Re: Who was it?

  • From: "Troy V. Barkmeier" <barky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Technocracy" <technocracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:59:11 -0500

>I want to express my appreciation to whoever it was on this list that
>pointed out the relationship between the number of hits that a
>ZDNETarticle gets and renumeration for the author.

I guess it was me:

>Has anybody else figured out that Mr. Taschek and the other hacks at ZDNet 
>have a hit quota that must be maintained if they want to keep their jobs? 
>I read the article twice and, as Technocracy's token English major, I feel 
>compelled to point out that his rhetoric and logic are actually even more 
>flawed than his clearly unresearched "information" about open source -- 
>read it again carefully and you'll start to see that he hasn't even really 
>convinced himself. The only possible reason that a "professional" writer 
>would produce a piece of crap like this was in the _hope_ that he would 
>get slashdotted so he could hit his quota for the month. Since his plan 
>was a huge success (not only was he slashdotted, he was...what, 
>"technocrashed"?), you can bet he'll be back again next week with a fresh, 
>new steaming pile for us all. I'd like to see /. start putting up lists of 
>"pages to ignore"; maybe then we could weed out some of this crap and get 
>down to some interesting discussion.

I'd like to add that it doesn't surprise me at all to see John C. 
Dvorak's name on the byline. He used to be a hack writer for MacWorld, 
was one of those devout Mac users who nonetheless never ever stopped 
bitching about Apple, and I always suspected he was secretly an unwitting 
tool of the Microsoft hegemony. Eight years later, he's a hack writer for 
PC Magazine, he's a bitter ex-Mac user (who jumped ship about a year 
before things started getting interesting) who still hasn't stopped 
bitching about Apple or anything else, and this article confirms my 
suspicion that he's an unwitting tool.

This kind of idiocy has to be genetic. I'll bet if we looked back to the 
year 1443 in Mainz, Germany, we'd find Johannes Christian Dvorak, a 
failed monk, sitting in his hovel writing a monograph entitled "Was ist 
oben mit dieser beweglichen Artsache?", bemoaning the fact that 
innovation in the metalworking and leather-punching industries was at an 
all-time low now that movable type was the latest fad among artisans. And 
then he almost certainly brought his masterpiece down the street for his 
buddy Gutenberg to print several copies, and sold them on the street for 
a pfennig each so that he could buy enough beer and pretzels to keep 
himself alive for another week.


Observation attributed to Prof. Robert Wilensky of the University of 
California at Berkeley:

"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters 
will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the 
Internet, we know this is not true."

Other related posts: