 'red light of death' problem. Sony has some margin of respect for both its clients and its customers.
Microsoft, in my opinion, has very little respect for anyone.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Review Resources - How good are they?
I've written to all of these, and worked with some that no longer exist, but I'm just going to list the online review sources that I am familiar with and are still open. Probably the best one I've ever seen is long deceased, sad to say.
YELP: -2 points [10 to -10]
www.yelp.com
Usability -1
Ethical business model -1
Yelp appears to be genuine, however they allow businesses to spam their site, and are apparently quite fully shilled by paid posters. One negative post as an experiment met with a dozen angry retorts within an hour and hate mail by the end of the day. It was fairly obvious that someone is 'patrolling' yelp and keeping the complaints down. Since it's a 'complaint site' this is very contradictory behavior.
Yelp has numerous quirky functions which I find to be very arbitrary and not well executed. From the half star to four star ratings to the ability to get negatively rated by the business you just rated, Yelp is chock full of problems with using it effectively. I pulled my posts and account after three months of attempting to utilize it.
Checkbook: 0 points
checkbook.com
I discovered that checkbook sends out a once-a-year pamphlet that they expect you to fill out and return, and this somehow represents all the businesses you've dealt with in that year accurately. There is absolutely no online element, and they publish wonder-filled articles about several businesses. There is no published standard of review nor do they accept any other input besides the extensive form.
I threw away the form. I still get mail from them requesting money. Not recommended.
Consumer Reports: 0 points
no web presence effectively.
Consumer Reports is supposedly a "watchdog" group, but who runs it? They don't publish their standards. I have no idea who owns them. As far as I can tell this group is no more useful than the BBB, and were it not for annual studies of products that they publish I would not even consider them a valid reviewer.
They are magazine based. Not very recommended.
Epinions: 0 points
http://www.epinions.com/
Another corporation disguised as a neutral agency. The front page trumpets that the site is a part of shopper.com, a corporate entity. How this causes people to trust them, I have no idea.
Not recommended.
Bloggers and Google. 10 points.
To date, since 2008 this is the primary method that I use to find out if a product or service is any good. In most cases, if people really love or really hate something, they'll blog about it.
Corporations are shills. Websites are started to make money off the users, and there is as yet nothing listed by google as a public review resource which really is. All of the sites mentioned above have one key feature that reveals them to be false: advertising.
If you advertise you are at least in part beholden to the advertising agency. If you advertise for the very items that you are reviewing, then you are breaching your ethical premise. You are not neutral.
There is only one true way to find honest reviews: Find them yourself. Any website gathering reviews that isn't a blog or a nonprofit agency is likely to be bogus. This is at least in part why I started blogging in the first place. I think people should know when I find a great business, or a terrible one.
YELP: -2 points [10 to -10]
www.yelp.com
Usability -1
Ethical business model -1
Yelp appears to be genuine, however they allow businesses to spam their site, and are apparently quite fully shilled by paid posters. One negative post as an experiment met with a dozen angry retorts within an hour and hate mail by the end of the day. It was fairly obvious that someone is 'patrolling' yelp and keeping the complaints down. Since it's a 'complaint site' this is very contradictory behavior.
Yelp has numerous quirky functions which I find to be very arbitrary and not well executed. From the half star to four star ratings to the ability to get negatively rated by the business you just rated, Yelp is chock full of problems with using it effectively. I pulled my posts and account after three months of attempting to utilize it.
Checkbook: 0 points
checkbook.com
I discovered that checkbook sends out a once-a-year pamphlet that they expect you to fill out and return, and this somehow represents all the businesses you've dealt with in that year accurately. There is absolutely no online element, and they publish wonder-filled articles about several businesses. There is no published standard of review nor do they accept any other input besides the extensive form.
I threw away the form. I still get mail from them requesting money. Not recommended.
Consumer Reports: 0 points
no web presence effectively.
Consumer Reports is supposedly a "watchdog" group, but who runs it? They don't publish their standards. I have no idea who owns them. As far as I can tell this group is no more useful than the BBB, and were it not for annual studies of products that they publish I would not even consider them a valid reviewer.
They are magazine based. Not very recommended.
Epinions: 0 points
http://www.epinions.com/
Another corporation disguised as a neutral agency. The front page trumpets that the site is a part of shopper.com, a corporate entity. How this causes people to trust them, I have no idea.
Not recommended.
Bloggers and Google. 10 points.
To date, since 2008 this is the primary method that I use to find out if a product or service is any good. In most cases, if people really love or really hate something, they'll blog about it.
Corporations are shills. Websites are started to make money off the users, and there is as yet nothing listed by google as a public review resource which really is. All of the sites mentioned above have one key feature that reveals them to be false: advertising.
If you advertise you are at least in part beholden to the advertising agency. If you advertise for the very items that you are reviewing, then you are breaching your ethical premise. You are not neutral.
There is only one true way to find honest reviews: Find them yourself. Any website gathering reviews that isn't a blog or a nonprofit agency is likely to be bogus. This is at least in part why I started blogging in the first place. I think people should know when I find a great business, or a terrible one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)