The warning seems clear and straightforward: “This BIOS is ONLY for use with Windows Vista. Please do not install this BIOS for use with Windows XP, or other Windows versions.”
The user’s response? Predictable: “Anyways ignoring this, I installed win xp, opensuse and all went fine.”
All went fine, at first. Then all went haywire . . . and the debate began last week over who was most to blame for the user’s predicament.
The BIOS maker, Phoenix Technologies, for making a Vista-only version?
Microsoft for asking Phoenix to do so and including that specialized BIOS in Vista?
Or the user who apparently believed that the clear, straightforward warning meant everyone but him?
The question sparked lively disagreement in a number of quarters, including my Buzzblog, where we have a poll for those interested in registering their opinions in a semiformal sort of way.
Me? I’m thinking it’s pretty clearly Door No. 3 here, but that opinion is by no means shared by all. In fact, as of this writing, our entirely unscientific poll is showing surprising “support” for Phoenix being the bad guy.
Sure, there’s a case to be made that this is just another entry on the never-ending list of ways that Microsoft ensures world domination. And I guess you can try to find fault with Phoenix for taking Microsoft’s money.
But what part of that warning was difficult to understand?
YouTube denies aiding Thai censors
Google’s video service YouTube last week denied that it was teaching the government of Thailand how to block individual YouTube videos as part of ongoing negotiations aimed at lifting that government’s total ban of the Web site.
That it had to deny such a thing says something unflattering about how news travels across the planet and the Internet these days. The “teaching” impression, a major component of worldwide press coverage last Monday, was triggered by an Associated Press report published online by any number of publications, including USA Today, BusinessWeek and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Bloggers fanned the flames.
The first paragraph of the AP story read: “BANGKOK, Thailand — YouTube offered Saturday to ‘educate’ Thai officials who want to block individual clips from its video-sharing service, hoping to end an impasse that arose after a slideshow mocking the country’s revered king appeared online.”
Adding to the confusion was this quote attributed to a YouTube executive: “While we will not take down videos that do not violate our policies, and will not assist in implementing censorship, we have offered to educate the Thai ministry about YouTube and how it works,” said Julie Supan, head of global communications for YouTube. “It’s up to the Thailand government to decide whether to block specific videos, but we would rather that than have them block the entire site.”
Puzzled by the apparent contradiction between “will not assist” and “have offered to educate” — and seeing how it was being interpreted online — I contacted YouTube for clarification. I asked whether they were actually teaching the Thai government how to block individual videos or simply explaining Google’s standard operating procedures.
Turns out to be the latter, at least according to a company spokesman: “The reference to ‘educate’ should be taken to mean that YouTube is working to explain YouTube’s terms of use and policies to Thai officials.”
While the original “teaching” story was widely distributed, the subsequent denial by YouTube received scant attention.
You can also register your vote on the “who’s to blame” question via e-mail.. The address is buzz@nww.com.
