Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Confessions of an Internet "Shock Jock"

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the hey-wait-i-use-a-pseudonym dept.

The Media 194

An anonymous reader followed up on the Windows memory-leak fraud scandal, which is worth reading before you read the perpetrator's justification. "Randall C. Kennedy comes clean about his past, his relationship to Craig Barth and how it all came tumbling down. Includes an inside look at the politics of IDG and why you can never trust an IT publication that's as obsessed with page views as InfoWorld."

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The downside of internet anonymity (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259030)

That which gives us the freedom to speak freely and openly and to be more politically honest citizens also gives us the freedom to lie, cheat, and to be griefers and general douchebags.

Re:The downside of internet anonymity (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259160)

There is no downside to internet anonymity, that would also exist without internet anonymity.

Re:The downside of internet anonymity (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259260)

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, you fucking faggot!

Re:The downside of internet anonymity (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259646)

Flame or clever witicism? It could go either way.

Re:The downside of internet anonymity (1)

kirill.s (1604911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260556)

Current vote is one for flame... I find it clever though.

Re:The downside of internet anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259340)

This isn't about anonymity, this is about a fraudster being slashdotted over and over while the echo-chamber cheers him on.

Is it any different than a Pen Name? (2, Insightful)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259570)

Ben Franklin filled his paper with tons of his own writing.

RCK got it backwards. He should have written/blogged as another name. That would have protected his "first love" in a better manner.

I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the "Blogosphere" is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.

Re:Is it any different than a Pen Name? (2, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260380)

I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the "Blogosphere" is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.

Wow. Your brush was so broad, you tarred yourself in the process. Nice.

Re:Is it any different than a Pen Name? (1)

FrankPoole (1736680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260506)

Yeah, it's a lot different. He was using his forum at InfoWorld to shill his site/company/product without disclosing his conflict of interest. It would be like a politician criticizing healthcare reform in a column and then not disclosing that he was on the board of directors for a Big Pharma company. Oh wait....

Re:The downside of internet anonymity (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259924)

I disagree. People lie, cheat and are douchebags has nothing to do with anonymity but with being a lier, cheater and a douchebag.
Taking away would not be people who are douchebags, be less of a douchebag. The difference is that before we never knew how many douchebags there actually are.

I know that My IPAddress is a secret (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259044)

I am using an unidentifieabil computer with 25 fire walls and Norton on hte supersecret network and nobody especially an Italian can say who I am so take that Luigi!!!!!!

Not going to read it (5, Funny)

secretcurse (1266724) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259054)

Why would I give this asshole yet another page view? What could the article possibly say that would make me think he's not a lying asshole? I think this is one case where everyone shouldn't RTFA. Oh, wait. I'm new here...

Re:Not going to read it (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259194)

Public falls from grace. We all love to watch them unfold. Whether it’s a golfer with libido issues, or some blowhard blogger getting his comeuppance, we just can’t get enough of it. The sordid details. The backroom double-dealings. The questionable motives.

I, of course, I fall into the latter category. I am Randall C. Kennedy, former internet “shock jock” blogger for InfoWorld and current holder of the title “Most Reviled Person on the Internet, 2010 Edition.” In the past 72 hours, I’ve been humiliated, chastised and kicked to the curb by virtually every one of my contemporaries. My personal and professional credibility is shot, and my part-time career as an IT journalist is over for good. Can the urinal cake with my face on it be far behind?

Still, like every good tabloid story, the villain still wants his day in the sun - a chance to tell his side so that the record is truly complete. And while the future may see my name relegated to the role of punch line for a crude party joke, it wasn’t always this way. I once had a name I could be proud of, one that was associated with highly successful projects at some of the biggest firms in IT and finance. That it could all come crumbling down so quickly should serve as a cautionary tale for anyone in a similar position. So here, without further ado, is my story.

I’ve been a professional in the IT industry for over 25 years. I got my start in the mid 1980’s pulling wire and installing servers for a Novell Gold reseller in Southeastern Massachusetts. It was there that I cut my teeth on technologies like NetWare, LAN Manager and SCO UNIX. And after 5 years of often grueling work in and around the Bay State, I emerged with a strong appreciation for the difficulties faced by those working in the IT trenches.

My next stop was also my first real gig as an IT journalist. The year was 1993. Windows Sources magazine was about to launch as a new Ziff-Davis publication, and Editor-in-Chief Gus Venditto was looking for talent that could write authoritatively about Windows-related issues. I was brought on as a Contributing Editor – along with John C. Dvorak and others – and carved out a niche covering Windows data communications, among other topics.

IBM Comes Calling

In 1995, after two years of writing for Windows Sources, PC Computing and some extensive work at ZD Labs, I was approached by IBM about doing some consulting work for their Personal Software Products (PSP) division. Jay Sottolano was an acquaintance from the trade show circuit, and he was looking for someone to help write positioning papers and other collateral in support of their OS/2 marketing efforts. Knowing this would signal the end of my career as an IT journalist (back then, the industry frowned on such conflicts of interest – now writers just “disclose” them), I took the leap anyway, forming my first corporation – Competitive Systems Analysis, Inc. – with my new wife as my business partner.

Together, we spent the next year travelling the world on IBM’s behalf, giving stump speeches to the PSP and PSM (Personal Software Marketing) faithful and providing competitive marketing advice to the company’s Software Solutions Group (SWS). Along the way, I got the chance to brief a number of high-level IBM luminaries, including CEO Lou Gerstner and CFO Jerry York, and I was also fortunate enough to work with some exceptional executive talent, including Alan Fudge. It was a heady time for a young professional barely out of school, and I did my best to make the most of every minute.

Settling Down for a Spell

But, eventually the rigors of nonstop travel and feast/famine contract cycles – plus the arrival of my first child – prompted me to seek out a life with greater stability. So I did what most consultants do at this juncture in their lives: I bought a house in the Bay Area (Danville – finest town in the USA, IMHO) and got a real job. Specifically, I took a position as a Senior Industry Analyst with Giga Information Group (now part of Forrester).

It was circa 1997, and I spent the next year working closely with some top notch IT analysts, like Richard Fichera, as well as with more than a few egotistical blowhards (I’m talking to you, Rob Enderle). I also got to spend some quality time working with Gideon Gartner, the legendary founder of the Gartner Group. For whatever reason, Gideon took a liking to me, and I was able to learn a great deal about the inner workings of the IT research industry under his sage tutelage.

But the truth is, I was bored at Giga. The type of content we were asked to produce – dry, color-free analysis of IT trending minutia – was taxing to produce. I missed the chance to get my hands “dirty” working with technology directly, especially Windows NT, which was my first true love. And it was during this time that the pseudonym, “Craig Barth,” emerged for the first time: As a pen name I used while moonlighting for Windows NT Magazine as their News/Analysis Editor.

Note: Contrary to popular opinion, I am – and always have been – a huge Windows NT fan. I was one of the first journalists to jump on the Windows NT bandwagon, even going so far as writing a book promoting IT’s “Migrating to Windows NT” (that’s the title – from Brady Books - look it up) in 1993. In fact, by the time I left my first gig at Windows Sources, I was writing the “Windows NT” column for them on a monthly basis. And, of course, the potential synergy with Windows NT Magazine was a no-brainer.

Intel Comes Knocking

So when Intel Corporation came knocking in mid-1998 with an offer to work with them as a performance engineering consultant to their Business Desktop Marketing (BDM) group, I once again took a leap of faith. I resigned from Giga and resurrected CSA (which had lay dormant during this time), then spent the next two-and–a-half years designing and testing new benchmarking scripts to push Intel’s high-end hardware through its paces.

During this time I worked on numerous projects involving chip launches (the Pentium III, Mobile Pentium II/III, the Pentium 4), networking gear (desktop GbE), and multiprocessor systems (in conjunction with Dell Computer, another client of mine). An overarching theme throughout this engagement was the concept of “Constant Computing” – i.e. the idea that PCs are never really idle, especially under more complex OS like Windows NT/2000 – and I produced over a dozen white papers for Intel cataloging my findings and conclusions.

Note: My primary contact throughout this time period was Tom Harper, a maverick technical marketing manager who reported directly to Pat Gelsinger. Pat was also aware of my work and even used one of the test cases I developed as a Constant Computing demo piece for his keynote speech at the 2000 ISMC (International Sales and Marketing Conference). They later licensed the test case code from me for a tidy sum.

Eventually, my services were farmed out to Intel’s Desktop Architecture Labs (DAL), where I continued to refine my methodologies and also began formulating the idea for my first stand-alone test tool: Benchmark Studio.

The Wall Street Connection

They say that all good things come to an end, and when the dot com crash hit silicon valley I found myself out of my primary consulting gig and looking for a new challenge. Working for Intel had left me flush with cash (all told, they poured nearly three quarters of a million dollars into my small, two-person consultancy), so I had time on my hands to work on my test tool ideas. Eventually, I released the first version of Benchmark Studio as a low-cost, commercial test suite. And, lucky for me, it caught the eye of the lead tech in the PC Engineering group at a company called Morgan Stanley.

And here I would like to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Mr. Jeff Feltman. Without his backing, I would never have gotten my foot in the door at Morgan. A class act all the way around, Jeff was nonetheless a victim of the recent economic downturn when his group was eliminated from the company’s IT department. Regardless, if you have the opportunity to work with Jeff, on any project, take it. One of the all time great PC hardware gurus.

That foot in the door turned into the biggest success story of my career. But back then, circa 2001, I was just happy to have them as a customer, period. And eventually, after cultivating a strong support presence and generally proving myself as a reliable technical resource, Jeff recommended me as the best person to help the company’s Fixed Income and Derivatives (FID) group develop a new performance monitoring framework for their high-end Windows-based trading workstations.

Needless to say, I jumped at the chance, and over the next three years I developed and refined what ultimately became a commercial performance monitoring product known as Clarity Suite. And as we moved from pilot project, to limited production deployment and finally a business unit-wide site license in 2006, I was rewarded with a steady stream of consulting contracts culminating in the aforementioned licensing deal.

And while I’m not a liberty to discuss the value of these business transactions, suffice to say that they far exceeded my total compensation from Intel. Add to this a smaller scale deployment at CSFB (Credit Suisse First Boston, which was what they were still called in in 2001) and a pioneering study of workstation scalability conducted at Kent State University (under the direction of Hewlett Packard and Intel Corporation – the white paper is still available), and I was quite busy during the first half of the last decade. Again, heady times for a now older and more seasoned IT veteran.

Devil Mountain Software Emerges

It was during this timeframe that I decided a new corporate presence was required to help differentiate my consulting past as Competitive Systems Analysis, Inc., from my long term goal of productizing Clarity Suite and bringing it to market. So I once again collaborated with my wife and long time business partner, and together we created Devil Mountain Software, Inc. – with me as the public face of the company and her as the silent partner working behind the scenes to manage the business.

Eventually, we brought in other partners to invest in the venture, but we kept the management team limited to just ourselves. And when our Morgan site license came through (essentially guaranteeing we wouldn’t have to work again for the rest of our lives), I started thinking about alternative ways to leverage what was now DMS Clarity Suite – options and scenarios that existed outside of the traditional commercial resale channel.

One idea that I had always wanted to explore was taking DMS Clarity Suite online – essentially providing the same kinds of monitoring and analysis functionality we were delivering to Morgan on their in house servers, but in a more limited, less feature-complete format. The goal would be to create a community of users around a set of free tools and services, and then to mine the data they uploaded in order to gain insight into trends and developments affecting the broader Windows community.

Thus, the exo.performance.network was born. But not before I made a fateful detour back into the world of IT journalism – a wrong turn I would eventually regret in ways I could never have imagined.

Early InfoWorld Involvement

Throughout the early part of the recent decade, I kept a toe in the water of my old haunt, IT journalism. It started quite small. From time to time I would collaborate with contacts at the InfoWorld Test Center – then still a real, physical lab space in silicon valley. I got to know some of the lead contributors, like PJ Connolly, quite well, and we’d get together at the lab sometimes to run benchmark tests using the aforementioned tools I developed for Intel, etc.

Eventually, the lab was shuttered, and InfoWorld started drastically downsizing its operation. It was during this time that I struck up a collaborative relationship with Doug Dineley, who to this day remains a class act and the one person I had the most respect for at that publication. But back then, it was all about product reviews and testing. Doug would present me with a list of possible story angles and I would pick and choose based on what struck my fancy at any particular time. Eventually, I became one of his more regular contributors, and he remained a good friend and close confident right up to the bitter end of my involvement with the publication.

But even when I started splitting time between my day job supporting Morgan’s deployment (now pretty much just a software maintenance role), my hobby building xpnet.com and these occasional freelance reviewer gigs, the relationship with InfoWorld remained casual. It wasn’t until 2007 that things got serious. And that year, more than any other, will go down as one of the worst I can remember.

Wooed by the Dark Side

Late 2007 is a time period pivotal to this story because it signaled a series of beginnings. It was when I first started thinking about blogging for InfoWorld. And it was also when I first approached the publication about partnering with DMS on the promotion of an online service, one built around the still evolving precursor to what would ultimately become the exo.performance.network.

And at first, neither venture went very well. Newly promoted Editor in Chief Eric Knorr, who I had never met and had barely heard of prior to his ascension, was resistant to the idea. He didn’t think it would fit with their still undefined editorial focus (InfoWorld had only recently decided to drop print and go online only). Meanwhile, the blog became tedious to maintain, especially since I wasn’t being paid for the work.

But eventually, things changed. Eric settled in as Editor in Chief, and a new Executive Editor, Galen Gruman, emerged to forever change my life. For starters, Galen took a liking to the xpnet.com idea. He began championing the idea internally, working with me to refine the messaging and coordinate with the various sales and marketing groups to achieve buy-in. At the same time, Galen took it upon himself to become the primary editor of my now paid blogging gig. He helped me to identify which topic areas were having the most impact – and thus started me on my descent into internet “Shock Jock”hell.

You see, what Galen and I discovered was that the topics that were most effective in drawing readers were also those that skirted the edges of both legitimacy and taste. For example, if I wrote an entry detailing some deeply held belief about a particular IT vendor or technology, nobody paid any attention. However, if I simply vented about something that was bugging me – a mysterious crash in Vista or some piece of VDI “marchitecture” coming out of VMware – the attention level shot through the roof.

Eventually, I found myself enjoying the buzz that my “angry missives” would generate. Little did I realize how quickly such a model could deteriorate or how much it could damage me, personally, once it fell apart.

A Slippery Slope

As the missives kept coming, and the traffic numbers kept climbing, Galen and I – along with Eric Knorr – worked to evolve the persona of “Randall C. Kennedy.” I was now to be the lightning rod of the publication, the guy who puts the most provocative spin possible on every story with the intention of aggravating as many zealots as possible. The net result was gobs of page views – I was the single biggest draw, site wide, for all of 2009 – and also a great deal of scorn from my contemporaries.

Ironically, It was the growing disapproval of my peers in the industry that first gave me pause. I realized that I was now regularly espousing opinions and viewpoints that had almost nothing to do with what I truly believed. Rather, they were simply extensions of the RCK persona. I became the “Microsoft basher” when, at heart, I held the company in the highest regard. I became the “Vista basher” and the “Windows 7 basher” when, in truth, I used both every day and found them to be excellent products (yes, even Vista). The whole persona had taken on a life its own, and I was terrified that it would ultimately spin out of control.

Which of course it did, in the most spectacular fashion, and just in time to nearly destroy the one project that I truly cared about and believed in: The exo.performance.network.

As my blogger star rose at IDG, it became easier for me to obtain the kinds of concessions from management that would help me promote my new pet project. Galen Gruman, who had worked with me from the start to develop internal momentum for the project, was now actively helping me to integrate it with InfoWorld’s web presence. While I provided the back-end data collection and analysis engine, Galen crafted the InfoWorld side of the equation, including the various registration pages, widget wrappers and javascript code that helped to glue the whole solution together.

In fact, Windows Sentinel (the co-branding nomenclature that Galen came up with for our collaboration) would never have happened if my colleague Mr. Gruman hadn’t pushed it through the various layers of IDG bureaucracy. The man was a bulldog, and working together we managed to launch Windows Sentinel in April of 2008 to little fanfare and even a few snickers.

Note: It’s important that the public understand the nature of the contractual relationship between DMS and IDG. The arrangement was strictly one of cross-promotion – DMS would provide the service and InfoWorld would promote to its readers. And while both parties would share in the registration data and collected metrics, at no time did any money change hands.

This was strictly a marriage of convenience, and the only side to ever see even a dime of revenue (from advertisements and sponsorships associated with the registration pages and related collateral) was IDG. So my detractors can put away their evil conspiracy theories of greed and avarice – they simply do not apply here. I gave everything to make Windows Sentinel a reality, and got virtually nothing in return.

The Return of Craig Barth

But back to the story. From the beginning, Sentinel had a credibility problem. Though it was being promoted as an independent service and research entity, it still had my name attached to it. In fact, InfoWorld made a point of identifying the solution as the product of a collaboration between the publication and its Contributing Editor, Randall C. Kennedy, the founder of Devil Mountain Software, Inc.

They even plastered as much across the registration page. It doesn’t take a genius to tell you that having the industry’s most notorious internet “shock jock” as your only front man was not a formula for success. So I took drastic action. I created a fictitious spokesperson by resurrecting my pen name from days gone, Craig Barth, and assigning him the title of Chief Technical Officer for Devil Mountain Software, Inc.

It all started fairly innocently. I would receive an email inquiry from some media person asking about a piece of research I had published through my official exo.blog, and I would reply – not as Randall C. Kennedy, the “shock jock” that nobody took seriously anymore – but as Craig Barth, the ever helpful and deeply knowledgeable CTO of DMS.

Over time, these interactions became more frequent, and I began to enjoy my newfound anonymity. No longer fearful that my hard research would be rejected out of hand, I became bolder, even going so far as utilizing my alter ego when fielding phone calls from the likes of Gregg Keizer and others.

And all the while I wondered to myself why nobody was making the connection? How could a legitimate service that was so publicly launched by one of the most reviled personas in the IT media sustain such a ruse? Couldn’t they see the absurdity of it? Devil Mountain Software, Inc., was the company that Randall C. Kennedy formed. There was no attempt to hide this fact.

Of course, someone did see through it all. And it was with fear and trepidation that I fielded a phone call from my close colleague and co-architect, Galen Gruman. He had seen one of Gregg Keizer’s earliest mentions of me – a report on on benchmark results that showed Vista SP1 failing to provide a promised performance boost – and he wanted to know who the hell this Craig Barth guy was.

After all, if anyone knew me well, it was Galen. He was there when I first pitched the idea for Windows Sentinel. He was there as I wrestled with how to separate the hard data from the “shock” persona. And since he was intimately familiar with DMS and its management team of 1+, it was only a matter of time before he made that call.

To be fair, Galen was not pleased when I confessed my actions. He felt that I was pushing the ethical boundaries by misleading the public in this way. However, for whatever reason – personal loyalty, a desire to maintain the status quo with the “shock jock” persona – he agreed to keep it to himself.

Frankly, I’d figured he’d expose me on the spot. But instead, he turned a blind eye, even as I referenced my own research in my blog –data that had been promoted by Craig Barth and consumed by countless other media outlets ignorant of the ruse at play. Somehow, Galen managed to hold his tongue for over a year, even though secretly he must have wondered when it would all come crashing down.

Note: While I can’t say unequivocally when InfoWorld Editor in Chief Eric Knorr was made wise to the ruse, I’m pretty sure it was well before the whole mess spilled over. Eric was as intimately familiar with the nature of DMS as Galen, and for him to pretend to have been oblivious to the situation – when the persona of Craig Barth from DMS had been plastered all over the Internet for a year or more – makes such a claim hard to swallow. And despite Galen’s apparent loyalty to me, I still can’t see him keeping this from his immediate superior, if for no other reason than he would need a way to cover his own ass during the inevitable implosion.

Crash and Burn

And implode it did. After publishing a particularly alarming set of findings – which I still stand behind while continuing to evaluate new data – the internet became engulfed in controversy. As the furor grew, and as more and more media outlets questioned just who this Craig Barth fellow really was and what made DMS tick, the house of cards came crumbling down. The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy, and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was.

Frankly, I was relieved it was over. Balancing the two worlds had become almost impossible, and I longed to escape from the “shock jock” persona that had been created for me so I could once again embrace my core beliefs. But what surprised me was the level of anger expressed towards me for what I saw as nothing more than a very poorly executed attempt to escape from the proverbial rock and hard place. Simply put, the level of vitriol expressed felt way out of proportion, and the claims of “egregious ethics violations” and “insufferable breach of trust” were simply over the top.

After all, it’s not as if I had trafficked in nuclear secrets or or stolen someone’s credit card information. I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that had been created for me. And in the end, I failed miserably. It was a dumb move, born of frustration at feeling painted into a corner of my own making. I should have just walked away earlier – it’s just a blog in the end – but I lingered too long on the edge of the razor, and eventually it cut the heart out of everything I had tried to accomplish.

Please note that I’m not looking for sympathy or even understanding. My goal here is simply to clear the air – to tell my side of the story and to hopefully clarify both my professional background and the nature of the very legitimate products and services I’ve developed.

At the end of the day, this whole affair is just a blip in the timeline of a a career that spans two decades, on which saw me working with a bunch of amazing people at a some of the most revered companies in the world. I’m proud of my many accomplishments, and I’m happy that I can finally close this chapter of my life.

It’s been one hell of a ride

Epilogue

So, what next? For starters, neither the exo.performance.network or Devil Mountain Software, Inc., are going anywhere anytime soon. I will continue to develop and expand what has become my true labor of love, but now with a renewed commitment to the integrity and authoritativeness of the data that makes the service so special.

What I will not be doing is venturing back into the field of IT journalism. Not because I couldn’t do so if I chose to – you’d be surprised at how many emails I’ve received offering to host my “shock jock” persona on a different site (some people will stoop to anything for a few page views) – but because I never want to compromise my integrity that way again.

At the end of the day, I really am Randall C. Kennedy – a passionate fan of all things Microsoft Windows-related. Thank you for taking the time to hear me out.

RCK

Re:Not going to read it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259404)

|| At the end of the day, I really am Randall C. Kennedy - a passionate fan of all things Microsoft Windows-related. ||

That's all fine and dandy. I wish you no ill will. However, the above "... a passionate fan of all things Microsoft Windows-related." should have been a disclaimer at the top of your statement IMHO.

Re:Not going to read it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31260644)

OMG WAL OF TEXT

TDLR?

TLDR (1)

frist (1441971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260670)

Wow, too long, didn't read, giant wall of self-serving text. Did he actually talk about why he's ignorant? Does pulling cable really qualify you to comment on the memory management systems of OS kernels?

Re:Not going to read it (3, Informative)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259420)

The real question is -- why should we trust *this* column from him, when he's been caught lying in the past? "This time it's the truth, really!"

Because .... (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260594)

He is a true Microsoft fanboy. Anyone who gushes so thoroughly about how good Microsoft and its products are is simply deluding himself and doesn't have any other experience to compare it with. And everyone knows Microsoft fanboys with no comparative experience are more honest than ... well, honest people.

He brags about the money he made when that has nothing to do with his excuse for a mea culpa. It looks more like begging for attention.

He pretends to show how innocent and naive and gullible he is, blogging as a jerk under his real name while keeping his aliases for the serious stuff. Why, he's so innocent and naive, it was the big bad editors at Infoworld and their focus on page views which got him in trouble, not his own actions.

I wonder what the real person is like. I wonder if anyone even knows any more, including his wife and partner. He sounds like he has been deluding himself for 20 years -- the wife and partner, other business associates, his readers, how much less important is it to tel them the truth if he can't even tell himself the truth?

Here I'll help (5, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259466)

After all, it’s not as if I had trafficked in nuclear secrets or or stolen someone’s credit card information.

"Look guys it wasn't so bad, I was just foolin, no big deal!"

I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that had been created for me.

"I'm the victim here, but I'm still a manly man, look at my sacrifice, I'm jumping on the grenade here! (as I throw everyone close at hand under the bus)"

And in the end, I failed miserably.

"Please feel sorry for me now that I've abused your trust for years and years."

It was a dumb move, born of frustration at feeling painted into a corner of my own making. I should have just walked away earlier – it’s just a blog in the end – but I lingered too long on the edge of the razor, and eventually it cut the heart out of everything I had tried to accomplish.

Wait is he trying to say that he almost got away with it, man he wishes he got away with it?

Fuck this asshole forever. As if what he's already done isn't enough, he tells his life story like anyone gives a shit. "Ohhh look how much money I made I am so awesome and knowledgable no wait feel sorry for me I'm just a man—a very manly man—protecting his family. But seriously, I'm rich and super smart, oh by the way buy my product you can trust me. I promise I won't create any more personas to review my own product and tell you how great it is."

Re:Not going to read it (2, Funny)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259938)

I'm shocked, shocked to find out people are writing tech columns just for page views.

Re:Not going to read it (1)

simplu (522692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260214)

Welcome to real world :) It is not about tech columns. It's about all content. This is why I don't want to pay for content. You cannot trust it anymore.

Re:Not going to read it (1)

AVee (557523) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260172)

Well, I can tell you what the article is going to say. It's going to tell you that it's all somebody else's fault. And if anything was wrong, it's because InfoWorld approved of his immoral behavior, which somehow makes it not his fault anymore.

Rough, guess, I'll RTFA now. But he is just that kind of guy...

Re:Not going to read it (1)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260654)

having RTFA, you're pretty much correct. he talks a whole lot about things "that happened to him" and takes very little responsibility for the fact that he brought most of it on himself. he seems to blame infoworld for the damage caused to his reputation as the result of his writing an intentionally inflammatory and salacious blog, and uses that as justification of his creation of an 'alter ego'. and honestly, all that would have been fine if he hadn't then gone on to shill his pseudonym's product using his real name and for that he has no one to blame but himself.

No Choice at This Point (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259056)

It's a lengthy piece, you can probably skip the parts about Intel and Wall Street (although some of you may be convinced that becoming such a spinster/shill/whore/liar requires years of training). But What I found most interesting:

And implode it did. After publishing a particularly alarming set of findings – which I still stand behind while continuing to evaluate new data – the internet became engulfed in controversy. As the furor grew, and as more and more media outlets questioned just who this Craig Barth fellow really was and what made DMS tick, the house of cards came crumbling down. The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy, and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was.

(Emphasis mine.) It seems like he has a reasonably technical background. What has he found that cannot be explained by SuperFetch (high memory usage) and Native Command Queuing (backlogged disk I/O queue)? Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.

So, what next? For starters, neither the exo.performance.network or Devil Mountain Software, Inc., are going anywhere anytime soon.

Surely he must realize that open sourcing everything about exo.performance.network is the only thing he can do at this point. I mean, no one's going to trust him again if he has any way to manipulate the data/results without subject to complete inspection. The only option I see is to open source the software client and post the raw data alongside his own analysis. Without that I'm not stupid enough to trust an adoption rate quoted from this guy let alone average disk I/O queue on Windows 7. Without this kind of auditing, I'm sure those numbers will turn up to be just enough to make my eyes widen and my finger click his link. I am saddened that people will probably continue to run his client without knowing this whole story of how they were manipulated by a particularly crafty scam artist.

Re:No Choice at This Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259244)

I think the other thing he hasn't (and needs to) answer is the privacy issues with his tools. Apparently the claim was that it was all SSL (when it wasn't), and that it wouldn't be personally identifiable (and yet he pulled out the information on the Ars Technical blogger individually). This has to be cleaned up. In fact, at this point, everyone who runs that software should immediately remove it. Who knows what other personal information it is disclosing to this out of work person?

Re:No Choice at This Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259256)

'Spinster' seems like the wrong word. Normally that word means 'old maid'. Maybe you mean spinmeister.

Re:No Choice at This Point (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259274)

(Emphasis mine.) It seems like he has a reasonably technical background. What has he found that cannot be explained by SuperFetch (high memory usage) and Native Command Queuing (backlogged disk I/O queue)? Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.

Slashdot has people with most likely even more technical backgrounds. It tells something that he never tells what he has found (with his "reasonably technical background"), and that he acknowledged "XPnet's data couldn't determine whether the memory usage was by the operating system itself, or an increased number of applications". He didn't mention what kind of RAM usage is full, never said anything about SuperFetch or anything else. He practically knew nothing but just shout out bullshit. He even says it himself:

"The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy, and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was."

This guy is still full of $hit (5, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259764)

Balancing the two worlds had become almost impossible, and I longed to escape from the "shock jock" persona that had been created for me...

I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that had been created for me.

Sounds to me like this guy still is incapable of accepting responsibility for his own actions. If he can't accept responsibility for what HE created and what HE did, how is he ever going to have any measure of integrity?

-Rick

I was the first slashdot reader (-1, Troll)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259094)

to comment (4 or 5 months ago) that IDG news is a biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpiece. I was modded as a troll, back then.

Troll again!!?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259358)

Come on people. This is insane.

Some Friendly Advice to Make Slashdot Enjoyable (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259430)

to comment (4 or 5 months ago) that IDG news is a biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpiece. I was modded as a troll, back then.

I'll bite. I skimmed through your comments looking for this -1, Troll claim that you have made and was unable to find it. According to Google (not an authoritative source) I can only find one comment in which you name IDG [slashdot.org] and it's not modded Troll, it's modded Offtopic. Nor does it rest at -1, merely at 0. There's an important difference between the two. You may have had a legitimate point it just had no place on that article for Slashdot. I suspect that if you had compiled a list of examples that would conclusively lead the reader to agree with you, you might have even gotten a +2 Interesting.

I've noticed unfortunately that, when you do cite sources, it appears as though you're trying to pound a square block into a round hole [slashdot.org] . Be careful not to look for things to prove you're right but instead to read many things about the subject before concluding that there is evidence from reliable sources or maybe your viewpoint needs adjustment.

I have several friends from India, they have never complained of the media [slashdot.org] bashing [slashdot.org] India. I cannot say I've noticed this beyond jokes about outsourcing and telemarketing ... but who should be the ones laughing in those situations? Probably the people who are employed.

On top of that, you throw out the sporadic groundless conspiracy [slashdot.org] which can hurt your message:

No popular Indian newspaper reported anything like that. I'm pretty sure that this news has been created by the manipulation wing of CIA and published by its media partners. Those filthy bastards don't like to be idle. Now that they've exhausted all the crap they can publish about China, they've turned towards India. Please don't believe them.

Listen, if you have a message to get out, that's fine. But a short post with such large conspiracy claim is often outright dismissed.

Your comments are often curt and therefore don't have a lot of content. This results in you lashing out at your reader [slashdot.org] which violates the know-your-audience rule of writing and often brings nothing new to the discussion [slashdot.org] .

My biggest advice to you is to add more meat to your comments and don't get in little pissing matches with long back-and-forths between you and another poster. People don't enjoy reading ping-pong matches. Think out your argument or claim ahead of time and account for all viewpoints from the get-go. That's my advice. You rarely see me post more than one or two comments per article and it's not because I don't read the responses, it's because I come here to say something, I say it and then I'm done. Anything I missed was an error on my part and I deserve the valid rebuttal.

I know this post looks like a direct criticism or attack on you but it's not. It's meant to be constructive criticism because you have some real gems in your posts but every so often get really careless or resort to name calling or make outrageous claims with no proof. If someone had convinced me that this Randall C. Kennedy guy was a complete bullshitter months ago, I would have loved to have known ahead of time.

Re:Some Friendly Advice to Make Slashdot Enjoyable (1, Offtopic)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259542)

Thank you

Re:I was the first slashdot reader (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259658)

First!

Back in your cave troll.

ALL the industry publications are biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpieces. They cannot divorce themselves from the industry they cover and the ads that pay their salaries. Playing it straight and true does not PAY.

Only Consumers Reports maintains its integrity over time and it refuses any advertising.

An Unnamed source told me this. Also, Al Queda has yellow cake uranium from Nigeria.

Somewhat ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259164)

that Slashdot posts a link to a write-up about overzealous claims regarding Windows. Certainly CmdrTaco and crew would never stoop to the level of spewing unverified garbage for the sake of page hits...

His definition of "shock jock" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259184)

His definition of internet "shock jock" appears to be closer to my definition of "unethical sack of shit," but why quibble over semantics.

Re:His definition of "shock jock" (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259672)

I enjoyed the part where he frames the story as his 'fall from grace' and then goes on to detail how he got caught deceiving people.

Re:His definition of "shock jock" (1)

theghost (156240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259826)

It's not an unique interpretation of the term. Ideally the "shock jock" is an entertaining unethical sack of shit, though the "entertaining" part seems far more variable than the latter.

FYI, to all you budding humorists out there: Shock humor only works if you're actually enlightening people - opening up their minds to new ideas. (See sig.)

Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (-1, Offtopic)

Trivial Solutions (1724416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259192)

I have my doubts 64-bit Windows or Linux allows one task more than 4.0Gig. I haven't tried it but I doubt they allow a malloc() of more than 3.5Gig. I can malloc() 8Gig on my 12 Gig machine under LoseThos [losethos.com]

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (3, Insightful)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259280)

According to MS, you can allocate up to 8TB in Windows x64 for a 64 bit process compiled with the default flags.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (0, Flamebait)

Trivial Solutions (1724416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259316)

I said one task. Aren't you clever you liar.

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (1)

Trivial Solutions (1724416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259366)

I want somebody to try malloc() and resolve this.

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (3, Informative)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259500)

Just tried it on my 64-bit system with Linux 2.6.31, GCC 4.4 and Glibc 2.10.1. Yes, Linux does allow it.

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (2)

Trivial Solutions (1724416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259798)

fair enough, thanks.

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (2, Informative)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259914)

Just malloc'd 5GB on my 6GB Windows x64 machine, worked fine.
Here's the program, which I compiled with Visual C++ 2008:

#include "stdio.h"
#include "tchar.h"
#include "malloc.h"

int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
        __int64 allocsize = 5; // in GB
        void* pMallocated = malloc(allocsize * 0x40000000);
        if (pMallocated)
        {
                _tprintf(_T("Successfully allocated %I64d GB\n"), allocsize);
        }
        else
        {
                _tprintf(_T("Failed to allocate %I64d GB\n"), allocsize);
        }
        return 0;
}

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (-1, Troll)

Trivial Solutions (1724416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260044)

I don't care. God is just.

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260240)

No he isn't, God is cruel and heartless. If he was "just" no-one would fight wars, he would just smite the "bad" side. Instead he allows people to die by the millions.

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (-1, Offtopic)

Trivial Solutions (1724416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260298)

God said war was servicemen competing. Mom said heaven was a never ending family reunion.

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259396)

Of course 64-bit Windows and Linux can malloc() more than 4GB. Why else compile an application for 64-bit? Even better, unlike LoseThos they can malloc all your free ram as if it was one contiguous block, because they actually support Virtual Memory.

LoseThos seems to trash any and all attempts at process separation made in modern CPUs and OSs. Any process run on the machine can crash the whole system, or even trash the system files, making it unbootable. It's just not practical for a desktop OS. It's ok if you only ever run your own code, but who only runs their own code? To have even posted to slashdot you must be running a modern web browser, which means not your own code.

Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ? (1)

ThaReetLad (538112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259606)

I'm pretty sure you can so long as you're a 64bit native app, and not just a 32bit app on a 64bit OS.

Interesting (5, Funny)

kieran (20691) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259198)

I've never seen a CV written in a format like that before.

Uh... (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259220)

"Includes an inside look at the politics of IDG and why you can never trust an IT publication that's as obsessed with page views as InfoWorld."

Or, say, Slashdot, which got InfoWorld half those hits by regurgitating it's bullshit in the first place?

Come on Slashdot editors- you can't post that quote, almost as if you're pretending that you're somehow innocent of this. You may been unwitting pawns in the InfoWorld hits game certainly, but you posted a FUD article about Android fragmentation just a day after InfoWorld had been outed as guilty of this and untrustworthy and that suggests that perhaps you enjoy leeching hits off their FUD as much as they enjoy generating them. So why pretend that Slashdot too doesn't use shock articles sometimes to try and increase hits?

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Slashdot articles else I wouldn't come here, but it's pretty obvious that some of them are inflammatory FUD (hell Slashdot posted the original article in question) and that others of them are Slashvertisments.

Slashdot's credibility absolutely has decreased over the years because of this, and so it may want to read the above quoted sentence and take some lessons from it itself to ensure it avoids ever heading the same way. I suspect that the editors play the biggest role in this by you know, doing some actual editing and checking the authenticity of the article they're about to post.

Re:Uh... (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259470)

Slashdot's credibility absolutely has decreased over the years because of this,

Credibility? You must be new here. Slashdot isn't about credibility, it's about discussion. Individual slashdot posters have or don't have credibility. Slashdot editors have never earned their titles.

I suspect that the editors play the biggest role in this by you know, doing some actual editing and checking the authenticity of the article they're about to post.

Again, YMBNH. They have never done this. Why start now? If anything has harmed slashdot's "credibility" it's the obvious slashvertisements.

Re:Uh... (3, Interesting)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259516)

So why pretend that Slashdot too doesn't use shock articles sometimes to try and increase hits?

InfoWorld writes and generates news. Slashdot merely links to it and provides a discussion forum. Infoworld asks you to assume that it has credibility; Slashdot asks you to assume nothing except "this link might be interesting to technically-minded people."

You're right that Slashdot linked to the original article [slashdot.org] in this sorry mess. Infoworld claimed its conclusions were correct. Slashdot did not; it merely said, "Hey, look what Infoworld says" -- and then enabled a lengthy discussion of the merits and problems of the Infoworld article. Much of that discussion questioned Infoworld's results. Frankly, that's exactly what Slashdot is for. It actually is innocent in this.

Re:Uh... (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259752)

They don't generate, they report on it. That's like saying a local news station goes out crashing cars in order to generate news stories.

Re:Uh... (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260314)

Inasmuch as Infoworld puts software and hardware through tests, then yeah, maybe they ARE generating news by going out and crashing cars. (or servers, or something).

Re:Uh... (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259778)

"Frankly, that's exactly what Slashdot is for. It actually is innocent in this."

Well no, last time I checked, that's what Digg was about. Slashdot was about selecting wortwhile articles, that are actually worth reading, and weren't just FUD/advertisments.

Slashdot specifically selects articles, it filters articles, and it's the quality of that selection and filtering that I am questioning.

People come to Slashdot because they do not expect to have to deal with the turd that Digg churns out. Otherwise, if there is no filtering, and as you say, it's just about publishing any old thing and saying this might or might not be of interest, then they might as well just replace the front page with firehose and not bother wasting time having editors in the first place.

Re:Uh... (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260360)

Otherwise, if there is no filtering, and as you say, it's just about publishing any old thing and saying this might or might not be of interest

I didn't say "any old thing". I think the original article's claim about Windows memory usage was very relevant to a lot of Slashdot readers. It wasn't up to Slashdot editors to decide if Infoworld conclusions were right; it was up to them to decide if Infoworld's conclusions were worthy of discussion.

But we may be talking past each other here.

Re:Uh... (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259544)

In all fairness the editors, anti-MS FUD is the /. equivalent of catnip. Can't blame them for catering to the audience when 80% of /. would happily click on an article whose headline was "Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ says random Catholic priest."

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259836)

Which is deliciously ironic given that Microsoft advertises on Slashdot. Slashdot's bias and agenda will certainly take a backseat to some advertising revenue. "News For Nerds" died a long time ago, modern /. is just an IT tabloid.

Re:Uh... (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260006)

For once this story isn't about windows. It's about some guy who flat out lied to get a few more page impressions.

Re:Uh... (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260256)

Umm, more often than not /. readers click on the link to the forum where they can post about it, not the actual article. I'm assuming that's what you meant by click on the article, you don't actually believe that 80% of ./ actually RTFA do you?

Re:Uh... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259926)

Is there a way to filter out the shitty editors? I'd be satisfied with a /. free of kdawson tripe, but happier with a choice of editors from a list which I could filter out.

Re:Uh... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260338)

Yes, it's right there in the Preferences.

Dynamic Index -> Exclusions
or
Classic Index -> Authors

Re:Uh... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260350)

I'm pretty sure there is, I think I've seen it before somewhere in the options, but whilst some editors are worse than others, there's no real consistency. Sometimes even the better editors post shite and every once in a while the shite editors post good stories.

Re:Uh... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260034)

I've never understood why anyone 'trusts' any company that gives them something for free. Their main goal is -always- to earn as much money as possible. Most of the time, that means being ethical because if they aren't, -this- kind of things will happen and destroy them. But some companies aren't that smart. And the ones that are smarter get away with little lies constantly.

Re:Uh... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260176)

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't trust them, but that's exactly why I get annoyed- because to me, the slashvertisments and FUD articles are so blindingly obvious that it's annoying having to wade through them at all.

I do not trust The Register for the same reason, they heavily moderate and regularly don't allow publication of comments that give a counter-point to the original author on certain topics (global warming, file sharing) and certain authors don't accept comments on their articles at all (i.e. Andrew Orlowski).

When a site like that shows that level of FUD then as you say, they have to be written off as a trustworthy source for the most part.

But isn't it counter productive? How many hits do they gain with the inflammatory, in the long run, does it really do better for them than just being a damn good site? Isn't that largely how Slashdot gained it's userbase originally, by actually posting interesting, factual stories?

It strikes me as the type of idiocy the bankers pursued running upto the recession- short term gain, with large repercussions when it all came tumbling down, rather than pursuing a policy of acting reasonably. You could argue Canada did this to an extent as it did not have to bail out it's banks, and it's problems from the recession are relatively small compared to those who let their banks run rampant (the US, Britain).

I suppose the buzz of seeing the hits fly up on the charts from the web logs gives a bit more of a hardon after posting an inflammatory story, than keeping an average higher userbase by acting sensibly.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31260430)

The main problem is the insistence that everything digital must be free. It is the people who refuse to pay for anything that cause this kind of crap.

I, for one bow down to my Slashdot FUD overlords (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260210)

Look, I enjoy reading the FUD on Slashdot, mostly because I love watching it get lambasted by people that know what they're talking/writing about. On primary news sites the masses stupidly either agree with the FUD or dismiss it for the wrong reasons, CNN is starting to seem like 4chan. On Slashdot you get people that have worked with the subject matter since it was in its infancy, or have spent much of their careers working with it. Please bring on the FUD and get it to the front page. It needs to be exposed for the shite it is.

Where's the "downfall" part? (5, Insightful)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259224)

After the 96th paragraph about how "Major IT firm X comes knocking at my door", I realized this guy is your usual narcissistic fuck and stopped reading. The choice of phrases like "comes knocking at my door" tells me everything about this guy: he wants to clone himself so he can finally fuck someone worthy of his love.

Seriously. I did not need a thousand word sub-essay on Dvorak, Windows NT and NetWare. What a fucking retard.

Re:Where's the "downfall" part? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259442)

Well how else is he supposed to promote his new reality show?

Re:Where's the "downfall" part? (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259510)

Oh, shit. Did Simon Fuller come knocking at his door, too?

Re:Where's the "downfall" part? (1)

Phoenixlol (1549649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259524)

4,347 word. I agree.

Re:Where's the "downfall" part? (2, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260486)

Where's the "downfall" part?

You mean the part where Hitler starts yelling at his officers for listening to internet Shock Jocks and complaining about how much money he lost on this scandal? I bet it should be up in youtube by now.

Who? (5, Insightful)

neurovish (315867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259290)

"“Most Reviled Person on the Internet, 2010 Edition.”", "while the future may see my name relegated to the role of punch line for a crude party joke". Sounds like this guy has a vastly overinflated sense of self-importance. Or maybe I don't spend enough time on the internet to know who the Most Reviled Person was and will be doomed to laughing uncomfortably trying to blend in at parties when people start busting out the Randall Kennedy jokes.

Re:Who? (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260132)

And yet Slashdot is now talking about him. Yeah.

Meanwhile... (2, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259344)

Robert Enderle still gets playtime on NPR.

Maybe it's better to just be an asshole than to be an asshole and try to hide behind a nom de plume.

--
BMO

Vista hatred was role-playing, flame-fanning (1)

doug141 (863552) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259434)

"I realized that I was now regularly espousing opinions and viewpoints that had almost nothing to do with what I truly believed. Rather, they were simply extensions of the RCK persona. I became the "Microsoft basher" when, at heart, I held the company in the highest regard. I became the "Vista basher" and the "Windows 7 basher" when, in truth, I used both every day and found them to be excellent products (yes, even Vista). "

Re:Vista hatred was role-playing, flame-fanning (1)

AVee (557523) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260694)

So now we'll have to choose whether we hate him because he is an annoying attention seeking lier, or because he thinks Vista is an excellent product. He considers himself to be this amazingly successful nice bloke, but he also thinks he is the most hated person on the internet.

Did anybody tell him there is all sorts of stuff between black and white? I means, compared to him even slashdots frontpage is full of nuance.

Who cares? (2, Funny)

Phoenixlol (1549649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259468)

Dude has ego problems, but then again... who doesn't?

Re:Who cares? (2, Funny)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260668)

*I* don't.

Journalists report shock (2, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259540)

Journalists report shock not stories. They have always been willing to bend the truth to get more readers.

The wise man will always judge for himself.

Bleah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259568)

Somehow, "the coming clean" doesn't feel very trustworthy, comming from him.

Making things worse (1)

tommasz (36259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259624)

PCs are increasingly complex and there are lots and lots of things that can go wrong with them. Users are desperate for explanations for why their particular machine doesn't seem to run as well as it used to or is supposed to. Snake oil salesman like this doofus make a living selling simple explanations to complex problems that seem logical but are often wrong. Sometimes not just wrong but maliciously wrong. Instead of helping they're just making things worse. And rags like InfoWorld are just as bad, overlooking conflicts of interest and technical correctness in their pathetic quest for pageviews. Don't give them the attention they so desperately crave otherwise you're just playing their game.

Brevity (1)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259628)

TLDR

And even scanning the text nearly bored me to sleep.

Geez! (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260708)

Is an extra semi-colon also too long for you? It's "TL;DR" you short sighted sap.

What a piece of work (4, Interesting)

FrankPoole (1736680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259732)

This guy drags journalism through the mud, celebrates it like a pig rooting in his own feces, and then has the nerve to blame the media for blowing everything out of proportion and now is trying to claim his 15 minutes of fame like he's a GD Survivor villain. What a jerk. Oh, and by the way, XPNet's Windows 7 data is flat-out wrong and anyone who knows anything about Windows and memory will tell you the same thing.

He's got more name-drops than an Oscar speech (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259768)

This guy's rambling post reminds me of every last name-dropping, frat-boy, asshole I've ever worked with. He drops more names, completely at random, than your stereotypical Hollywood Agent. He must have had some really good editors throughout the years, because I can't imagine reading an entire book by this clown. Maybe this is what passes for journalism in the perpetually retarded, and wrong, "IT Analyst" industry.

SirWired

danville (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259806)

Danville is full of pricks with too much money that think they are better than everyone. Thanks for reinforcing this stigma.

Never heard of him until today? (1)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259884)

Judging from the content and length of his article I can see why, if I had run across anything he'd written in the past I'd stop reading it two paragraphs in.

Most importantly, *DONKDONK* Law & Order, were you lying then? or lying now? I'm guessing both.

Controversy Sells: Personal Experience (5, Insightful)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259912)

I had a blog where I wrote all sorts of articles about things from computing to history to literature. Things I personally liked and all that. Pretty tame, homely blog. 20 hits on a good month, but meh, who cares. It's not like I'm Tom Friedman. Then one day I wrote a post on scientology (basically, it's hypocritical to criticise it as a religion if at the same time you're okay with all the others).

Boom! 300 page views that month. A dozen comments. Flamewars and fans.

If I'd been earning money from that blog, you bet I'd have taken a hint and continued to write things about how Obama is a commie, Glenn Beck should head an armed invasion of those baby-eating godless socialists in Europe, minorities are shifty, oil companies are conspiring against hamsters, and gays are actively plotting against our way of life every time they go Satan-worshipping on moonlit nights. Real me wouldn't stand for any of those, but real me - the regular guy who lives and lets live - doesn't sell as well.

Fox and MSNBC are more attractive investments than middle-o'-the-road CNN. The New York Times is doing all it can to survive, while the Sun and the National Enquirer sell on like it's 1970. Trash sells. I blame the man, but I also pity him. Only human, and as LotR says, the hearts of men are easily corrupted.

what difference does it make. DATA MATTERS (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260032)

so he was barking with randal c kennedy persona to sell the data he produced legitimately with his real, craig barth identity.

what the fuck does it matter in regard to data, whether he was putting out a second, fake persona to advertise it ? the data wont change with the nature of advertisement, its still data. if the data is solid, it means it is valid. if the data is supported by similar findings from other sources, then noone can question the data.

Re:what difference does it make. DATA MATTERS (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260422)

Shift key still broken? Maybe we can set up a fund for a new keyboard for unity100.

Delusions of a Dickhead (2, Interesting)

steve-o-yeah (984498) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260060)

This guy drives me nuts, I can only presume that this post was some last-ditch effort to salvage some credibility, but in his quest to restore said trust, he continues to bloviate. He refers to himself several times as an "Internet 'shock jock'" and (my favourite) "industry’s most notorious internet “shock jock”.

Just like George Costanza couldn't pick his own nickname ("T-Bone"), YOU cannot decide who the most "notorious shock jock" is. Until I heard about your lying bullshit, I had never heard of you before.

Cram it up your ass you self-important douche.

Re:Delusions of a Dickhead (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260168)

Agreed. And we all know that Dvorak is infinitely more famous for writing complete BS for the sole purpose of getting people riled up to increase his page views.

Automated Blocks? (1)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260076)

From what I understand, the slashdot submission process could be modified to include an automatic filter for blacklisted sites. Couldn't news aggregator (such as Slashdot) ban Infoworld? While you are at it, block that website that posts biased game reviews.

Re:Automated Blocks? (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260446)

Wouldn't that be ALL of them? Well, at least all those that have advertisement paid by game publishers and developers.

tl;dr (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260114)

Actually I did skim it, and it looks like the relevant pieces start 2 paragraphs prior to the "A Slippery Slope" section, halfway into the novella. At least they didn't paginate...

What a jackass (5, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260136)

Well, if you strip away the self-important tone of TFA, it boils down to this:

A guy with a technical background discovered the rush of trolling a large audience. The major difference between this and a large segment of /. readers is, he did it under a journalistic guise - which makes him an unethical asshat whereas the /. trolls are merely run-of-the-mill asshats.

So then he tried to have his cake and eat it too: he wanted to enjoy the respect of his peers in technical endeavors while still having his fun as an asshat blogger. So, big surprise, it backfired and now he's lost the respect of his peers.

As for the Windows 7 RAM usage data - he may well have reported that in good faith, but it doesn't matter because of who he'd chosen to become. (As much as he tries to sound like he was drawn into his situation, ultimately he chose to be what he was and is; this article really just shows that while he may be resigned to the consequences, he hasn't truly accepted responsibility.) Maybe he really has reason to believe his findings, or maybe the desire to save face is coloring his view. (He certainly wants some measure of justification; I guess it's easier to feel that it's all unfair if the story that gets you caught was a case where you were factually correct.)

In other words (1)

Control Group (105494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260302)

Dear internet: YHBT.

And what's the number one rule for dealing with trolls? Don't feed them.

if only he had a hockey stick graph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31260632)

The slashdotters would immediately ignore his "mistakes" and hail him an expert....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>