It’s a shame more people can’t write so well about tech

John Naugton
WeatherGirl just handed me a recent copy of The Observer, an excellent British weekly that she subscribes to as part of her campaign (along with listening to BBC radio on-line) to both keep track of what’s happening “back home” and to get her news from organizations that regularly provide intelligent, thoughtful reporting.

An excellent example of this is John Naughton, the author of a regularly technology column in the Observer, and the author of the piece WeatherGirl was handing my way. The column in question is an analysis of the recent (and much discussed) Supreme Court decision regarding Grokster and StreamCast Networks which has been seen by many as a huge defeat for the peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, and victory for the big players in corporate media that are trying to desparately to maintain at least the illusion of their control over their content.

Most writing on this and similar issues tends to suffer from serious myopia as the writers typically understand either the technological side of the issue or the socio-political-economic side of the issue. It is sadly all too common that writers understand neither of these sides, and very rarely do they understand both. Naughton is the happy exception, who really understands the world of the nerds that drive the technical changes that constantly ripple through our lives, and can write with wonderful perception about the larger context that these issues live in.

In the column in question, for example, Naughton understands (and clearly explains) important differences between Grokster and StreamCast Networks and the classic Sony decision that is often quoted as precedent. As he nicely points out, a better analogy to the Sony decision is BitTorrent, yet sadly most writers on the issue (not to mention many of the policy makers involved) probably know little about BitTorrent and less about its place in this complex set of issues.

In short, John rocks, and you could do much worse.

Oh, and I should mention that he also helps support the interesting Living without Microsoft site.

Related posts

A sad example of non-smart web trawling

An example of a CRC cardI use GoogleAlert to look for places where my name appears on the web (a strange but instructive exercise in narcissism). I was really confused by a recent hit entitled “Example Resume Simple, Go Now“. Huh? I’m hardly out there looking for help with my resume. It’s not that it doesn’t need it, but I’m not looking for a job so I don’t really care.

So I click on over to see what’s up, and find that these guys just aren’t real bright. They have a section headed “Our top example resume simple resource” which is clearly being automagically generated by some web trawl, and it’s none too clever. It’s picked up and included a page I wrote for a class in 1998(!). If this page happened to be on, say, resume writing, this might make sense, but it’s on CRC cards (or see Beck and Cunningham’s original CRC paper) and has nothing to do with resume writing. I do use as an example the problem of one person sending their resume to another person, and it’s presumably that (very thin) connection that caused their search tool to pull that page up and include in their list of Really Great Resume Writing Resources. Ugh.

I just hope there aren’t poor saps who are clicking through to my ancient CRC page and then getting really annoyed because it’s not about resumes. Or at least that they’re not annoyed at me. I’m totally fine if they’re annoyed at the silly people at all-about-resumes.com, ’cause they deserve it. (One hopes, of course, that at some point their page will no longer include my CRC page, making this post simple a relic of a bygone era. For now, unfortunately, it’s still there.)

Weird.

No tag for this post.

Related posts