Year: 2006

Categories
Browsers

Surest way to lose a customer

I am beta testing Firefox 2 on one of my machines, and will be writing about the new JavaScript 1.7 in a post over at ScriptTeaser. One of the advantages to Firefox 2 is the spellchecker, which works with all text windows. It really is the way to go, rather than have to enable the functionality on every server.

Most of my Firefox extensions don’t work with 2.0b, but one that does is the NoScript, which allows you to ‘whitelist’ a site for JavaScript use. The purpose is to protect yourself if you end up at a site that has a JS exploit, but still allow JavaScript usage for trusted sites. Unfortunately, if a whitelisted site also has an opening for a cross-site scripting hack, exploitive JavaScript can be ‘injected’ into the page.

One can always turn JS off, but that just cuts you off from the useful to frivolous use of scripting that is pretty ubiquitous now. Still, it’s an option.

I like to use NoScript, as I like to see how sites look when their JavaScript is turned off. After all, sites need to make sure they work in a non-script environment. Home pages such hotels.com, shown below, are unacceptable–the mark of sloppy developers far too hung up on technology. Note to the company: Expedia’s worked fine without JavaScript.

Categories
Diversity

When stereotypes are fostered

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I wrote a relatively positive piece on Blogher over at Just Shelley. I guess I’ll use the Bb Gun to write the negative stuff. Or a better way of looking at this: address some of the comments that bring out the bitch in me.

There’s this from a twenty something who since she’s never experienced any problems of gender bias in her life, women can’t possibly have any problems, and should stop ‘whining’ about such:

I don’t know how else to put it, but I say that to encompass my almost zero interest in most women’s issues and female activism and empowerment. Now, I think women deserve to vote and can have careers and can do whatever they want to. However, I hate the male-bashing and whining about it being a male world that so often dominates feminist conversations (but, as a caveat, not all conversations). For example, one of the take away points from the session was to hire women or help other women get hired, etc. Are you kidding me?! Hiring someone because they’re a woman is just as bad as hiring someone because they are a man. There seems to be a little bit of a double standard going on there.

There’s already a double standard. Do you know that all interview techniques at Google, Yahoo, and other major companies are primarily devised by male engineers between the ages of 25 and 45? Now, you tell me: who is going to do better with these techniques? A woman of any age? An older man or woman? Or a male engineer, between the ages of 25 and 45. Most likely from the same socioeconomic background as those who devised such tests?

To assume that because bias isn’t blatant it doesn’t exist makes one naive at best; self-centered at worst. Am I being hard on this young woman? Damn straight. She’ll most likely only get reaffirmation from her own set as to the justice of her views. What I’m suggesting, strongly, is that she develop a bit of empathy. The quality of empathy is understanding that just because you’ve not experienced an event directly, doesn’t mean the event doesn’t happen.

ValleyWag already touched on Dave Winer’s obsessive use of chick when referencing anything women were doing at Blogher. To give Winer credit, he did make a statement about how being a man at Blogher must be how a woman feels at ETech. I noticed he hasn’t said one word on the second day, but to give him the benefit of the doubt, much of this could be because of the blatant marketing of the conference.

Robert Scoble wrote:

Other things I learned from BlogHer?

That the stereotypes about women are true (they talk about things like mothering, cooking, sewing, and soft stuff like feelings, sex, relationships, along with broader things like books and movies far more often than I usually hear among the male dominated groups I usually find myself in after conferences). But, the fact that they are true gives women HUGE economic power and content power that the tech bloggers simply won’t touch.

So that’s what women are good for other than sex, having babies, and taking care of the house. We buy things.

I shouldn’t rise to such bait, but I suppose it would be too much for anyone to contemplate that Blogher attracted primarly women who do want to discuss such issues. That’s more or less how the conference was promoted. Would Scoble be surprised to hear both men and women talking about open source products at OSCON? Or new technology at ETech?

Having said that, there is a part of me that wishes the Blogher folks would not stress so much that they’re representative of ALL women in weblogging–because they aren’t. Theirs is a commercial enterprise which, more and more, is catering to specific types of interest; reflected in the conference, which was geared more toward certain types of topics and discussions. By stressing the company’s all inclusiveness, rather than band us, they’re branding us.

Media companies have to have a focus audience, and Blogher is a media company. Linux Journal, where Doc Searls works, focuses on men with certain interests. That doesn’t mean that Linux Journal will appeal to all men, the same as Blogher’s conference will appeal to all women. To draw inferences from the given sampling to the global all is an example of failed logic.

Now, having said all of that: what’s wrong with the ladies (and gents) of Blogher discussing these things? They’re terrific discussion points, and obviously, for the most part, the people who attended enjoyed the topics. The world is full of infinite variety–including men who liked the discussions just as much as the women. In fact, much of the more positive commentary I’ve heard on Blogher has been from men, and not just about women as marketing target.

Categories
JavaScript

‘ware

The Head Lemur sent me the link to this important story about a security threat based on JavaScript. This is a tough type of event to prevent, because it is increasingly difficult to turn JS off–so much of online content is JS dependent.

Typically most attacks of this nature will occur because malicious script is embedded into a web site through a cross-site scripting attack (XSS). The only way to prevent these is to scrub your form entry fields to make sure script or other unwanted material isn’t getting through. (Which reminds me that I have to check my new sites’ comments, to make sure these are ‘clean’.)

This is a threat, but I would say it’s of secondary concern compared to some others. No, don’t shoot me. It requires that a lot of factors be in place before it can work: your router not have password protection, your printers always be on and have a built-in web server and so on. The more sophisticated your home network, the more vulnerable you are. However, the more sophisticated the home network, the more we have to assume you know how to protect such network.

Still, not sure what we can do so plug such breaks. Would be a shame to start crippling JavaScript, just when it started to get interesting. As for ‘firewalling’ the browser, I agree that browsers need to make us more aware of what is happening behind the scenes. I’m also all for extensions such as Firefox’s NoScript to ‘whitelist’ JavaScript sites (though XSS can make this mute if the whitelisted site provides openings for malicious JavaScript insertion.)

(Slashdot coverage. Original press release and white paper on the exploit.)

Categories
Photography

Lollipops

Fascinating take on the Stolen Lollipop scandal that’s erupted between the world of photography and the world of weblogging. Thanks to 3 Quarks Daily for the link.

At issue is a new gallery opening showing photographs of children obviously upset and crying. Several webloggers took umbrage at what they called ‘child abuse’. The photographer and her husband said it was no such thing, it was a case of giving the children a lollipop and taking it away.

My take: unless they have to pose for these photographs daily, I doubt the children will be emotionally scarred from this event. However, I don’t like the photos. I think they’re contrived and overly sentimental and melodramatic. They perfectly reflect the photographer’s stated inspiration, which was so maudlin, it made me gag.

Give me the freshness and honesty of Walker Evans. Any day.

From the article:

In the end, “This is more a story about blogging than about photography,” said Stephen White, formerly a gallery owner and currently a private dealer and collector in Studio City. “It’s about a generation that’s so caught up in itself that everything it says it thinks is significant, even though it’s not saying anything at all.

“People in the photography world, anyone who is sophisticated about photography, knows that this is not offensive,” he said. “Taking away a lollipop is not child abuse. There’s no irreparable harm. I’m just not sure there’s any significance to the photographs, either.”

Categories
Stuff

Being mean

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I read Nick Carr’s Rough Type on a more or less regular basis. I don’t always agree with him, but I like the fact that he takes the time to write longer, more in-depth postings. He’s also one of the few, it seems, who can be critical of Web 2.0 stuff, but still remain somewhat of an insider. I study how he manages this; somewhat like the anthropologist studying the aboriginal customs of stretching ear lobes and jumping off towers with really bad bungee cords.

I’ve found he can write with an edge at times, but I’ve never seen him be overly personal in his writings. Perhaps the postings where he is, fell on my ‘not reading Web 2.0 weblogs’ days.

I was surprised, then, of what he wrote of an altercation that happened on the Gillmore Gang podcast. It seems that regular member Mike Arrington resigned from the show, unexpectedly and on the air, because Steve Gillmore invited Nick Carr to appear. Of this, Arrington writes:

Nick’s been on two shows now. The first one I quickly dropped off, the second one, yesterday, I stayed until the end. I have a problem with Nick. I think he’s smart but he’s often overly cruel to people in his posts, people who sometimes aren’t in a position to defend themselves. I get the sense that he enjoys pulling people down, gets happiness out of it. He shows all the classic signs of a bully – he talks big on his blog but on the phone he’s a meek, submissive guy. He can’t stand up to people who stand up to him unless he’s hiding behind his blog. Guys like Nick are a dime a dozen on the Internet and until now I just basically ignored him. But I won’t be on a weekly podcast with the guy. If Nick is on the show, I’m not on it.

Long ago I made the choice not to associate with people who are mean to others. They can attack me all they want (Jason Calacanis does, and he’s on the show, and I have no problem with that). But when you are mean to other people it just makes my blood boil. It probably comes from watching too many kids get picked on in junior high.

Nick Carr mean. I went searching on these words, “Nick Carr mean” and found several older controversies, and a newer writing over at Paul Kedrosky’s. In that post, Kedrosky wrote:

I’m hesitant to write this, because like paying attention to a child who stomps his feet or holds his breath, it just encourages him, but I’ll do it anyway: While I generally like Nick Carr — he’s a graceful and thoughtful writer — he has become tiresome and reflexively contrarian.

He did it recently with a sensationalized piece on the death of Wikipedia, and he did it again with a silly hatchet job on Steve Rubel, and he’s doing it again today with a studiedly awry piece on l’affaire O’Reilly.

I actually rather liked what Carr wrote about what Rubel wrote. The question is: was it mean?

I can agree with Kedrosky in that Carr can be confrontational and controversial and probably likes the attention he gets with either, but the same can be said, most likely, of Kedrosky. It can most definitely be said of Mike Arrington, and that’s where this returns.

If you took the time to listen or watch the video that Kevin Marks posted on Mike Arrington’s “core values” session, and if you know me, it’s not hard to understand why I find Arrington, and people like Arrington, to be disturbing. In the video he talks of core values and being nice to each other, as he cut off Liz Henry when she was trying to make a counter-point. When Elisa Camahort tried to defend Henry’s right to speak, she, in turn, was shut down by Dave Winer. Ostensibly, the reason Winer gave later is that discussions leads were supposed to keep people from meandering on, but I watched as they let Chris Pirrilo chatter away for the longest time–and I like Chris, and I liked what he had to say, but it was very obvious that the discussion was poorly managed, with weight given to the ‘knowns’ versus the unknowns. More importantly, weight was given to those who said what Arrington wanted to hear.

This makes me unhappy. This isn’t about being mean or nice. This is about control. This is about shutting down independent voices, and doing so under the guise of Shiny, Happy People. This is terribly wrong; made more so by the fact that it’s so easily bought into.

When I didn’t weblog, I watched as people were shut down because they would question, they would be critical, because many times their views were contrary to the ‘speak as one voice’ crowd. I watched people respond to such criticism in a personal way; against Seth Finkelstein and Dave Rogers, most recently. Why? Because Finkelstein and Rogers are critical. More than that, sometimes they’re critical of the opinions of really nice people. It puzzles me, because I would think that the really nice people would welcome the criticism–after all, it does show interest in what you’re writing.

Being personal in response is a superior treatment, though, to the worst you can do to the person, which is shut them down. Agree as a group not to give notice, not to respond, not to acknowledge; resign when they’re invited to a podcast; ignore what they say in a discussion. God, somebody please tell me, in simple terms, how shutting people down is nice? Was there a global meeting held where the definition of ‘nice’ was extended to include the practice of exclusion? Did everyone suddenly become Amish or Scientologists? I await enlightenment on this one, because I don’t understand it.

I started the Bb Gun primarily because I wanted a place where I could be comfortably critical without such strong identification with being critical. I am more than just a Web 2.0 critic. It’s a part of me, but I am more. This issue, though, it goes to the core of me, and thus I write about it here.

There’s another reason I write about this issue here. It would seem, now, with both Carr and Arrington saying they won’t appear on Steve Gillmore’s Gillmore Gang that there are openings in the podcast. I also noticed that there’s a strong similarity between those who do participate, and I thought this would be a devine time for Mr. Gillmore to add some diversity to his show.

Perhaps the Gillmore gang could consider those who might extend the profile of the show participants just a tad away from the strongly enthnocentric makeup of its current cast of regulars. The leaders of the discussions on audio casting, tagging, audience building, and so on at the Blogher conference would be ideal candidates.