Slashdot Mirror

You don't see it do you? You actually don't see that you are calling people names and accusing them of things that you are doing.

You asked for an example of giving an insult to other people. I gave you one. You ignore the point that you did it and start focusing on other things. You can't admit that you asked 4 times for an example of something that you were accused of doing and then were given poof. You asked: "Show me where I've thrown an insult." I showed you and you ignore it. It's a fact and you can't handle it because you're so caught up in proving something about how much others are filled with hate.

That's a real comment from this very slashdot article. So you're saying that if I call that quote hateful, I'm being hateful? No. Sorry, not gonna fly. If that's the case, you just called my comments hateful, so that would make you hateful and prove my point. That's the rule you made right? Calling someone a hate monger makes you a hate monger. Well, Mr. Hate Monger, you just called me that.

Not even close to true.

The previous posts weren't talking about other comments that you keep trying to bring in. You responded to a specific post that was making a claim about truth between Glen/Bill and Steve and you called one side hatemongers because that person used an adjective. Here's exactly where you start using strawman tactics, I'll spell it out.

1: You take someones statement and change it to apply to another comment.
"That's a real comment from this very slashdot article. So you're saying that if I call that quote hateful, I'm being hateful?"

No, no one ever said that in this string of replies. Of course you can find other hateful comments from either side and start claiming that you are talking about them but you responded to a post and were called out on that comment, not others. So no, you weren't in fact called hateful for calling that other quote hateful. you brought it in to make a straw man attack. You just twisted the other peoples arguments to apply to something else and now you try and defeat that so you can seem correct to yourself. Straw man argument.

"That's the rule you made right? Calling someone a hate monger makes you a hate monger."

No, that's you making a statement that was created in your head since you have now ignored the facts.

Calling a group of people hatemongers is an insult that you claimed you never gave. That was your question, that was the answer, and this is you ignoring the fact that you were incorrect.

You want to start generalizing then I suggest you take your own advice and start comparing actual facts between groups of people and the hateful things they say, don't just use anecdotes and go off on tangents. Just do the math and make a point if you want. Calling people names without facts or backing it up is useless. Even you seem to agree with this basic statement even though you repeatedly don't follow it.

Here, I'll show you what I mean:
Bill uses things other than facts to convince his viewers that he is right by presenting "facts" in a derogatory or disrespectful way:
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/tallying-bill-oreillys-name-calling-100/
not a perfect study but at least they tried to present a quantitative comparison rather than just calling the other side names.
Stephen Colbert mocks this strategy and mimics it as a basic premise of his show, even calling Bill "papa bear" and quoting him more often than not in segments that mirror arguments that Bill makes.

Your references to google searches of name calling by the left is interesting but to counter that would have just lead down a path of growing references to both sides. Eventually nothing would come of that. Since you keep trying to bring in other references and may feel that this post is ignoring that there are other comments in this thread or that other comments out there anywhere are valid to bring in, here'

The game is currently expected to ship in 2010 although given its history Pitchford is understandably reluctant to be more specific.

but now the article says

The game is currently expected to ship in 2011 although given its history Pitchford is understandably reluctant to be more specific.

"While a price hasn't been set, Samsung product executive Hankil Yoon said in an interview that it would likely retail for between $200 and $300, although the final price would vary depending on different carrier subsidies. " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467060590811950.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_RightMostPopular

Yes, there is something wrong. There's 20 million barrels or so of highly flammable material being supplied to the United States every day, of which the Gulf of Mexico supplies about 1.6 million from over 3000 production platforms and sub-sea installations, another 5 million barrels/day is supplied from production on land, and the rest is imported mainly by tankers and pipelines, all of which have a tendency -- regardless of safety precautions -- to occasionally explode due to their flammable nature. It's a rare occurrence given the quantities involved.

Perhaps someone should do something about decreasing those numbers, as some people have been suggesting for the last 4 decades, but until that happens (or unless you want to go to 100% imports instead of only >50%), there's going to be domestic production where accidents could happen in your neighborhood. Even if you went to 100% importation from elsewhere you'd still have accidents while handling the product.

The only reason you've probably heard about this accident is due to media attention to the BP oil spill. In fact, another accident occurred earlier along the Gulf Coast in July when a barge decapitated the top of a non-producing oil well. Again, the only reason that got national/international attention is probably due to the attention already drawn to the region, otherwise the story probably wouldn't have gotten much further than Louisiana.

So, let's ignore the vagaries of media reporting or non-reporting and look at some actual numbers. The statistics for the Gulf of Mexico in the last four years imply that fires/explosions are fairly common (over 100 of them per year), but that's at any scale, including very small ones that don't involve evacuations of platforms and where safety equipment and procedures worked to promptly put out the fire. Fatalities range from 4 to 11 in the Gulf of Mexico (and there are at least 11 in 2010 due to the BP / Macondo well accident). Spills >50 barrels are fairly uncommon -- between 4 and 10 a year, although again the size varies enormously, as we've seen this year. Loss of well control incidents -- these are the serious situations when the pressure in the well requires engaging the blowout preventer or other safety equipment -- number 2 to 8 per year. Any one of those might have turned into another BP oil spill if not handled properly.

So, is "twice in a year" unusual? Probably not, but it depends where you draw the line between significant and insignificant accidents, the BP incident being an extreme outlier case not seen for decades (since the Ixtoc-1 accident in 1979, which was in the Gulf of Mexico but on the Mexican side). Browse through the documentation and judge for yourself, although there aren't yet enough details reported from this new one to tell if it is really exceptional. We'll know in the next day or so.

You may as well express your utter shock that there has been a commercial airliner crash TWICE in one year. Unusual? No, not really. Rare accidents happen even with excellent and responsible safety precautions, especially with so much traffic. It's a hazard of doing business at all.

If it's any consolation, this platform is on the continental shelf (i.e. shallow water) and will therefore be much easier to deal with.

I call BS on the guy being a devout "leftist" -- he had a lot of hate for Muslims, possibly stemming from his "documentary" tour being embedded with the troops in Afghanistan:
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/08/26/who-is-michael-enright-tracing-the-suspect-in-the-taxi-stabbing/

Never miss an opportunity to spread some lies, eh?

"Under Swedish law, molestation is defined broadly and can refer to anything from groping someone to inappropriate nonsexual behavior, such as disrupting public order. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451351660880566.html

I'm trying to find the actual law that was provided last time.

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't an official english copy of swedish law which was what was quoted. It sounded very legalese at the time.

Oh, delicious irony. The google link you just put up there has, as its #1 match, this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703999304575399761499620310.html

The article's title? "Wikileaks and 'War Crimes'"; Subtitle? "Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks.org, says he wants to protect civilians. In fact he's endangering them."

Irony aside, the best citation you can come up with is "let's google those keywords?" Let me guess, the lack of any serious exposé is because of a conspiracy to suppress analysis, too?

And the organization that is too dumb to prevent leaks of these documents in the first place is also so amazingly adept at manipulation of the worldwide media that nobody has reported on the hundreds of war crimes documented therein?

Thanks, no further questions.

Then listen to this one. It isn't like the science is settled (of course, some of it is). As he says,

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, .....

You don't have to present a false choice between the Discovery Institute and 'scientists.'

And you don't have to present a false choice between the WSJ's stupid strawman argument, and "skepticism".

The job market for programmers isn't bad. Silicon Valley added net tech-jobs last month (lost jobs overall, especially teacher jobs. It's a sucky time to be a teacher). The Wall Street Journal did an analysis showing that if you are a medium skilled person (read: business manager) then it's really hard to find a job right now. But if you are highly skilled (something specialized) the job market is not bad and may even be very good, depending what your specialization is.

Especially if you have some experience looking for jobs, and know how to do it. I have friends (including myself) who have been looking for jobs during every part of this recession, and none of them have had trouble.

Does the article support the notion of the pilots unions fighting against modernization of flight recorders? No, it doesn't. Does common sense support such a notion? No, it doesn't either.

Did you read the same article I did?

The strongest institutional opposition has come from airline pilots, who fear that the practice would lead to full-scale monitoring of their work, much as it has for interstate truckers. In 2000, in reaction to the EgyptAir crash, the FAA tried to mandate cockpit cameras, but the U.S. pilots' union managed to prevent it. The rest of the world, which followed the U.S. lead, has also done nothing.

Do you not consider in-cockpit cameras to be a modernization of flight recorders?

Here's the first article that i dug up when searching for "pilots union" and cockpit recorders
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124201244946205809.html
Colgan Air Inc., which operated the [crashed] flight where 50 people died], is proposing to download and analyze random cockpit recordings in the future as a means of enhancing safety and enforcing cockpit discipline. The union representing Colgan's roughly 480 pilots is dead set against it.

If you keep searching, you'll only find more of the same.
Pilots Unions endlessly fight tooth and nail against anything that would impinge upon the cockpit.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

You don't have to present a false choice between the Discovery Institute and 'scientists.'

So Paul is running out of money, huh?

A snippet from the suit:

Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’507 patent [Patent No. 6,263,507]. Apple is liable for infringing the ’507 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

I haven't tried to follow all of the claims in that patent, but I did skim the first page. Based on what I read there and the summary in the snippet, I suspect that nearly every web site on the internet is violation. Going after Apple et. al. is a blatant attempt at a money grab. Not naming other companies that probably violate the same patents the same way is blatant favoritism.

Talk about a misuse of the system (which is already sorely misused, I know).

You're missing the point entirely, even though it's spelled out in your quoted text. They don't care about people using the term "book", they care about people using the term "book" in the very specific instance of online social networking, since the usage of the term and the proximity of the services offered combined could lead to confusion (i.e. people thinking Teachbook is somehow endorsed by Facebook). McDonalds is a different matter, they tend to pursue what they see as trademark violations much more vigorously, but largely the courts find in their favour only where it is in the field of restaurants (and even then not always), the exceptions being where others are clearly using their name or mark to gain a competitive advantage in the market place. Actually apart from the odd anomaly the courts seem pretty good at only upholding McD's claims where there is room for genuine confusion, and they've lost a fair few even in the fast food sector.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575450761550490920.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs%3Darticle

Perhaps one of you armchair-leftists would like to chime in and defend our Douchebag-in-Chief for playing politics with our immigration policy and whoring out the Democrat party in hopes of winning the latino vote? There's a fucking war going on on our southern border, and we're still empire-building in a sand pit that no one gives a shit about. Meanwhile, Obammy is suing one of the few law enforcement officers trying to actually *GHASP* enforce the law! Hey Obammy, unemployment is WELL over the 8% you promised us if the porkulus bill was passed. Mexican immigrants are NOT coming here to do jobs that Americans won't. They're coming here to depress the price of the labor required to mow your lawn and to wipe your bratty kids' asses. Enjoy your vacation, and prepare for a huge helping of humble pie in the November mid-terms. Change my ass.

The NYT is correct. I read the conservative attacks on Obama's health care plan in the WSJ, including Betsy McCaughey. I also read about the health plan in the New England Journal of Medicine.

For McCaughey, or anyone else, to claim that these were or would be anything like "death panels" to decide when to let someone die for cost-control purpose, is a lie. The conservatives lied. You can go to places like Factcheck.org to confirm that.

I guess when you close your eyes to everything that doesn't fit your own reality, your reality is only what you make it instead of anything real. I'm not going to go through the trouble of actually linking to these articles, but if you are interested in anything more then conformation bias, I suggest you copy and past these links out and read them. You should also note the dates of the articles and maybe send a copy to fact check dot org too. as you have already mentioned that you have read some of these, I have to ask why you are arguing that the death panels definition must be limited to a narrowly defined concept delivered by the democrats who are also in opposition to the republicans? I mean it's the conservatives making the charge, their attack, it's them who define what death panels are, not your biased opposition sites.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107403
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7948878/US-breast-cancer-drug-decision-marks-start-of-death-panels.html
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3084.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2224790

and before you start clamoring those are biased sites, I suggest you stop looking only at sites that you agree with and pay attention to the links as the one is from another country altogether with absolutely no vested interest in the US health care system. A few others are what most would consider a left leaning site which admits that the death panels were more then end of life counseling stating that they would ration health care which Obama already has said it's done already, why not do it in the open.

You don't think Al Franken's libel lawyers would have let him print a book like "Lies: and the Lying Liars who Tell them" if he couldn't actually prove that Republicans lied, do you? Actually, all Franken did was assign a bunch of summer interns to fact-check statements by right-wing crackpots like Limbaugh.

This is hilarious. Are you actually arguing that Al Franken's lawyers are so smart that they wouldn't let him publish a book with falsehoods in it but so stupid that they can't go after the people he claims is spouting falsehoods? I mean seriously, do you think it's anything like that at all? Did you even think that out before making your statement or is that something you saw on one of your conformational bias sites and liked it enough to repost?

Here is a hint, Franken's lawyers said to him- if anything, it's political speech, the most protected speech by the first amendment. And no, the so called fact checkers didn't check the facts or he ignored them completely just as you are in order to impress your views right now.

All I asked for when I made that post was that there was some honesty in this discussion. You have proved to me that it is impossible to expect that from you or perhaps your side. The death panels charge was more then end of life counseling and you seem to know it. You can find more about it simply by searching for obamacare death panels. And of course, there is no shortage of people connected to Obama who reinforce this concept by public policy positions publicly held in the present or somewhat recent past.

On the other hand, modern studies such as:

http://energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-004/CEC-200-2007-004.PDF

and

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120406767043794825.html
(don't have a link to the article they published, sorry)

These imply that the savings are negligible or, in the case of Indiana, *increased* electric usage. There is no clear answer, since the results depend heavily on the breakdown of electric usage (A/C, eletronics, etc), which varies depending on your region.

The first two things that came to mind were the Indiana DST changeover and the Australia study. Then I found this nice Wall Street Journal article that mentions both: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB120406767043794825.html

All well and good, except that of course, GM rescinded those pay cuts: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB125267786858503127.html

The CEO and CFO made approximately 22 million between them in 2007. Let's say an average worker in the factories makes 50,000 a year. That's what, about 400 workers (leaving some 2 million in salary for the two executives)? 3 of the top executives got pay increases from 2006 to 2007, so, umm who's talking about contraction and pay cuts? http://www.companypay.com/executive/compensation/general-motors-corp.asp?yr=2008

I guess if you're on top of a sinking ship, you might as well get out with as much as you can.

Would that be before or after the US blows up said country to hell and shoots everyone? Seriously dude, when the fuck has the US ever parked a "hospital ship" or did you get that mixed up with "hostile ship"?

No, he meant "hospital ship". And it has been used without US blowing up a country, but you probably think US caused the earthquake to occupy Haiti.

Should it be illegal for cartels to set commodity prices?

That is illegal; there's a reason OPEC meetings aren't held in New York, and that LCD makers were fined for collusion (like here; that's from 2008, or here, for the new suit by the state of New York)

It's amazing how free market purists suddenly don't trust the free market when it comes to workers' pay.

I'm not aware of any "free market purists" who think cartels are a good thing. After all, teachers aren't barely-literate manual laborers; they have college degrees - shouldn't they be able to negotiate a salary on their own? If there were a market in teacher pay, for example, I'm reasonably certain that a high school physics teacher would make a lot more than a kindergarten teacher. Instead, in most public systems, pay is determined by seniority and box-checking. (Got a master's degree? Check. Gone to summer course X? Check. Collect for each box checked.)

it was those quant assholes who got us into this mess

they used formulas extrapolating from cherry picked models to suggest that the economic universe could just go on inflating forever. big bang indeed

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704509704575019032416477138.html

The US has a great rail system and we need to make sure that we do not ruin it by doing what Europeans have done.

"Europe's dependence on trucks stems from the failure of its vaunted passenger-rail network to provide a cheap, efficient alternative for cargo. Between 1995 and 2005, the percentage of European goods shipped by truck rose to 73% from 68%, while rail's share fell to 17% from 20%. The rest goes by canal or, in the case of oil and gas, pipelines. In the U.S. in 2005, 42% of freight was moved by train and 33% by truck."

"EU Looks to Cargo Trains To Ease Load on Trucking" by John W. Miller, in The Wall Street Journal on June 5, 2007 at p. A6

The US has optimized its rail system for freight, not passengers, and that is a good thing. Distances between population centers in the US are larger than in Europe, Americans will tend to prefer air travel for long distance intercity travel.

...I wonder what the world's smallest violin would sound like in the concert hall of Dr. Stewart's $24 million mansion.

Actually, other industries do use this kind of math:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB126092257189692937.html

In fact, those are worse, because they don't use the phrase "up to."

i've come to believe Page is slowly succumbing to the dark side.

People who tune large databases have been IOPS focused for a long time. SSDs enable a new level of IOPS that is about one to two orders of magnitude better than spinning disks. SSDs will allow people to (re)consider all sorts of applications that are currently IOPS bound or IOPS prohibited. Soon Google will be able to keep track of how much milk you have in your fridge, and send you a reminder to buy some when you are near a store that sells it, and have plans to go home afterward so that they can be sure you will be able to refrigerate it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

is it too much to ask that at least /. users start linking to the google link to the url? Both the NYT and the WSJ let you bypass these walls when you're coming from google. For instance, this link makes you collect underwear while this link is PRoFItz!!. Come on, /. editors, seriously?

He asked for official help in redacting, and they rejected the request. If anyone gets killed because of this, it's because of the US military and their unwillingness to protect the people in those documents.

Sorry, but it's Assante's responsibility. He is the one (or at least he represents the organization) that wants to release documents. The Pentagon didn't give the documents to him, and the person that did so was acting against explicit orders from the Pentagon.

So, Assange and his friends are responsible for the aftermath. However, I don't think he is losing much sleep over it, since he was recently quoted:

He expressed some ambivalence about the need to protect Afghans who have helped the U.S. military. "We are not obligated to protect other people's sources," including sources of "spy organizations or militaries," unless it is from "unjust retribution," he said, adding that the Afghan public "should know about" people who have engaged in "genuinely traitorous" acts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425900461793766.html

So, cooperating with the US military to fight terrorists within Afghanistan may be a "genuinely traitorous act". I think it's starting to become clear whose side that Assange is really on.

Thats the underlying idea of Silverglate's "Three Felonies a Day". I haven't read the book yet myself but the general points he makes in his discussion seems well founded. There's a youtube vid if you feel like a general overview - the Wall Street Journal has a brief summary as well.

The NYTimes, Newsweek, and a host of human rights groups seem to disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29wikileaks.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/09/AR2010080903045.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews
http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html

The SEC doesn't stop fraud because it doesn't want to stop it, not because it lacks the resources.

Exactly. For those who are not convinced, a bit of reading: Five New York Stock Exchange specialists were actually charged with fraud, but it's not the justice you think it should be. Richard Ney and economist who later turned actor, wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the NY times longest running best seller, and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labelled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.

To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The DOJ finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. Those get out of jail free cards just keep coming off the monopoly pile. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's books knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 210+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behaviour was actually pursued by the SEC/DOJ.

If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the SEC and DOJ, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but they did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:

"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"

Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.

Some NYSE specialists were charged with fraud: Richard Ney and economist who later turned actor, wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the NY times longest running best seller, and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labelled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.

To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The SEC and Department of Justice finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. Those get out of jail free cards just keep coming off the monopoly pile. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's books knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 210+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behaviour was actually pursued by the DOJ.

If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the SEC, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but the DOJ did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:

"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"

Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.

I have not. If I am wrong about the man, I'm sorry. And it is distinctly possible that I am.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100809-711931.html

As far as I can tell, though, Mark Hurd still wanted to run a company that makes things. Carly and Dunn wanted HP to be a "brand," and to outsource design development and marketing to everyone else. The H.P. iPod is a perfect example of the vacuousness of their reign. Hurd seemed like a normal-bad CEO. Carly and Dunn seemed like marketing droids that set legendary new standards for "bad CEO."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411713335505250.html

We often don't mind if a site uses it to target advertisements, but are less sanguine when it sells data to third parties.

Really this is the problem with the whole privacy thing that has caused so much issue in the past. The problem isn't that the company collects the data, it is that they then sell it to third parties to make a profit.

Similarly if you look at the in depth report that the WSJ published then the real issue isn't the use of cookies or even the collection of the behavioural data - it is that they have then sold out to third parties by either selling the data or allowing them to collect it in the first place (which they can then do whatever they want with).

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE

Wikileaks and Julian Assange own this now. The good, and the ill, from publishing that information are on them. And it looks pretty ill to me.

According to Newsweek, a man named Khalifa Abdullah was killed after the release of these documents. So that's one man dead already. The Taliban has vowed to hunt down and kill anyone who is a "spy", and they are using the Wikileaks information to do it, so there will be more. Some of the people listed in Wikileaks have disappeared, hopefully into hiding rather than dead.

Julian Assange's stance on this is callous. He "insisted that any risk to informants' lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information." Okay, at least one man is dead now. What is that "overall importance"? I sure don't see it.

I'm also not buying his idea that this is really the US military's fault, together with Amnesty International, for not helping him redact the critical info. Much of the info is years old. What was the big rush? If Wikileaks didn't have enough volunteers to vet the info carefully, why rush ahead and publish it anyway?

If I were Julian Assange, I wouldn't be sleeping well at night.

steveha

either you're a liar, or an idiot.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

The version Wikileaks posted was not fully sanitized. The media outlets they released it to earlier apparently did a little more work sanitizing them, but the actual version wikileaks released publicly was not fully sanitized.

Well, it wasn't worthy of publication. It's pretty simple to do. I had made some code available in the past, which used a variation of it to avoid abuses of message boards.

I'm not really looking for fame or fortune, so "father of...[anything but my kids]" doesn't interest me much.

But like I said, it's not rocket science. Did someone with the same identifier [username, cookie id, IP, etc, etc] vote the same way over a threshold for the same item? If so, disregard all their votes during tabulation. It does require all the voting information to be used during tabulation, not just a historical tabulation against the current numbers.

For example, I've seen voting that just does the following (in pseudocode)

$total_votes
$total_score

$total_score = $vote + $total score;
$total_votes++;

$current_score = $total_score / $total_votes;

That is fine and dandy until some schmuck has a script hit your voting script 100,000 times with the same vote. Now you can either purge the voting information, or let it ride.

The alternative is to record every vote with whatever identifying information you can. There are circumstances where you may not even record a vote, but that would only be obvious ones like if wget or curl were in the USER_AGENT string.

Now you can see if the same identifying information did the same action too many times. If you allow exactly one vote per user, disregard all the votes from any user who exceeds that threshold. To be polite, you may want to allow say 5 votes. Someone may click twice, but if they come back and do it 5 times, it's probably abuse.

Likewise, if you are confident that particular identifiers are bogus, you can prune those completely. For example, if you see inbound clicks from http://ballotstuffers.example.com/ automatically add those user identifiers to the list to disregard.

Hmmm.. There were a couple other methods. I can't remember those offhand, and I haven't had access to the code for a few years.

It could be said that this is sampling, but really it's just avoiding abuse. We aren't taking a percentage of the samples, we're taking all the votes from people who aren't likely to be fraudulent. If you take 1 in 10 samples for voting, and you have 11,000 votes (10,000 from ballot stuffers, 1,000 from legitimate voters), your ballot stuffers will still have the majority of the votes. If you automatically exclude 100 voters, who account for 10,000 of the 11,000 votes, you will likely have a fairly accurate vote. if you go with the IP as the user identification, you'll likely trim out AOL (who needs 'em) or any other group of people behind a common proxy or NAT. You'll still have the majority of voters being counted.

In real-world political elections, this would be obvious if say 10,000 residents in a district returned 110,000 ballots. Sadly though, that happens, and none of the votes are excluded from the tabulation. Here are some examples. You can go find more on your own.

The real solution to this, if you needed accurate votes, would be to require authentication for each voter, and only provide them with credentials once they proved that they are truly individuals. You may still have some fraud, but it would then be based on the fact that people will give away their votes. This is true of proxy votes. A bunch of people and I

And let your data center run into another ship....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419212377490340.html?mod=googlenews_wsj