Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media

Confessions of an Internet "Shock Jock" 194

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the hey-wait-i-use-a-pseudonym dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Confessions of an Internet "Shock Jock"

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:34AM (#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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:45AM (#31259160)

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

    • 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: (Score:3, Funny)

        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.
    • by houghi (78078)

      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.

  • by secretcurse (1266724) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:36AM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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 pas

      • by Dutch Gun (899105)

        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.

        Awesome. He continues to demonstrate that he's technically incompetent as well as being a fraud.

    • by Anonymusing (1450747) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:09AM (#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!"

      • 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, blogg

    • Here I'll help (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 19thNervousBreakdown (768619) <davec-slashdot.lepertheory@net> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:13AM (#31259466) Homepage

      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:Here I'll help (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Blakey Rat (99501) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @12:43PM (#31260756)

        He still refuses to admit his performance tool doesn't take into account Superfetch, and therefore the story about Windows 7 computers unnecessarily swapping was complete trash. You should see the twisting of words required to keep his tool's numbers plausible--

        I think in the latest iteration of crap-slinging he's claiming that Superfetch is a bad idea because the best computer will have a tiny cache which contains only what it needs. Which is true I suppose... for your magical mind-reading computer... but here in the real world, a larger cache is better since your computer has no idea which bit of data it will need next.

        During this, it's also come out that the analytics data sent by his tool is sent un-encrypted over port 80, and can be linked to the individual computer that sent it.

        Total scumbag.

        • Re:Here I'll help (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Blakey Rat (99501) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @12:50PM (#31260884)

          Oh and if you haven't been following, the main cause of problems was (partially) that their tool was comparing committed bytes against physical bytes. The problem is that memory is committed against the pagefile, not physical memory... therefore it's quite possible for my computer to have:

          4 GB total physical RAM
          4 GB committed
          3 GB available physical RAM

          Via his tool, my computer would show up as memory 100% full, paging like mad. In reality, it's not paging at all. The only reasonable conclusion you can draw from that data is that my pagefile is at least 7 GB large.

          Their tool was also measuring Page Ins as a stat, without realizing that memory-mapped files will trigger Page Ins even if they're already in memory. As happens with, for example, every .exe file you run, since Windows memory-maps those first thing.

          The guy claims to love Windows NT, but he sure loves to slander it... oh well.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by PsychicX (866028)
      I'm shocked, shocked to find out people are writing tech columns just for page views.
    • by AVee (557523)
      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...
      • 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

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nhojovadle]> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:36AM (#31259056) Journal
    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.

    • by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:56AM (#31259274) Journal

      (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."

    • by RingDev (879105) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:31AM (#31259764) Homepage Journal

      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

    • 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.

      There's one point I keep raising and haven't seen an answer to. Win7 will use the page file to swap out running applications in favor of cache/superfetch. I see it regularly when I don't use an app for a while but leave it running; or minimize it to the task bar -- and have confirmed it with perfmon. So while technically it can be "explained" as a result of SuperFetch and caching, that doesn't invalidate the point that Windows is using memory to the exclusion of applications. Presumably it is trying to

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:48AM (#31259184)

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

    • by maxume (22995)

      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.

    • Actually, maybe it's just me, but it sounded to me like an euphemism for "troll". I mean, that's what we used to call the people who posted something shocking or inflamatory, to get attention.

  • Interesting (Score:5, Funny)

    by kieran (20691) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:49AM (#31259198)

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

  • Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xest (935314) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:50AM (#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... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:14AM (#31259470) Homepage Journal

      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... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymusing (1450747) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:17AM (#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.

      • by socsoc (1116769)
        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.
        • 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... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Xest (935314) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:32AM (#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.

        • 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.

        • I dunno... personally, I come to /. for the entertainment that comments provide, not so much for the stories themselves - there are plenty other places where I can read the news alone, usually long before they even hit the front page here.

          And in terms of comments, that story was certainly an interesting one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      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."
      • by 1s44c (552956)

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

        • by Blakey Rat (99501)

          This whole affair started with this article: http://tech.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=10/02/18/0429258 [slashdot.org]

          Which most certainly was anti-Microsoft tripe of the sort Slashdot loves to post. The headline in the Slashdot article is the lie this guy told, which sadly worked.

          • by 1s44c (552956)

            The story was one guy willing to say anything just to get more people looking at a site. There are loads of people like that but somehow this one got noticed.

            At least it makes a change from the pro-Microsoft tripe that appears in so many comments on Slashdot.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jonbryce (703250)

            Most of us did pick up that it was rubbish. We do prefer our anti-M$ rants to be based on facts.

    • 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.
      • by sopssa (1498795) *

        Yes, it's right there in the Preferences.

        Dynamic Index -> Exclusions
        or
        Classic Index -> Authors

      • by Xest (935314)

        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.

    • by Aladrin (926209)

      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.

      • by Xest (935314)

        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.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      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.

      Slashdot never had any credibility to lose. Editors are chosen based on some completely random factor I haven't yet determined (in kdawson's case, it was foaming-mouth hatred of Microsoft combined with willingness to spread lies, for example.) It's not like they're coming from the New York Times

  • by SlappyBastard (961143) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:51AM (#31259224) Homepage

    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.

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      Well how else is he supposed to promote his new reality show?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Spy der Mann (805235)

      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.

    • ...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.

      Boy, every now and then someone on Slashdot brings teh awesome. Hilarious!

  • Who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neurovish (315867) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @10:57AM (#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.

    • don't forget this line, it's the best one of all - emphasis added.

      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

      An over-inflated sense of self-importance, or a woeful ignorance of the scope of the interwebs. Then again, maybe we're just jealous because we haven't made a enough to make sure that "we never have to work again". Yes, I'm sure that's it... disregard my post, it was just my envy speaking.

  • Meanwhile... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bmo (77928) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:02AM (#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

  • "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). "

    • by AVee (557523)
      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? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Phoenixlol (1549649)
    Dude has ego problems, but then again... who doesn't?
  • by 1s44c (552956) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:18AM (#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.

  • 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, overlo

  • TLDR

    And even scanning the text nearly bored me to sleep.

  • What a piece of work (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FrankPoole (1736680) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:29AM (#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.
  • 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 is full of pricks with too much money that think they are better than everyone. Thanks for reinforcing this stigma.
  • 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.

  • by mano.m (1587187) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:43AM (#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.
  • 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.

  • 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 ne
    • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mea37 (1201159) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:57AM (#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.)

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      whereas the /. trolls are merely run-of-the-mill asshats.

      I disagree. I may be a run-of-the-mill or even outright shitty troll here on slashdot, but lets face it, we have a slightly higher than normal troll quality level here, so my shitty slashdot troll is a gold medal winner on most of the rest of the Internet :)

    • by jbezorg (1263978)

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

      The confession and semi-apology wouldn't exist if he had not been outed.

  • Dear internet: YHBT.

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

  • by Wee (17189)
    The guy's a self-absorbed asshole.

    There. I just saved you 20 minutes of wading through his long winded e-wanking.

    -B
  • I think some people are being a bit harsh. Self important? Definitely. Made bad decisions? Definitely...

    The guy came right out and admitted what he did, and people make mistakes. It's very difficult to understand a situation unless you have been in that person's shoes.

    He's gotta deal with the fallout over what he did, professionally and in public - and IMO, that's enough.

    I guarantee that there are worse assholes posting less credible information all over the place. The moral of the story is that if you buy

    • by jjohnson (62583)

      The guy came right out and admitted what he did

      No he didn't. He got caught and outed after carrying out a professional deception for years on end, and to his financial benefit. That's not "people make mistakes", that's being a grifter. The fact that his accomplices (the editors at Infoworld) aided and abetted him does nothing to excuse him.

  • I call BS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mr.dreadful (758768) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @01:17PM (#31261262)
    Lets compare:

    Randall Kennedy writes for a trade publication that presents itself as an authority in their space. I've read several of his posts in the past and wasn't shocked by his outrageous attitude, but by the poor thinking and conclusions he presented. That's shocking all right, but not in a good way. I unsubscribed from Infoworld after realizing they cared more about their click through rate then the quality of their "journalism."

    Howard Stern is, for arguments sake, the original shock jock. Expresses his personal opinion on a radio show that is clearly identified as an entertainment program, no more, no less. His opinion of dwarves is not going to affect someones purchasing decision.

    Frankly, I lay the blame at the feet of InfoWorlds editor. Read the comments on any of Kennedy's articles and you realize that the editor must have clearly known the audience found Kennedy's opinion's suspect. Clearly the page views were more important to them then the quality of their offerings.

  • "...It was there that I cut my teeth on technologies like NetWare, LAN Manager and SCO UNIX. ..."

    Ah, so you can't blame the guy; he's been working for two of the biggest FUD factories of the past 10 years.

  • I hope this article is a joke; it's the thing that would make this story interesting.

  • Screw him (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xaoslaad (590527) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @02:57PM (#31262756)
    So I read the article, and what I get from it is:

    1.) He knew what he was doing was scummy.
    2.) He continued to do it anyway.
    3.) It ruined his reputation.
    4.) He wished he hadn't done it.
    5.) Instead of eating shit for doing something stupid, he whips up a new name and used it to be 'reputable'; except he is not reputable. And he instead further proved how disreputable he is.

    I'm not familiar with him, his blog, or much anything else to do with this story, but this is what you get when you behave poorly. So take your smug ass and your piles of cash, fuck off, and go away.

    No one trusts you anymore, nor should they.

    You rate right up there with every loser CEO who thinks he can do wtf he wants because he has piles of money and need not regard anyone around him.

    Bastard.

The Universe is populated by stable things. -- Richard Dawkins

Working...