Microsoft Will Fluff Your Pillows

Microsoft is offering it’s own version of AI. Probably the first sure sign that AI is never going to be anything really useful.

From Microsoft’s description, sounds like Google on amphetamines. It will probably take more work to keep it from going off in the wrong direction than it would be to just do the task yourself. And to get it to work correctly, you probably have to provide it with the same level of detail you’d have to provide if you were doing it all yourself. Then you’ll have to double-check the results to make sure it doesn’t go off and do something really crazy.

There will be a lot of “guardrails”, which tells you that it really isn’t “AI”; just algorithms on speed. It will solve problems that are easily solved without AI and fail the minute it is confronted with a real problem.

There is a SCTV sketch in which Dr. Tongue turns a bunch of stewardesses into his zombie-slaves. Turns out the zombies behave exactly like stewardesses: can I get you another coffee? Fluff up your pillow? Would you like a snack tray? Is your seat comfortable?

“Is there turbulence ahead?” Let me fluff up your pillow again.

Eventually Dr. Tongue wishes they would go away.

The Get Lost Button

Recently, I added a group of photos to my Facebook Page.  Facebook popped up with a little window that hid part of my screen and urged me to make my album “shareable” so my friends could post pictures to it as well.  And Facebook, of course, gets to collect more information about my friends.  Your options are “yes” or leave this ugly window open on my screen.

Facebook should add another option: GET LOST.

Come to think of it, most software and websites should have that as a standard option.

Put all your music into my library so you have to use my app to find it? GET LOST.

Update Firefox so you have to wait five minutes before you can google whatever it is you’ve forgotten you want to google? GET LOST.

Install a new layer on your browser so I can intercept all your search requests? GET LOST.

Update your Flash Player with the newest, most secure, sexiest and fastest new Updater?  GET LOST.

Sign in to Google?  GET LOST.

Let us update you when new features are available?  GET LOST.

Sign in to watch videos your friends liked on Facebook?  GET LOST.

It is now 2013: I still use Word 2003.  Why?  Because, for one thing, I want to write.  I don’t want to create a Christmas Card every time I develop some actual content.


Below, the Word 2003 and Word 2010 screens, respectively.

 

 

Going back to Office 2003.

Office 2007 and 2010 must be the worst design updates in software history.

Would Mighty Microsoft really make a mistake like that? Wouldn’t they carefully test the new interface to make sure users liked it and found it more efficient and user-friendly? Oh, they probably do, to some extent. But that’s not the driving force behind most upgrades.

Every four or five years, Microsoft must persuade you to upgrade or they lose a massive income stream. To persuade you to upgrade, they must make it difficult to run older versions of the software on the new operating systems that come with all new computers. Then they must persuade you that there is something new and better about the upgrade.

In every design aspect of any product there will be a point where an optimum design has been reached beyond which only minor tweaks and enhancements will actually provide anything of value. Office seemed to me to have reached that plateau at version 2003. The tool bar on the new version is a mess.

But then, Microsoft never cared at all for the power user. The very last thing they, or Adobe, or Sony, want to give the user is the power to control his computer environment. They don’t want you to know where your files are actually located, or where your templates are, or how to turn useless automated features off. They want you to enter the womb, attach the umbilical cord, and keep funneling those dollars into their coffers while you are desperately dependent on them to maintain the web of fonts and links and chains and networks that let you find your file.

There is no such thing as a desktop. It does not exist. There is a hard drive and a motherboard and software. The desktop itself is a fictional creation of Microsoft’s to convince you to let them manage your files, which it then hides from you in folders you can’t locate and can’t efficiently back up.

And if the computer is “My Computer” why is Microsoft trying to shove it’s bizarre file organization ideas down my throat? Why does it allow applications to store configuration files not only in the Program Files\application\whatever folder but also in the users\username\app data or app data\roaming folders? So if you fix a bad dll you might not know it: a duplicate dll might very well be sitting in another folder somewhere. This happened to me recently: I spent hours trying to solve a problem only to realize that there were two copies of the same file in two different sub-sub-sub-folders, and I was fixing the wrong one.

After all this time, and more than 15 years after the atrocious Windows 3.1 debuted, Microsoft still sucks.

Copyright and Copywrong

(From a discussion on usenet)

Skip this if you don’t want to be bored. But if you think the CD as the medium of distribution for music might soon be obsolete…

Actually, your point is well taken. I have often thought and said that I wish some days that the copyright-holders get exactly what they wish for. Because it would kill them off more quickly. What I believe is happening is that copyright holders want it both ways. They want to benefit from widespread exposure. Then they want to assert the right to not expose their work.

I firmly believe that if the government had required Microsoft to put effective copy protection on all of their products, we wouldn’t have the monopoly we have now. And I firmly believe Microsoft knew that, and that is why, when Word Perfect, for example, removed copy protection from their product, Microsoft almost immediately did the same. It is therefore hypocritical of Microsoft to demand protection from competition, by asserting their copyright. Compete!

And, in fact, you can easily see that Microsoft has been very circumspect on this issue. They know dimly what Google understands completely: there’s a lot of money to be made in giving away your product.

As for music, copyright holders want their music exposed, on radio and tv, in promotional tie-ins, scandalous newspapers, etc., etc. If you truly believe that Ashley Simpson gets her face on my local entertainment section because even a Kitchener, Ontario newspaper believes she is so talented she deserves it, God bless you, but I don’t. She is there because her corporate Svengalis want her “exposed”. They want you to see her face. They have established a very sophisticated and effective system of promotion that ensures that her face will be on magazine covers. They will also want you to hear her music– why else would you buy her CD? Most commercial radio stations only play music by artists they believe will obtain wide exposure through tv and magazines. One hand washing the other. They all profit by selling advertising, not music.

Since I have no intention of spending one red cent on Ashley Simpson products, I would have no problem with her corporate Svengalis being absolutely, totally successful in preventing me from being exposed to her music, her face, or her tantrums, without having paid for permission. Go to it! Please– be absolutely successful. Prevent her music from ever being downloaded to my computer, or played on my radio station, or her face from being on my tv, or in my local newspaper, unless I actually offer you money for it.

I have absolutely no problem with finding my music by reading reviews or hearing personal recommendations from people I know instead. I also like to support local talent.

But that, of course, does not happen. And up until recently, this system worked to the advantage of the big corporations, who could control access to the actual product, the CD. Now the corporations have lost control over the actual product, so the system is becoming unbalanced. But only if you believe that for the rest of all time, we must all consume music by purchasing a discrete material product, and music companies must only profit through the sale of that physical product.

That model has been made obsolete by technology and the music industry (and Hollywood and television) are crying the blues and they refuse to accept it. They are the carriage-makers of our era. They deserve to go out of business because they have failed to adjust to changing market realities. In retrospect, does anybody doubt that if the music companies had moved aggressively to make their entire catalogues available as paid downloads in a high quality format that they would not have made a killing? It took Apple to show them it could be done. But it might well be too late. As with prohibition, individual transgression has been replaced with a transgressive infrastructure that will not be easily suppressed.

Google, iTunes, eBay, and Amazon, and even Microsoft, are the new emblems of astute corporations that understand where the market is going and what it wants. All this wailing and gnashing of teeth is misplaced. The music industry should sit down together, face the fact that the old model of business practice is now obsolete, and move on to something new, or join the other dinosaurs in the museum.

Congress, despicably, in exchange for ready election campaign cash, is doing everything it can to keep an obsolete business model afloat– this from alleged believers in a “free market” (“free” for everyone else). It’s like requiring train companies to keep stokers employed. Or more like when a city in Bolivia tried to make it illegal to save rain water in order to help a private American company make a bigger profit with it’s monopoly on the water supply.

The museum is full of creatures that failed to adapt.

Finally, I absolutely believe that a very profitable music business model can survive downloading. How does Google make money?

The difference is, the Recording industry will have to work hard and use their brains. That might be asking too much….


A recent documentary film producer was asked to pay $10,000 for the rights to use a six-second cell-phone ring tone that was derived from the theme from ROCKY (Gonna Fly Now). Tragically, he couldn’t afford a team of lawyers, so he had to pay a negotiated amount less than that, even though he was not convinced that he had to pay, legally, for it’s use in a documentary.

That is not really farce anymore: it’s tragedy.

Maximum PC Sells Out

Maximum PC used to be highly regarded in these quarters. It was the only major computer magazine that didn’t carry reams of Microsoft advertising. Shockingly, it also sometimes commented honestly on the many shortcomings in the Microsoft product line.

I nearly vomited when I read the “Ed Word” in the most recent Maximum PC. Slyly formulated, with a few token swipes at obvious defects, it is an otherwise laudatory puff-piece on Windows.

So much for the last glossy computer magazine that didn’t prostrate itself before Bill Gates.

And wait– what’s this I see– oh my god!! It’s an ad for “Age of Empires”, a Microsoft game!! Sheer coincidence? Sure. Just like George Bush looked into his mirror shaving one day and just happened to see the most qualified supreme court justice in the country standing right behind him, right next to Laura, his own personal lawyer, Harriet E. Miers.

So what’s happening? Is Maximum PC cashing out?

Byte Magazine bit the dust years ago, probably because there never was a market for intelligent dissenting opinions on computer technology.  That is a shame.

 

 

There Will Never be a Secure Version of Windows

You may have heard the announcements recently about a new version of Windows, “Longhorn”, and how it will incorporate all kinds of new security features, including something called “Secure Startup”. At a demonstration in Seattle in April, Microsoft demonstrated this new feature which allegedly makes it impossible to see any files on your computer unless the “Platform Configuration Registers” (PCR) match something called a SRTM (Static Root of Trust Measurement”). The article in ComputerWorld is a bit oblique about where the SRTM (how they do love acronyms in the computer world) is located. In a chip, I would presume. On your motherboard, it would seem likely.

The ostensible purpose of these security measures is to protect your data. That’s what Microsoft wants you to believe. It’s not true. The real purpose is absorb you into the borg. All right– partly kidding. What is the borg. in this case? The online world of customer-purchase-charge.

Microsoft might be evil but they are not clueless. They know that the computer is destined to replace the television. When it does, whoever controls the feed of information to your eyeballs controls an unbelievably immense resource.

Anyone who is familiar with the real world of Microsoft operating systems can only just begin to imagine a plethora of scenarios in which you wake up one day to find that all of these “security measures” have gone wrong and instead of protecting your computers from hackers is now protecting your data from you.

More likely, however, you will wake up to find your computer has been hijacked once again by any of a dozen legal or illegal users, all trying to stick their fangs into your infoblood. Yes– “legal” users too, like AOL or Real Networks, or Adobe or Microsoft itself. Yes, even after all the promises and all the claims, Microsoft will once again have sold you a house with giant symbolic locks on the doors– and no glass in the windows. Because, after all, if you want to let the summer breeze blow through your living room, you shouldn’t actually have to get up off the sofa and open a window yourself.

Someone once mentioned that governments react quickly and decisively to terrorism primarily for this reason: it attacks their monopoly on violence. It’s an interesting observation, and at least partly, if not wholly, true. The secret of pervasive government power is that whenever they really, really don’t like what you are doing, they can bust you, violently, if necessary. On the other hand, no matter how convinced I am that Bush is a lying, scheming dupe, I can’t go find myself a beat cop, stroll into the White House, and arrest him. I can’t even suspend the normal rules of due process and evidence– as Bush has done– in order to expedite the incarceration of the man. I can’t because the state doesn’t allow me to exercise coercive power. The state wants a monopoly on violence, the way Microsoft wants a monopoly on internet connectivity.

In the same way, Microsoft wants to stop pirates and hackers from getting onto your computer because they threaten its monopoly on your eyeballs. Microsoft wants to control what you see, where you go to, what information you read. When your TV finally gets linked to your computer, Microsoft’s logo is going to be on the corner of your screen, and you will use Microsoft search engines to find the tv schedule, and Microsoft will collect fees from Hollywood to ensure that you cannot skip through a commercial.

Microsoft’s solution is NOT — I repeat, because this is profoundly true– is NOT to stop your system from being hijacked, because the only way they could do that effectively would be to give the user control over his own computer.

Microsoft’s goal is to facilitate on-line commerce and to force your eyeballs onto the websites belonging to Microsoft itself, or it’s corporate partners.

If you don’t believe this is true, try to delete Internet Explorer or MSN. Or try to prevent Microsoft from contacting it’s own web site and checking for “updates”. Try to install a version of media player that does not refuse to play certain files because it deems them to be in violation of copyright laws. (If you think the competition might be better, try to install Real Player and tell it not to take control over all your media files.)

Try to tell Windows explorer not to try to automatically play files when the cursor lands on or hovers over their names.

I’m not saying it’s not possible to do these things (some aren’t). But it’s difficult, and you will often find that the minute you have to patch your operating system, Microsoft makes everything revert back to the defaults.

Ever get the message that some files are not the official Microsoft versions? Ever try to fix that problem?

Microsoft Windows is NEVER going to be secure, because the only way to make Windows secure is to let you go where you want to go with your browser, and choose what you actually see on your screen.

It’s not going to happen.

You might some day be duped into thinking that Windows has solved the security problem. You will be duped into thinking that because Microsoft will pop up on your screen with this news. That will be like a man walking into your living room as you sit there watching your tv to tell you that your house is now safe and secure.

You will not have asked to see this news, just as you will not have asked Windows to check for security updates at the Microsoft web site, and you will not have asked for Real Networks to monitor your browsing habits and you will not have asked for Adobe to send information back to it’s website when you start Premiere, and you will not have asked for a new version of Windows Media Player that no longer plays “unauthorized” digital music or video even if you recorded it yourself.

Windows will never be secure because Microsoft is not stupid. In fact, the marketing people at Microsoft are way smarter than you or I and they see the future and they know that big money in the future belongs to sites like Google who can attract your eyeballs. But I suspect they won’t genuinely believe in Google, which was very successful by taking the high road.

The original computer was a tool, which a powerful, knowledgeable user used to accomplish tasks he or she had chosen to perform. But since Microsoft began to dominate the PC world, there has been a very steady, very consistent trajectory to the development of hardware and software from the major corporations. That trajectory leads us directly to the opposite of the computer, television.

What made the computer revolutionary was that it actually gave the user control over information. And that is a revolution that cannot and will not be allowed to stand. You– meaning the large body of computer users and consumers that now have computers in their homes–cannot be permitted to obtain the information you want without a corporation carefully screening, manipulating, and controlling it. Because the goal is to convince you that Tucker Carlson “arguing” with Wolf Bitzer is about as diverse as your news sources need to be.

Tucker: So, you think Hilary is a control-freak, free-spending, pinko, feminazi?
Wolf: I disagree. I think she is a control-freak, free-spending, pinko, fembot.
Hilary: But I basically agree with all of President Bush’s policies!
Tucker: It’s working.

They will trumpet your power of choice. Did you want your news from CNN, NBC, MSN, or ABC, or USA Today? Do you want to buy your books at Amazon or Chapters? Do you want to go to a movie at Silver City or Galaxy? Do you want to buy Nikes or Adidas? A GM or Ford? Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson? Spiderman or Batman?

And they only way they can limit your choices to the array of acceptable corporate co-sponsors and flacks, is never, ever, ever give you control over your network connection.

Think about this. Seriously– don’t pass over this point, it’s a very, very important one: how do you shut off your internet connection? Do you know?

If your only answer is “disconnect the cable”, congratulations. You have entered a world in which your access to the internet is controlled by Microsoft. Your computer is now a television. The only difference is, while you’re watching it, it’s watching you.


Microsoft is not the only Jerk Out There:

When I downloaded and installed QuickTime so I could look at some videos, I was given the option of not installing certain features, like iTunes. Then Apple completely ignored my preferences and went ahead and installed iTunes and several other options anyway. Am I displeased? Are you kidding…

The Televisionization of the Internet

You probably don’t think of our society as Totalitarian. A Totalitarian society is a society that is rule by a pernicious doctrine to which all societal functions must be subordinated to one exclusive purpose.

By golly, we’re free to live as we choose, in our society. Aren’t we?

Suppose I wanted to come up with a new type of communication network that combined the functionality of the telephone, television, and radio, into one powerful medium, with one small proviso. The proviso is this: no commercial use of the medium is allowed. None whatsoever. No advertising, no selling, no profiteering. The system would be created and run by volunteers only.

There’s a lot of technical obstacles, of course. But probably not as many as you think. But there is one overwhelming obstacle: our society is totalitarian and will not stand for a non-commercial communications network.

Think that analysis is a little extreme? No television network will allow Adbusters to run their advertisements criticizing advertisers and the consumerist lifestyle. They won’t accept the money, they won’t run the ads. You can sell gas-guzzling cars, unproven pharmaceutical products, and booze, and even scantily-clad women, but you can’t challenge the fundamental religion of our society: consumerism.

And now the internet. When it started, it was beautiful, free, clean, and amazing. Have you browsed around the net lately? All you see is advertising, on every single damn site. And if you aren’t seeing advertising on the site itself, you are getting whacked via e-mail, or in the browser frames, or with pop-up windows.

You might think it’s merely a case of a lot of internet users deciding to try to make a few bucks. But that’s not all it is. Why on earth should your browser permit a pop-up ad? Why should it enable such a function? Why should it be difficult or impossible to turn off that function? Microsoft and Netscape design the browsers. They have incorporated features into the browser to guarantee that you will be whacked every time you go on the internet.

And Microsoft has designed the operating system to encourage the user to become a passive drooling idiot, gushing over the little animations and sound effects playing on his computer, while relinquishing control over his eyeballs and ears to the corporate politburos of America.

The internet is the largest single source of pollution. It is so bad, that for the first time since I first went “on-line” way back in the early 1990’s, I am seriously considering getting off.

Get Your Own #%%!@## Format!

Here it is– another great solution to the movie and music piracy problem!

It’s so mind-numbingly simple, why didn’t George W. Bush think of it?

The music industry and film industry should get together and create new recording medium. It wouldn’t be very hard at all– the technology is there. There are dozens of modifications they can make to existing technologies in order to create a new medium that belongs only to them. A special type of DVD with special coding at the start that prevents it from being played in any existing DVD player. You heard me right– but hang on. I’m not crazy. They can call it the “Super Media Content Diskie” or “SMCD”.

The music and film industries will own this standard and will not license it to anybody but themselves. They will contract out with factories to produce a new SMCD Player. The codes required for playing a SMCD will be hard- coded into a special chip, and thus almost impossible to copy or hack.

Then the music and film industries will start releasing all of their “content” only on these special disks. You won’t be able to buy a SMCD version of “Titanic” or “A Few Good Men” or a CD version of Bruce Springsteen or Britney Spears. You will only be able to buy it on SMCD, for which you will have to buy or lease the SMCD player.

And thus piracy will end. No digital copying will be possible. No digital quality copies of songs or movies on the internet, though, of course, some people might be able to make passable copies by recording, with microphones or video cameras, right off the SMCD player screen. (The music and film industries have made it plain that while they’ve always been concerned about copying in general, from any source, it is really the digital copying that gets their goats.)

Problem solved.

It will never happen.

It will never happen because the music and film industries know damn well that they don’t really want a world in which they have absolute ownership and control over their product because in a world like that they won’t make any money.

The reason is very simple and obvious. The consumer would never accept such a system. And some smart musicians and independent movie makers would immediately realize this and start to offer their products on popular media like DVDs and CD’s. And the music and film industries would lose their power and control over the entertainment market and quickly capitulate and that would be end of that.

No, wait— there’s a better solution! The music and film industries can try to seize control of the existing technologies– VCRs, computers, CD recorders– and try to shove their copy-protection schemes down our throats.

And that is what is happening. No one is required to issue movies or music on DVDs or CDs. They do it because they know damned well that the public adopted those media because they were widely accepted standards. They were widely accepted standards because they were broadly licensed to many manufacturers and PC makers. They were broadly licensed because they were sold to us as media, not content. The music and film industries benefit enormously from those widely accepted standards. And that is why, if they don’t like the consequences of a broad, open standard, they should get the hell off it and start producing their own proprietary media that nobody can copy. If they don’t like the SMCD idea, they can go back to vinyl. If they don’t like the internet, they go back to AM radio.

It would be the best thing that could ever happen to the entertainment industry. You would get loads of Third World bands and movie-makers who would be more than happy to give up some protections of their materials in exchange for wide distribution and exposure. They would issue their stuff on popular media formats and would soon blow Hollywood out of the mass market. You would see Demi Moore and Bruce Willis traveling to Bombay to make a new action flick, in English.

This is why Apple is tiny compared to Microsoft. This is why Betamax never caught on. This is why the Laser Disk never made it. This is why Advantix film by Kodak will never succeed. This is why rock’n’roll succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations (the AM battery-powered radio).

The truth is that music and film industries don’t really compete with each other anymore, and don’t want to have to compete with anyone else. They price their products in lock-step with each other, and hate having to actually produce and develop new talent while they can still pimp off their old established stars.

And when their control starts to diminish, because of computers and the internet, instead of becoming leaner or meaner or more competitive– which requires work and talent– they start stuffing your congressman’s pockets full of cash and get the DMCA passed. Now they want congress to require all electronic recording devices to give control over what and when something can be copied to these pimps at the RIAA and MPAA (Recording Industry Association of America and Motion Pictures Association of America).

This is an outrage. It’s one of the five or six biggest scandals of the last twenty years. The Music Industry has every right to negotiate contracts with radio stations and hardware makers about how and when they can put their content on their media. Why the hell should the government step in and make laws to govern– and penalize offenders– an arrangement that should absolutely be a contractual agreement between the record companies and radio stations?

Their control of the world-wide entertainment industry is threatened by any technology that gives more power and control and choice to the consumer. Most consumers wouldn’t give a damn about Britney Spears if it weren’t for the monopolistic control the music industry has over radio, print, and television, but most consumers don’t know that.

They would find out in a hurry if something prompted them to start looking elsewhere.


Yes, I know it’s a symbiotic relationship. New technologies are often created by content companies (or at least companies that have a content division, like Sony and Phillips) at least partly for the purpose of creating new markets for their products. Sort of what I described here as “SMCD”. But Phillips also licensed their technology to many companies to make recorders, players, and car decks. So it benefitted by the very open standard that most content providers now want to kill.

It doesn’t always work that way– few people buy a minidisc to listen to pre-recorded minidiscs– but Phillips certainly intended the cassette as a mass market music media. But the relationship is ambiguous. For example, the recording industry needs radio and television media exposure in order to sell their products. Yet they now want to charge Internet Radio broadcasters for playing their music! Here we have the RIAA acting like a bullying monopoly. Why, for heaven’s sake, won’t some competing independent producers come along and offer their goods for free play on the internet? They would, but the RIAA of America is doing everything it can to not let them. They want their policy wishes to be the law, instead of a contract between themselves and the radio stations, which is what it should be. Because if it was only a contractual arrangement, then competing music producers could offer a better deal!

i-i-i

If you use Microsoft Word, you must not use the letter “i” all by itself. No, no, no. Microsoft has decreed that there shall be no “i”‘s by themselves. Microsoft has decided that you are too stupid to be left to your own powers when writing something. The “i” must become an “I”.

This is, admittedly, not a new concern. I just got particularly fed up with this particular facet of the computer world today: software companies designing their products for idiots. And because they don’t want to have to offer multiple products in each class, non-idiots are stuck with the idiot’s version.

It’s not that it’s not possible to disable many of the idiot features in Microsoft Word, for example. You can, under Tools/Options. You can disable the automatic speller and the contemptible grammar modulator, and automatic lists, and other things. But every time you install a new version of Word, you have to spend about 30 minutes to an hour changing all the default settings to make the program somewhat reasonable to use.

That’s all. Microsoft sucks. So does Quicken and so does Hewlett Packard and Adaptec. Every time they make something automatic– which, they will tell you, “consumers” demand– they reduce the control you have over your letters or pictures or music.

Do people think it impresses other people when they receive letters that are formatted and spelled correctly, and written in a the passive voice? Do people think other people find “clip art” charming or delightful?

You want to impress somebody? Write a letter by hand and mail it to them.

Eula Boola!

A woman, Brenda Avery, in rural New Brunswick, was charged by the police with piracy after Microsoft spies claimed to have found pirated disks of their applications in her computer store.

The RCMP entered her home and arrested her and her husband even though he had no involvement in the computer store. Brenda Avery defended herself in court and won. The article in the Canadian Press does not describe her defense. Was the software not pirated after all, or was she unaware of the illegitimate source of the disk? It doesn’t say.

But the Crown urged her to plead guilty. Why?

Because it’s more efficient that way. The RCMP charged her in the first place at the request of Microsoft. What I want to know is, if I charge Microsoft with marketing defective products and, through their negligence and incompetence, costing me hours and hours and hours of work, and possible job promotions, and money– can I get the RCMP to burst into Microsoft headquarters and seize the relevant documents and arrest Belinda Gates?

Well, maybe if I wear a suit and wave around some documents.

Why is it that the police didn’t investigate the issue? They didn’t– obviously. They simply took Microsoft’s word for it. That’s outrageous.

In any case, I took note of the case because I have said here before that the standard End User License Agreement that we all pretend to assent to when we install software is worthless and unenforceable and this looked, at first, as if it might prove me wrong. It didn’t. First of all, the charges were laid against a store, not an “End User”.

Secondly, the charges failed.

MicroMp3

Well, this story gets rather tiring after a while, right? Same old, same old.

This time, Microsoft is going to IE MP3. That is, they will do to MP3 what Internet Explorer did to Netscape.

In the new version of Windows, XP, the built-in Microsoft MP3 ripper will create murky, low-quality, bloated .mp3 files. Whoa! You don’t want that do you? Do you think most people are smart enough to just download and install a good CD Ripper like Music Match? Or might they just use the new built-in Microsoft music ripper, which creates proprietary Microsoft files (WMA – Windows Media Player format)? These files sound fine.

If Microsoft is at all worried about the Department of Justice’s anti-trust action, still pending, it doesn’t act like it. It continues to try to muscle in everywhere using the formidable clout of it’s monopoly on desktop operating systems to screw you, me, everybody.

But if people are dumb enough to adopt the new Microsoft standard and the Department of Justice doesn’t do it’s job, we will have no choice.

AAUAKAKGJAAAAGGGUUGGAUKKKKKK!!!

The sound of something being shoved down your throat. Like it?