[NCLUG] Cringely on Microsoft's plan for the Internet

[Mark Fassler]

I've given up on Cringely long ago... I forget which article it was, but 
what he wrote struck me as just flat out dumb.  

Anymore, I get lazy when I read pseudo-technical articles like this, so I 
skim through it using some rules of thumb:

   English Comp 102:  Unless you are the actual researcher doing the 
   actual research, you should never use the word "I" in your arguments.  
   You should only use evidence.  

Cringley's article is peppered with "I believe"'s and "I think"'s, but no 
evidence for his argument.  Without evidence, I don't care.  He doesn't 
say (for example) whether people who use PGP are less prone to these email 
virii, and if the less-prone-ness is a direct result of them using PGP.  
(There are many other possibilities.)  

He doesn't even construct a logical argument using first principles (in 
lieu of evidence).  As many people have pointed out, trusting only 
email from people you know wouldn't protect you from most of these virii.  
(is it viruses?  ah, who cares...)

Another rule of thumb, to paraphrase Alan Cox:

   People who say "we should" or "you should", should usually be ignored.  
   People who say "how do I" or "how can I" should usually be helped.

Cringley lets us know what we "should" do (along with what he 
"believes"), but doesn't offer any real solutions for implementing what we 
"should" do.  (Not even a possible first step, like... uhm "use PGP".)

To contrast this, let's look at Dan J Bernstein (like him or hate him).  
He's always telling people what they should do, and he very usually 
creates real solutions that allow people to actually implement what he 
thinks we should do.  (ie, "Put your money where your mouth is.")

So, that's "Mark's Critical Reading for Lazy People".  (Granted, I did 
read the whole article, and I do think it's pretty much a scare piece to 
get more exposure.)

--
Mark Fassler
fassler at monkeysoft.net