buttwhack
YARTGROYTV
Have you ever wondered why they call it television “programming”?
Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it INFLUENCES people how to behave would it?
Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it TEACHES people to adopt an identity that isn’t their own would it?
Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it CONVINCES people that they need to act a certain way to be COOL would it?
Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the WORLD would be a better place without it would it?
Fact : programming is programming you.
Yet Another Reason To Get Rid Of Your TV :
Is ANYONE here to make friends?
This “reality” makes me think there’s not much difference between television programming and how these people feel/think at work, at home and in society at large.
Are YOU here to make friends or are you just here to *win*?
You *winners* aren’t able to answer that honestly and that’s ok – you didn’t come here to make friends.
The rest of us didn’t come here to make friends with self-serving bullies.
Sadly, according to this study, the bullies aren’t going away any time soon.
It’s easy to get down about this but, fortunately, there ARE good people around who help balance them out : )
The only catch is, you won’t see or *meet* any of them on TV.
=
c
GoDaddy.com shills domain auctions?
Before you purchase hosting or domains, check out NoDaddy.com, which explains the way GoDaddy.com operates.
Via Slashdot :
When a GoDaddy customer forgets or otherwise fails to renew a domain, GoDaddy sells it off to the highest bidder through their TDNAM subsidiary. Some registrars–even Network Solutions–give the domain owner a percentage of the proceeds of such auctions. But GoDaddy keeps all the spoils to themselves. Anyway, it was recently discovered that the Vice President of TDNAM has been bidding on (and sometimes winning) TDNAM’s own auctions. This drives up the prices for normal customers and also leads to conflict of interest issues since normal bidders need to trust TDNAM to keep various information secret, such as their proxy bids, bidding history, the domains on their watch list. Also, GoDaddy doesn’t tell you when your bid price was inflated due to TDNAM executives bidding against you. They are one of the few auction services which don’t even give you the nicknames of competing bidders.
DomainNameWire contacted other domain auction services, and none allow unrestricted employee bidding on their own auctions like GoDaddy does. Enom (a patner in NameJet) notes that “We definitely do NOT let employees compete in auctions. Even if controlled, that practice has bad news written all over it.” Yet GoDaddy seems to think it is fine for executives to inflate their auction prices by bidding against customers. They responded to DomainNameWire that they allow this. There is a big risk that these employees have access to private information of the normal bidders, that they get special discounts, or that they may sometimes shill bid to increase prices without trying to actually win.
Head on over to NoDaddy.com for more information.
=
c
Charter should rename itself Cheater
Charter Communications is sending letters to its customers informing them of an “enhanced online experience” that involves Charter monitoring its users’ searches and the websites they visit, and inserting targeted third-party ads based on their web activity. Charter, which serves nearly six million customers, is requiring users who want to keep their activity private to submit their personal information to Charter via an unencrypted form and download a privacy cookie that must be downloaded again each time a user clears his web cache or uses a different browser.
Reader Matt copied The Consumerist on a letter he sent to Charter’s VP of Customer Operations and CEO:
Dear Mr. Stackhouse,
I am a high speed internet subscriber in the Fort Worth, TX area. For the last year or so I have had Charter’s 10 Megabit service and I am a satisfied customer. I am writing, however, because I am concerned by your recent letter discussing the “enhancement†that will be coming soon to my Charter web browsing experience (targeted, in-line advertisement manipulation). I appreciate Charter’s respect for my privacy, but the method that Charter has provided to opt-out of this tracking scheme is insecure and woefully inadequate.
The method that you provide to opt-out is as follows. First, a customer must visit www.charter.com/onlineprivacy. Once at the site, the customer must enter his or her complete name and address. Upon submission of this personal information, the customer must accept a cookie from Charter that indicates his or her opt-out status. While this process sounds simple on face, further consideration reveals that this opt-out method is fraught with privacy concerns and places the burden on your paying customer, rather than Charter.
The most pressing privacy issue with this opt-out method is that the opt-out form presented at the aforementioned URL is not encrypted. As I’m sure you realize, this means that a user submitting his or her address to Charter is doing so in the clear, leaving this personal information open to eavesdropping. It is not difficult to create an SSL-encrypted web form. It is troubling that Charter has not done so in this case.
The fact that this opt-out system relies on a cookie to keep users opted out is also a privacy issue. By telling customers who visit the opt-out page that, “if you delete your cookies or cache files… you will have to opt-out again,†you are encouraging users to keep those files that good privacy practices dictate should be frequently purged. Ironically, the best reason to purge one’s cookies often is to prevent internet marketers from tracking one’s behavior online.
In addition to the critical privacy concerns, the steps required to avoid being tracked by this new advertising system place the burden on your customers, rather than on Charter where it belongs. A customer should be able to opt-out of this advertising tracking system in a manner that will rarely, if ever, require the customer to opt-out again. Instead, because the system uses cookies, a customer must insecurely opt-out of being tracked on each PC in his or her home. Further compounding the work that the customer has to do, if he or she deletes cookies in accordance with safe browsing techniques, it will be necessary to insecurely opt-out on each and every PC again.
I suggest that rather than force your customers through unending iterations of opting out of this advertising system, you should allow customers like me to opt-out at the cable modem level via a secure, encrypted form on your website. I’m glad to hear that Charter has an appreciation for my privacy, but please change your opt-out process to demonstrate that you also have an appreciation for my time and security online.
Matt’s letter focuses on the flawed opt-out clause, but the program itself, an implementation of “deep packet inspection,” is more worrying. Deep packet inspection allows an ISP to monitor not only its users’ searches and visited websites, but also the type of activity (e.g., email or peer-to-peer), which could be used for traffic shaping and threatens net neutrality.
=
c
buttwhack.com

buttwhack.com is LIVE!
From the site’s about page :
“We, here at buttwhack.com, are interested in our collective struggle as human beings to make good choices.
As much as we’d like to believe we are always superior beings, the truth of it is we are a race of ups and downs, with the downs often regarded as negative and worthy of forgetting.
We disagree! What we post here is all the idiosyncratic nature of being human in all of its unglamorous truth.
As we find stories on the Web that reflect this our goal is to collect some of them here – each its own example of our profound capacity to behave like buttwhacks.
Thanks for stopping by.”
Check out buttwhack.com and if you find any cool stories that would make good home on the site, be sure to email them along!
: )
=
c
The Big and Bad are going Down, Down, Down…

When i was just 11 or 12, i remember my dad telling me that having loyalty to a company was detrimental to my success because companies have no loyalty to people. It goes against their very goal.
This made sense as i watched him change jobs and watched companies fall and new ones rise all throughout the 80′s.
His theory was that the large and mid-sized company was something of the past and going forward it would be small companies that set the pace for innovation and success.
Look around now : small outfits join forces with other small outfits on a project-by-project basis to create something and then disband when the goal has been reached, then form new companies again in order to create a new product and on and on and on…
Large and even medium-sized companies are too big and muddled with their own logic to adjust to anything new. They are what they are. They were set up to do this one thing and that one thing is all they can do. They have only a singular set of tools that they try again and again to ply to a new way of thinking. They’re open to new ways of thinking but are far too calcified to actually move in any such direction. People are creatures of habit and, for most of the people in big business, the habits don’t change much.
By keeping their infrastructures and overheads light, limber and easily maneuvered as markets change and technologies become more efficient and affordable, these small shops are also able to be loyal to their employees in ways big companies never could be or were never interested in. Offering extended periods of leave as workers become more and more diversified in their own lives adds even more appeal to these types of companies in the eyes of workers as the “contractor model” continues to evolve and give both sides added value – as my friend Dave has said time and time again : flexible employers make for flexible employees.
Certainly, no one likes to see previously successful [ read: rich people] suffer through a recession, but there is something poetically just about watching these old dogs get a taste of their own medicine and have to change whether they like it or not. Besides, it’s not like they’re LOSING money. They’re just not making as much of it as they’re accustomed to.
Like beauty, selfishness too is in the eye of the beholder.
=
c
tradition

traditions are sticky wickets. they always seem to have the best intentions, yet, too many bad ones lead to trouble and dissent in the ranks. well, potentially. except maybe here in the States.
take, for instance, now.
many folks have had it with politics and the decisions world leaders make. this is, itself, a tradition. they’ve always done it.
so, could it be a stretch to say that almost any tradition is bad? do they all start out with good intentions only to reap new hells upon those who toil to preserve them?
just a thought amidst this year’s hustle and bustle.
=
c
Better be good to Amazon or…

Just in time for holiday shopping, the USPTO has awarded Amazon a patent for Generating Current Order Fulfillment Plans Based on Expected Future Orders, which explains how to use modeled net present value to adjust an order’s delivery date favorably or unfavorably based upon expectations that the customer will have high-profit orders in the future. So don’t blame Santa if that special gift isn’t under the tree on Christmas morning, kids – it could just be dear-old-Dad’s low NPV score!
=
c



