Pariahs of the Brave New World

There is a subset of computer users that includes the likes of "Joe Six-Pack", "Poser", "Whatever Fanboi", "Spoiler", "The Amateur Guru", or the "3133t hacker". Don't be fooled by their guise, members of this group should be avoided. Who are they? They are the lowest common denominator of users out there. Let me explain.

Whiners, Posers, Wanna-Be-Hackers, Zealots, The Clueless

• * The old retired fart who spends half the day on hold waiting for tech support only to tie it up for the remainder day because he wont read the manual.

  * Spammers and the people who buy things from them.

  * That person who sends e-mail with a subject that starts off with FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD.

  * The punk who thinks he's 3133t because he knows where to download warez.

  * The snot-nose who offers hundreds of MP3s on a P2P network to millions of strangers and justifies his actions with a convoluted definition of the "Fair Use Doctrine."

  * The Grandmother who has an idiot zealot for an offspring and got "switched" for her "own good" and not very happy about it.

  * The wannabe con-artist who promotes a pyrimid scheme. The ding-bats that actually fall for it.

  * Spoilers. The clowns that spend 10 hours a day on an online game and do everything they can to make the game upleasant for the casual players.

  * The Amateur Guru. By day he 's just an ordinary 9 to 5 guy. But by night he's that know-all-everything-computer guy. Mr. Guru's true expertise is in the jargon-of-the-week, the verbiage used in online forums and computer store ads.Giving or repeating bad advice is his forte.

  * The Software/Computer forum poster who complains that X isn't ready for "Grandma" or "Joe Six-pack." He's not really the defender of the meek. This poser is actually trying to influence the development of the software/hardware/Operating System. Why? Because he wants everything tailored to his limitations.

  ...the list of "special users" just goes on and on.

Conclusion:

There is a segment of end users who are always more trouble than they are worth. 80% of the headaches are generated by 20% of the population. Many members of this pariah group posture and threaten to switch to another platform if they don't get more support/usability/benefits/cost savings from the vendors/developers. Microsoft would love to get rid of them. Dell couldn't care less for them either. As it stands now, Microsoft, Dell, HP and most large retail outlets are stuck with the majority of these "special end users." Slowly but surely the big boys are running them off to other OS's and platforms. How? By ignoring them. When they threaten to switch to Macs or Linux, all they get are alligator tears. In Linux land these pariahs are usually ignored after a while as well. Brushed off with a RTFM. Posers...I mean "switchers" usually lose interest and move on to Macs. It's only a matter of time before the Mac community see them for what they are and ignore them as well (hopefully). The truth is: about 20% of the end users are not worth supporting. Casting the widest net does not work in this industry. If you think windows or linux zealots give the mac community grief, wait until these nit-wits join your ranks.

While this is from a post I made on a slightly different topic, I believe this could be an important question to consider during all these attempts at the entertainment industry to sue its customers into oblivion...The concept should be brought up to the judge if a case EVER gets to court:

This is going under the fact that its still 100% legal to time-shift media for personal use, which of course is subject to change in the future if congress gets it way..

The rest of this discussion is based on the above, and that NO commercial gain is involved, that Its all 'freely' shared...

1 - It would be legal for person A to record show A.

2 - Its also legal for person B to record show A.

3 - If user C slept thru show, he still had a right to record it.

4 - Why cant user B give C his recorded copy.. ( for free ) since C has a right to record the same show.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, why cant user D, which is across the country that was at work that day get copy from user C?

The copy that is being spread around is not the original quality, as its been compressed and/or recorded from the TV/radio. So its not the same quality as going out and purchasing it from the store? It is the same 'version' that all users have a right to record for their own personal use.

This would also be the same issue for MP3 songs, if they were *ever* on the radio, then its no different if you share them in a *lossy* format to other people that had the *right* to record it themselves, again for their personal use..

Now if you do a bit-copy of a CD/DVD then distribute that, or if it's an unreleased copy ( such as still in theaters, or a screener ) then of course this analogy doesn't apply.. but I'm not talking of those cases...

This also makes the assumption that the original 'broadcast' was not 'subscriber only', or all 4 users were subscribers to the same service.

So I guess it boils down to, what is wrong legally with this analogy, and why is the 'industry' allowed to continue to harass their customers for doing what is currently LEGAL for us to do?

"------ What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand ----"

For those of you uninformed that believe I take that out of context to 'push my agenda' here is the entire amendment, in its entirety:

"Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

Furthermore, by the very intent of the constitution, it was designed from the beginning to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, and to limit the power of the soon to be enacted government.

How one can 'improperly take things out of context' when the very component I quoted was directly discussing individual rights is totally ludicrous.

The amendment's only goal was to ensure the rights of the individual citizen to acquire and retain the weapons needed to defend itself against a tyrannical government.

This does not mean that you have to be part of the professional army, nor are the rights of this amendment extended to the government. It is just the opposite.

The militia, as stated in the amendment, by its very definition consists of private citizens, and exempts the governmental army. The very people the amendment is designed to help protect against.

Nor does it, as many anti-freedom groups like to claim, give the rights of the government to 'regulate' the citizens. 'Regulate' in the context of the time of the framers, did not mean restrict.. it meant train.. So it only expands on the idea that the private citizen has the right to possess and train with their arms.

Anyone that doesn't understand these rather simple facts is either sorely misinformed or have their own anti American agenda to push, and are no longer going to be part of my ongoing discussing to defend my rights with. Thus the reason for this entry in my journal, as I'm tired of arguing with closed simple minded people that don't understand what freedom is, nor what it takes to gain and retain it. People that as far as I'm concerned are not American, and treasonous at their core, and don't deserve ANY of the rights or freedoms our fore-founders had to fight for, and sacrifice for, to achieve.

We the people.. Perhaps the 3 most lucid words in the most important document in history.

A document written BY the people, FOR the people.. To finally put in black and white the inalienable rights, freedoms and liberties of all people, and perhaps more importantly the inalienable restrictions to be placed on any government to protect those rights liberties and freedoms of the PEOPLE.

This includes ALL rights, not just one or two that is conveniently picked out of the list that you personally approve of. And if you don't like this concept of personal freedom and rights, or aren't willing to be eternally vigilant in fighting for them, as our forefathers were, then you can leave. You are not welcome here.

By nature a simple document, designed to be timeless, and applicable to any point in time, be it 1776 or 2776, and anyone that attempts to mutate this framework should be tried and convicted of treason.

While this has happened many times over the years, even to the very document itself ( such as the 21st amendment for example ) it does not make it appropriate or right, nor is the slow progression towards a socialist state.

Yes i said socialist, not fascist. I believe we are heading towards socialism. While it may not be absolute and black and white, the control extended over the US commerce, and the re-distribution of wealth via obscene tax rates puts the government in virtual control of all industry and funds. This is what I consider socialism, with of course all the reduction of rights and privacy and independence of its citizens that go along with that sort of government.

You may argue that unless the government truly owns the commerce we have something other then a socialist system, but if the same result if the same, what is the difference?

You may also argue that the various rights and liberties discussed in the constitution ( and its attached bill of rights ) are not absolute and should be changed over time to reflect current times". But you are wrong, and totally misunderstand the INTENT of the framers.. ( although you would be correct in that the modern interpretation of the document, is that our current government feels that it changeable at a whim )

Thanks for taking the time to read this