Internet Piracy - The Scum of the Earth, or Just Human Nature?

Image - Cliparts.co

Piracy is everywhere. There is no disputing that. It wouldn't be arguable that everyone has done it at some point, but there isn't a single country or state that hasn't had at least somebody do it somewhere. Unless you just outright don't have internet.

The fight against piracy is just as intense. So much so, that companies have not minded hurting their legitimate users. But sometimes, such efforts can actually do more to encourage piracy, and in turn, hurt your brand even more.

So how do you stop it? Seriously, how do you stop that?

Well - many people have their own ideas. I am sure there are many more who will argue that their own ideas are the right ones on this issue. It pretty much comes a clusterbomb of big egos, pissed off customers, and very little effective mitigation.

Most of these methods, however, attack the symptoms of the problem, but very few ever go to the cause. It would be like dumping a bucket of ice on a fire - it may or may not work, or the fire may just ignore it entirely and melt all the ice. It's a hit and miss and it really depends on what caused the fire in the first place.

Well - what about going to the source of the problem? What causes it in the first place?

Ironically enough - part of it comes from the human spirit of giving and sharing. Awwww, isn't that sweet? But there's more to it than that. A lot of it may actually stem from a perceived need or necessity. *GASP* Oh, wait? Wait, did I say that right? Yes, I sure did.

I don't see a whole lot of websites putting up polls simply asking users - "why do you engage in piracy?" Of course, such a poll could be incriminating for users - because answering it might mean that they would admit to doing something illegal. But with so many people doing it, it does seem a bit silly that anyone would go after just one single person? However, sometimes they do, and it's often just not worth the risk.

Well - let's break it down ourselves, then. I think there are several possibilities as to why some person might be involved in piracy:

• Do not want to pay for it at all.
• Price may just be too high for it.
• Just because they can.
• To share something already paid for with a friend/family member.
• To bypass software restrictions. (This includes DRM as well as "Edition changing")

Let's make one thing clear - This blog is not to advocate the virtues of piracy. It is not to encourage it, nor is it to argue that all media should be free. I do not believe it will ever be completely stopped, either. But I think the only way it will ever be reduced is if we look at why it happens, and try and fix the problems that cause it in the first place. Only then, I believe, will piracy fade into a more "specialist" kind of thing - be more prosecutable - and be less prevalent and less of an issue than it is, today.

So let's look at these problems, and see what we can do about reducing it, then, eh?

Do not want to pay for it at all.

Some people pirate because they believe they should not have to pay for any media at all. Honestly, I believe this category is the only category that classifies a true thief - this is someone who does not want to compensate someone else for their time making their lives easier (or at least more entertaining). They have no interest in donating, supporting, or otherwise helping out the person who created whatever it is they are pirating.

Unfortunately, not much can be done about it. Thieves exist. They're everywhere. You don't have to keep a store open more than a month to see one. Sometimes, they get caught. Sometimes, they don't. That's just the way it is.

But sometimes, such criminals can actually be politically motivated. And truthfully, some of these politics do have moral ground. There is a huge wealth inequality in this world - so great, that the crimes of one thief are felt as less than even a flea to their marks. Is it truly right that people who are so destitute have to give up everything they might own (literally) just for one thing they might need? That's a question of morality and it is beyond the scope of this blog post, but it is nevertheless something to consider. As Spock would say - "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Truer words were never spoken, even in an old television show. That alone doesn't make piracy right, but with the prevalence of thievery in the world, it's a hard ground to break, and doing so could alienate a lot of potential legitimate customers.

Price may just be too high for it.

This is a pretty big category, and I think it actually encompasses the majority of piracy. Have you looked at software prices lately? Sure, it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the 80's, but the prices are still pretty steep. Adobe is a big offender in this category, in my opinion, but others such as Microsoft and Apple are guilty as well.

The thing is - the higher the price, the more a person has to give up to legitimately own a license. Unlike what some people are used to - money does NOT grow on trees, and some people have to work really hard for their own. Even more so when they have family members to support - which, in this troubled economy, has become even more of an issue.

So why are film makers charging $30 for a new film? Why are record companies charging $15 for a new album? Why are software giants charging $60 for a new game? $100 for a new operating system? $500 just for a system that is even somewhat decent for running games? Well - fact is, entertainment goes far for the human soul. We are willing to give up a lot for it. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that - but there is a point where we are just giving up too much for it.

The costs all add up. In the end, we probably spend more on entertainment - which is a luxury - than anything else. But is entertainment really a luxury? For some people, it might be. For some, it may be a means for living. It all depends on the person. But if you can't embrace a little bit of it, then you may as well be dead on the inside.

I would argue that lower prices on the whole would do a LOT to curb this problem. There just isn't much need to spend $60 for a couple weeks worth of entertainment. I think more reasonable prices - like $8 for a new Blu-Ray, and possibly about $15 for a new high-stakes studio game - would shake piracy itself to its very foundations - enough that companies would start seeing profits soar. Imagine that - affordable entertainment! What a novelty, right?

Just because they can.

Yes, some people do it just because they can. Like the theif category, not much can be done about this, because to them pirating is more of a hobby. And as long as DRM exists in software, there will always exist people who will crack it. And many more who will make the cracks available to everyone. As long as any media is locked behind a price gate, there will always be someone who gives away free copies. It's human nature. But those things CAN be discouraged, and those things can mostly disappear in time if nothing is done to encourage it.

To share something already paid for with a friend/family member.

This is probably another one of the more common reasons why piracy is done. And it's something companies absolutely hate. But is it really so evil?

When you buy a toy at Walmart, you can give it to your kids, and they can share it with each other. It is truly unnecessary to have one of every toy for each one of your kids, just as much as it is unnecessary to have one refrigerator for every family member, one stove for every family member, and one dishwasher for each one as well.

Yes, our neighbors and friends come over to our houses all the time. So does our extended family. They all use our food, they all use our stoves, our refrigerators, and our dishwashers.

So why can't we do that with media?

One argument - and a legitimate one, too, I might add - is that while you can share stoves, refrigerators, and dishwashers with your family members, you only need one item to be able to share it with all those people, and such things often work well because you never need more than one. Media, on the other hand, can be copied, and when it is you are essentially making two of one item with its full functionality, and in effect not requiring the same kind of time-sharing that is required with refrigerators, stoves, and dishwashers. Many publishers want to be paid for that new copy - which, completely beyond their control - appeared out of nothingness. So, in order to solve this from a legal standpoint, software is licensed - either to individual computers or to individual users (or sometimes, their organizations). And sometimes licenses are written in such a way that sharing - even with family members - is strictly prohibited. But this really does not solve the problem.

I am not going to waste time trying to argue about what can be done to curb this. I am sorry but this is where I draw the line. I think it's pointless to try and stop friend and family sharing and it goes against the very essence of cooperation and human spirit. But if you engage in such pursuits, best of luck to you.

To bypass software restrictions such as "Editions" or DRM.

This is a big one, and it is near and dear to my heart. I'm going to be perfectly straight-up blunt about this, and I am not going to say this in any nicer way:
DRM is evil evil evil evil!
Want to know how evil? That line was the first 6 results from a Google search. I think the fact that it can come up with 6 relevant results in a row (possibly more but I didn't bother checking) supporting my argument says something, and it says it quite clear: People don't like DRM. It is evil. It is not good, it doesn't protect you, it doesn't protect them, it doesn't promote sales, it is just plain evil. That's it. That's all. Evil. Nothing more to it than that.

Have I made my point clear yet? Yes? Good. Because if you have missed it, then there is no hope for you to understand this blog and you will never be able to understand human nature or why piracy happens. Trust me - you won't be able to stop it, either.

I am sure a lot of people cling to DRM for fear that if they do let it go, it will only encourage more people to pirate their software. But ultimately, that is not true. Those who would've done it, have already done it, and those who will do it, will always find a way. DRM does nothing to protect your software. Nothing, whatsoever. And if your software is truly free of piracy, it probably was never worth being pirated (or even bought) in the first place.

In fact, DRM encourages piracy. I know this point is a bit of a quagmire to hold to, but I believe it is still valid. I actually believe that people are so sick and tired of DRM that, rather than going through the trouble of legitimately spending their hard-earned money for software, which has restrictions and inconveniences, they'd rather find a way to use it for free - and free of DRM. Remember - these people are not evil - that is human nature and piracy offers a path of far less resistance for those people.

From a political standpoint, people also actively boycott software which has DRM in it. Funny, I know, isn't it? The fact that it's done far more harm than good should have lent no surprise to that.

Another thing a lot of software developers do - for strange reasons, I might add - is they release the same copy of their software with different price points calling each difference a different "edition" - with progressively more expensive editions being tailored for business use and having more features and software freedom than the more restrictive home license counterparts. But piracy easily breaks the bonds of such "restrictions" and allows a "home user" the ability to use a fully featured version of the software - ironically enough, using only very few of the extra features that they cracked for in the first place.

Way to stop that? Just give everyone the same software for a reasonable price. Without silly DRM restrictions. I think the digital media world would be a much happier place.

So how DO you deal with piracy?

So - you've made it this far. I bet you wonder just how would I deal with piracy, myself?

Simple. Don't charge outrageous prices for it, don't introduce DRM, and ... *drumroll* encourage people to buy it. Yes - put a statement - or a notice - not a nag box (because somebody will just remove that, anyway) - give your contact info, your mailing address, and simply state "if you like this software, please purchase it, it will go a long way to supporting development!" And follow through with that. Focus on the positive sales of your software or media and use that to make it better, and make more. Don't threaten the consumer with legal consequences, and don't inundate them with 10-page license agreements - just be straight and simple. If a person feels more like a person, than a robot, then it will be how your customers relate to you.

Will that stop piracy? You bet your sweet ass it won't. But at least it won't create all the ill will with your users that encourage it in the first place. I think the first step to stopping piracy at all is to stop upsetting your customers in the first place to the point where they resort to such things.

And remember this, above all else - Most of your customers have done nothing wrong. Why are you punishing them for something other people have done?

Why do we even need AdBlock?

Everyone's done it at one point or another. You're browsing the web, you're hoping to find the information you need, whether it's the latest fashion trends, the newest tech gadgets, how to work your 30-year-old VCR (no one even uses those anymore, right?), or maybe even just to find out about what's happening on Capitol Hill in Washington. It's no doubt, of course, if you're reading this, you're using the internet. And nothing's more annoying than clicking on a link and seeing an advertisement for a new pair of underwear, or a flashing fake warning that your computer is infected with a virus and you need to clean it right now, generally something that has nothing to do with what you are trying to get to, and even worse, is pretty darn shady to boot.

Advertising is by itself fairly harmless - somebody somewhere wants your money, so they pay someone else money so that you can get your stuff for free - all you have to do is tolerate a few flashy images and, if you're interested, well, you can click on it and find out what it's all about. But where we generally draw the line is when this content is forced on us. Adfly - I am looking at you.

The HTML protocol was originally never designed with advertisement in mind, so content hosts and advertisers alike had to build around the restrictions for it. At first it was pretty harmless - it got annoying at times, sometimes even deceptive, but it wasn't a big deal. But then, the first of the nuisances started - pop-ups. When it was first realized that the Javascript engine of every modern browser (at the time, anyway, they'd be considered ancient now) could open up new windows to any page, advertisers took advantage of this. Suddenly, it wasn't just images inserted into the document - now they loaded right over your page. They started becoming intrusive and unwelcome. Just for visiting a page, now, your computer is forced to open a brand new window to a completely foreign website that you never had any interest in going to in the first place, in the hopes that you would buy something.

Let me tell you something - I don't like to spend money on a practice that is that intrusive and conceited on the part of the advertiser. Especially when knowing that if I do, it would continue funding this atrocious practice.

But things went downhill from there. Suddenly, it was pop-up hell. There were hardly any websites you could go to without getting a pop-up. Sometimes closing a pop-up would open a new one. Sometimes closing one opened three! It got to a point where if you didn't know how to use the task manager to close the web browser, and you weren't brave enough just to pull the computer right out of the AC socket, you could easily wind up spending more time exiting the internet than getting the info you needed to start with!

So, advertisers - consider this. Why is AdBlock even necessary? It's because you think that by being annoying, we spend more money. And it works. That's the worst part. There's always some idiot that will spend money on something that's shoved right into his face. The sales climb, and the profits roll right in.

There are those of us who don't use the internet to buy your garbage, however. And having it forced into our face just makes us even more averse to it. I get to a point at times where I outright refuse to buy from a merchant who engages in such practices with their advertising.

Consider that, for a moment.

If you want a customer, the best way to do it is by building trust and loyalty. This has been the tenant of successful businesses for a very long time. Now - how is shoving pop-up ads - FORCEFULLY - in someone's face accomplishing this goal?

Adfly. Now here's an odd mystery if ever there was one. Authors use it, typically with download links but sometimes also with exit links, to try and gain revenue for content hidden behind said links. Now - I have nothing against authors wanting a little compensation for their work. It's how they're getting it that's upsetting me. Adfly not only forces you to view an advertisement, but if you have your browser configured in such a way for safe browsing (i.e. scripts turned off, plug-ins on confirmation only, ad blocker turned on), it doesn't even work at all. You get no advertisements - but worst of all you get no content. And why? For no reason other than the ridiculous 5-second timer. Which it will not allow you to skip. Oh, the endless war that is fought with that one. Because Adfly wants to FORCE you to view an ad for 5 seconds, they intentionally make it incompatible with browsers that are capable of skipping this ridiculous timer. And if you dare try to install browser extensions that either skip the timer or bypass the ad entirely, they will work to break that extension and force you to turn it off in order to get the page you want. Why? Because to them, serving an ad is more important than anything else. I think it's reasonable to guess that they actually have a staff employed 40 hours a week just to break those things.

Adfly - you make me sick. I would love to see you guys go bankrupt. You - and all of your customers, too. Anyone who lists an ad with you. The practice is annoying, and there's a reason why Ad blockers exist. YOU ARE THAT VERY REASON. If you want my money, (which will ultimately come from your advertisers anyway, if I ever even buy something from those despicable weirdos), try a less intrusive and less forceful form of advertisement.

Additionally, it would benefit any advertiser greatly to know that AdBlock intentionally whitelists ads that it deems are "non-intrusive." Take the time to research it. I promise you, it's well worth the read, because if you make your ad "acceptable" - it will be viewed by a great many more people than the ones you are FORCING to view it. And better yet, your advertisers will be viewed much more favorably. Wouldn't you prefer to show your advertisers in the best, most favorable light possible? Do you ever think it could possibly be damaging, not only to your own company, but to your advertisers, when the user is upset and agitated about what they have to deal with, in seeing those ads?

Food for thought.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are the author's own views, and are formed from her own experiences and opinions. These views and commentary are not representative or intended to be representative of other people, including the hosts of this blog.

Making Life a little easier in Windows 8

Screenshot: Vista VS with Classic Shell enabled, using a Windows 7 Canada theme background.

So, yeah, recently I had a friend who was kind of "forced" to use Windows 8. Most people I know find Windows 8 to be a pain in the rear, but there's some programs you can use to ease the pain.

Note that I did not upgrade to Windows 8.1, for 2 reasons:

1) I am using the Enterprise evaluation version currently - which I downloaded before 8.1 was released - which for one reason or another seems to have Windows Update disabled - still trying to work on fixing that.
2) My CPU just does not support it. Windows 8.1 (and later) requires a more modern CPU, and my system is just too old for that.

So - to the list of programs!

1) Classic Shell: (Usability)
http://www.classicshell.net/downloads/

This program, quite simply, brings back the start menu. It does a whole host of other things too, but if you're transitioning from any older version of Windows to Windows 8, you want that start menu back. It also plays around with your Explorer settings and brings back a few bells and whistles so that you can get some classic Windows functionality back. On Windows 8 itself it also enables boot-to-desktop, so that you don't have to find the silly Desktop tile on the Metro screen. Basically, as far as usability goes, this is a must.

2) 8GadgetPack: (Optional, Usability)
http://8gadgetpack.net/

This program brings back the sidebar gadgets introduced in Windows Vista (and included in 7 as well). 

3) WinFlip: (Optional, Usability)
http://winflip.en.softonic.com/

Remember the Windows+Tab key flipping through your windows? This will bring it back. This program was made for Windows XP but works fine on 8.

4) Glass8: (Eye Candy)
http://glass8.eu/download.html

This program re-enables the "Aero effects" from Vista/7. It does so with a simple tweak to the DWM. Note that your video card still has to support the blur and transparency if you want to get those back, but this is needed for the themes.

5) UxStyle
http://uxstyle.com/

This program allows the use of custom themes in Windows 8. (And other versions, obviously) If staring at Windows 8 vector arts make you sick, installing a custom style will help, and this program is needed for that.

6) VistaVS (Optional)
Windows 8.1: http://simplexdesignsart.deviantart.com/art/Windows-Vista-538265110
(no adfly)

This makes Windows look and feel more like Windows Vista. Installation is simple, just read the included files. You will need to use Administrator access to drag the files into the proper place.

7) Aero Glow (Optional)
Windows 8.1: http://mrgrim01.deviantart.com/art/Aero-Glow-8-1-415317318

This seems to be the closest I can find to making Windows 8 look more like Windows 7.

8) Royale (Optional)
Windows 8.1: http://xxinightxx.deviantart.com/art/Royale-417858455
(no adfly)

This is a Windows XP-like skin.

Author's note: The links have been updated as of June 25, 2015. "No Adfly" links are included for users who do not wish to download things behind compulsory Adfly links. If such links are intentionally broken, the listings for each project will simply be removed entirely; I do not support compulsory Adfly downloads and never will. If a user decides to support your work, it should be of their own good will - not because you forced them to.

Alright Microsoft - let me spell it out for you.

(Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2824443/microsoft-updates-skype-for-windows-mac-with-new-chat-interface.html)

Now - I know some people think that new looks and feels makes everything feel fresher and less boring. I'll admit - to some extent, you're right. We do occasionally need a little newness every now and then. Even the most stubborn of us could use a little change every so often.

But - why, why, why would you ever change an interface so completely? Why would you remove so much of the familiarity and replace it with something that so many people have never tried before? Switching up the layout to make it look worse than it ever did before? With so much clutter in one space, and so much empty space in another?

Microsoft - let me spell it out for you - PC's are not phones. PC's are not tablets. I know I don't speak for everyone saying this - but I know I speak for more than myself - We don't want monstrously giant buttons with no gradients on them. We don't want two-color vector art to replace the pretty 3D buttons we've had before. I'm even going to go out on a limb and say the new interface looks like crap. Just as Windows 8 did.

Not only does it feel boring and stale, it feels like a trip back to the 70's - from back before computers even had the mystical magic that they did back in the 80's. At least with the DOS prompt we had more than 2 colors to play with! Even Windows 95 looked better than this.

Did you not learn from the massive disaster that was Windows 8? This isn't the future. It's cardboard cut-outs that a kindergartener could imitate with crafting paper. With unwelcome layout changes, to boot.

I am sorry for such a strongly worded post, but when they change programs that I use frequently (such as Skype) in the name of "easier to use" and "to be more like the phone", it really upsets me.

I'm done now. I hope Microsoft realizes their mistake and - if they insist an interface change is in order, they do something a little bit better than this.

Google Android - The Mobile Phone's Linux

Love it or hate it, every computer comes with an operating system. It needs one. In fact it has an operating system before it even loads one off of the drive - in the old days it was the BIOS, nowadays it's an EFI chip.

Luckily you don't interact with the start-up system for long, unless something goes wrong, so if you hate it, you won't have to even remember it's there when you're doing your nitty gritty tasks. Its only function and purpose is to configure and test your devices and then load the real operating system that you actually use.

Ah, but there's where your choices for the computer really shine. Are you using Windows 7? 8? How about Ubuntu? Ye olde Windows 2000? Oh sheesh that one's old school. I'm sure there are those of us who remember Windows 95 and 98. Now that's real old school. Hehe! But we haven't even gotten to DOS yet. Oh that one was a computer geek's dream back in its day. Except that it frequently crashed, and you had to configure every single game to use the same settings for your sound card, oooooh what fun it was. Windows 3.1 was pretty much the same story!

For the real geeks, there was always Linux. Or even UNIX. Some even used OS/2. The point is, if you had a special need for your computer, chances were there was an operating system that could support it. Some were expensive, and pretty much the only one that was ever free (and almost still is the only one nowadays, at least for the usable ones) was Linux.

So where did all these new operating systems come from? Mac OS, iOS, and .... <drumroll> Android!? Well they were operating systems too, except they were never written for IBM-compatible PC's. But to this day, they are still widely available and used.

I'll tell you the truth. I grew up on Windows. I am no Microsoft fanatic but it's been the bread and butter of my daily tasks since the 90's. There's just one simple truth that no matter what operating system you use, you will have to face: Windows has by far many more applications written for it, than any other operating system, possibly even all of them combined. That doesn't mean that the other operating systems are ignored, unused, forgotten about, or even not worth it. It just means that if you want to get going with your computer quick, and get things done without worrying about a bunch of extra crap, you're probably just going to have to go with Windows. Sure - Linux and Mac OS both have a lot of software written for them too. And they really truly are GREAT operating systems - don't get me wrong. And they can even run Windows programs, with the right components! But when it comes down to the willy nilly of things, Windows is king. Only Windows can run Windows programs like Windows can. And it knows it.

So that was one insanely long intro to get to the point of this post - Google Android.

So recently, I got myself a tablet PC. A Curtis Klu LT7033. The old version, unfortunately, not the D style. What can I say? I paid 15 bucks for the damn thing. And am darn glad I didn't pay a dime more.

It's great for what it is, and what it does. But that's where the Google Android comes in. As I use it, more and more and more, I realize just how much I dislike Android. I really feel like the tablet is out of my control. Okay, that is typical for mobile PC's and phones, but really, I want a device where *I* know what is going on. Notifications? It bugs me CONSTANTLY about updates. The apps even give notifications. And if I don't use the task manager to kill those apps in the background, they'll slow the entire unit to a crawl. Who ever thought that this stuff is what I would want?!?!

That doesn't even bug me as much as what some of the free apps do - they include advertisements in them! Yeah, that's right, I open up my notepad to take notes for school and there's a little bar at the bottom of the screen encouraging me to download a new app. Oh, swell. Yeah, right away, I'll get right on that ...

I'm surprised the damn thing doesn't just pop up advertisements right on the desktop. And if it starts doing that you can bet I will no longer be using it, I'll be giving it to my nephew instead.

I have a lot of gripes about Android - and apps for Android. I am surprised it has such a market following, even going as far as having apps developed exclusively for it. I am not a fan of that at all. It's great for what it does but it is not an intuitive operating system at all, at least not for me.

That's probably why I'll never have a smart phone - or if I do, it'll be nothing more than a phone, for me. Why do I need a bloody smart phone? A phone is used for two things: Checking the time, and calling someone. Text messages? I'm reluctant but I'll do it, occasionally ... Facebook? FORGET IT. I ain't putting that snuff on my phone. There's a time and a place for Facebook and in my pocket during an 8 hour shift isn't it. Yahoo? Skype? Same thing. I *MIGHT* go with Skype simply to .... you guessed it, make calls ... oh, the novelty!

Maybe I wasn't meant for this "mobile and connected" world. I liked computers that came in a big giant box where you could turn it on and it'd tell you exactly what it is doing and you could load whatever games and programs you wanted on it and it didn't nag you or give you any troubles. Sure, you might have to change a few settings, tell it how to use the sound card, but the point is - the computer worked for you. Not the other way around. And the best part, really? If something went wrong I could edit the raw files and fix it, maybe even with enough knowledge of machine code. I guess I am just old fashioned.

A Captain's Choice: Being Decisive.

One time I was watching Star Trek Voyager episode "Nightingale" (s7.e8) and I remember a scene that was in Voyager's mess hall while she was on the planet for repairs. Ensign Kim had just taken an assignment as the captain of an alien ship - an assignment he really wanted because he had envisioned being the captain, himself. The thing that stuck out to me in this scene, and what made it so memorable, was when Neelix asked Kim whether he wanted plomeek soup or eggplant parmesan. When Kim said "either is fine," Neelix gave Kim a very firm lesson in decisiveness as a captain and basically told Kim that the response was unacceptable now that he shouldered such an important responsibility. Well, why is this relevant to anything? What was just a line in a TV show is actually a very important life lesson - and it's actually a very true thing what Neelix said to Kim, even if it was just a TV show.

I have noticed in a social setting a lot of times people look to me to make choices. Perhaps because I'm one of the few who do. There are others, though, who do it far more than me, and said people will follow their lead much sooner than mine. But when those people are gone, I am often looked to.

And this comes my biggest flaw as a leader: My lack of decisiveness. I like to defer to others, myself. I have a habit of it. I am a follower who leads others to follow another leader. I'm the sergeant, but never the captain or the general. It's a very poor choice for a captain to let others take the lead.

It's a hard habit to break, though. Throughout the early stages of my life I've been reprimanded for being "too bossy" - it's made me fear taking the mantle ever again, even though now I realize that back then I had done it for purely selfish reasons. Now I am suffering the consequences of not being "bossy" enough - even if the decisions I make are often for the benefit of others. And even worse, when I am "boss" I often leave very little of the pie for myself - in fact I will often divvy out the rewards at my own exclusion so that everyone benefits except me. But it doesn't feel right taking a bigger slice of the pie just because you are captain. And sometimes it doesn't feel right taking any of the pie at all - even if you did earn it.

Is my guilty conscience the reason why I do not lead a major social group? Why, when the few times I do step up to the plate, I always come short of my own expectations? I took on a major position in one of my MMO guilds once, only to resign because I was unhappy with my own performance. (In essence, I really fired myself)

It's something to ponder - and it's a very important concept that I think should be shared with others - particularly those who are or will be leaders of any team, small group, or even a major group. You cannot forget the most important rule of being larger than life: and that is, to actually be larger than life. Sure you are just a human being, but the people you lead never see you that way, until you screw it up by asking them what they want right after they've already asked you. You're the leader - you're supposed to know what they want. And if you guess incorrectly then they will tell you - that's when you can correct it. Self-confidence is not optional. You must make the choice, you must be the one to make the choice, and you must make it - right now - and with minimal time spent deciding.

What it comes down to is the most important job as a leader is to make choices for other people. It's not about power. It's not even about responsibility. It's about being a smart figurehead.

Bet you never knew ...

Did you know you can enter URL's directly in the common dialog boxes in Windows?

When you open a file with any application that supports the standard "Common Dialog" interface in Windows (the one that shows your files in a miniaturized explorer-like view), you can copy and paste a URL. Want to try it? Right click on the pretty background picture of this blog, copy its location, and open it as a file using Microsoft Paint.

Go ahead, give it a try!

If you're as amazed as I was when I first tried it (completely by accident, mind you), just keep in mind that you're not actually opening the file directly from its location. What's happening is, the integrated Internet Explorer component of Windows is fetching the file for you, and storing it in a temporary location. When it finishes downloading, it then passes that temporary file to the program requesting you to choose the file. So if you modify it, of course you'll need to save it where you can find it. But - still - that's less work that you have to do!