What part of “don’t automatically install” did they forget about?

It’s been a while since I’ve spotted Microsoft dropping the ball. Here’s just one example of a nearly inexcusable gaffe, reported by windowssecrets.com.

Users who have specifically chosen not to automatically install Windows patches, are finding that the Automatic Update software is installing them anyway at shutdown. Not surprisingly, Microsoft is quick to deny there’s a problem:

The forced-install behavior has been witnessed at least three times by Windows Secrets editors, but Microsoft says its procedure for Automatic Updates hasn’t changed in the last 10 months.

Leave it to Microsoft to take liberties with the meaning of “don’t automatically install stuff.”

As detailed in the article, the only way to work around the bug is to change to “never check for updates.” Of course, this results in getting nagged about checking for updates being turned off, which is ordinarily a bad idea.

Thoughts on Michael Jackson (1958-2009)

As you have undoubtedly heard by now, Michael Jackson passed away just a few hours ago (if you haven’t, CNN, MSNBC, Mashable are among those reporting).

Any child of the 1980s was influenced to some degree by Michael’s unique musical and dance style. Michael inspired a lifelong passion for music and dance for many.

I do believe it is extremely unfortunate that his legacy will be marred by controversy from child abuse allegations. I personally found it much more difficult to enjoy Michael’s music after the child sexual abuse controversies and legal actions (most notably the first one in 1993).

Today, in 2009, I think it’s time to set all that aside, and admire Michael Jackson for the great musician and dancer he was. Without him, pop music wouldn’t be what it was today (Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, and Christina Aguilera come to mind). And let’s be honest here, even Elvis Presley was not without his share of controversy.

“It don’t matter if you’re black or white.” Indeed it does not.

The RIAA: the true pirates

It totally amazes me what the RIAA is doing in attempts to retain a clearly outdated business model.

Electronista reports on one of the RIAA’s infamous lawsuits. The interesting thing about this lawsuit? The defendant did not even have a computer!

Combined with the absolutely absurd verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, it makes me wonder what we have come to. And yet the RIAA, like the rest of the copyright lobby, still uses the loaded word “piracy” to describe sharing. And in light of what the RIAA is doing, the hypocrisy is glaring.

Robbing someone for $1.92 million for sharing music? That’s the kind of money pirates take home after boarding and looting a ship. Fleecing the musicians who work their tails off by paying them pocket change for a $15-20 album sale? The RIAA executives should don the eye-patch and a parrot, and fly the skull and crossbones in front of their offices.

The RIAA has a lot more in common with crimes on the high seas than anyone sharing music with friends, or even with random people. This is why the FSF recommends avoiding use of the term “piracy” to describe copyright infringement, and rightfully so.

I think it is unfortunate that those who are against the current copyright establishment have chosen to associate themselves with criminals of the high seas, even glamorizing them.

(Yes, it’s robbery even if one uses the courts to do it.)

Yet more iPhone monkey business from Apple

A Techcrunch article (which references this prior article as well) slams Apple yet again for more iPhone App Store idiocy, this time centered around the Hottest Girls app.

It completely confuses me what Apple is thinking here: add parental controls to the 3.0 version of the iPhone OS, then when an application adds nudity to take advantage of this, pull the app from the App Store. Huh?

The addition of a nudity category and then pulling an app that has nudity is at best confusing. At worst, it looks like Apple is entrapping developers, or being selective on what apps get to stay in the store.

I’m not sure I can recommend anyone trust Apple at all for anything anymore.

Miranda warning case headed for SCOTUS

ABA Journal reports on a case headed for the US Supreme Court. The central question posed by the case is this: Do police have to tell suspects that they have a right to an attorney during interrogations?

The case is a felon in possession of a firearm case, which by its nature is usually a cut-and-dried guilty-or-not type of affair. (I was once on a possession of crack cocaine case; we started on a Tuesday afternoon and were done by lunchtime on Friday; contrast this with the O.J. Simpson murder trial which dragged on for most of the summer and part of the fall of 1994.) Even if we get a good landmark decision out of this, I suspect the verdict will stick upon retrial.

I, personally, am hoping the question posed by the case is answered in the affirmative, though I will admit this is something most people should already know.