Will Users Get a Slice of the "Big Data" Pie?

The big picture by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:02 · Score: -1

Why are you concentrating on trivial things at a time like this?

How can you be complacent when . . . BENGHAZI??????

Re:The big picture by ArcadeMan · 2013-06-03 07:36 · Score: 1

I find it funny that you care enough to mention "BENGHAZI" in a few threads but you don't care enough to post a link or two in your comment.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re: The big picture by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:41 · Score: 0

If one examines neotextual discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject neocapitalist Marxism or conclude that the collective is part of the dialectic of language, given that cultural nationalism is invalid. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a structural feminism that includes sexuality as a whole.
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. Baudrillard suggests the use of neotextual discourse to deconstruct capitalism. It could be said that Lyotardâ(TM)s analysis of neocapitalist Marxism suggests that the raison dâ(TM)etre of the poet is significant form.
If neotextual discourse holds, the works of Rushdie are reminiscent of Smith. Thus, Baudrillard promotes the use of neocapitalist Marxism to read and analyse society.
The characteristic theme of Porterâ(TM)s[1] critique of subcapitalist theory is a mythopoetical reality. However, the subject is interpolated into a neotextual discourse that includes consciousness as a whole.
Finnis[2] implies that we have to choose between neocapitalist Marxism and dialectic deappropriation. It could be said that the primary theme of the works of Rushdie is the role of the observer as writer.
Re: The big picture by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-06-03 11:01 · Score: 1

That's the beautiful part about a freedom-based constitution. "Congress shall pass no law" is inviolate, no matter how long the stream of words used, by power hungry interlopers, in attempts to seize power.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:The big picture by Steve_Ussler · 2013-06-04 15:42 · Score: 1

that is why he is an AC!
Re: The big picture by Steve_Ussler · 2013-06-04 15:47 · Score: 1

I was met a person who new what big data is.... the only person!

I hope so by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:03 · Score: -1

Roses are red,
grass is greener.

When I read Slashdot,
I play with my weiner.

Re:I hope so by ArcadeMan · 2013-06-03 07:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Roses Are Red,
Violets Are Blue,
Milk, Eggs, Coffee.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:I hope so by Chris+Mattern · 2013-06-03 08:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Roses Are Red,
Violets Are Blue
That's what they say,
But it just isn't true.
Roses are red
And apples are too,
But violets are *violet*.
Violets aren't blue!
An orange is orange,
But Greenland's not green.
A pinky's not pink,
So what does it mean?
To call something blue
When it's not, we defile it.
But, ah, what the heck,
It's *hard* to rhyme violet!
Re:I hope so by Culture20 · 2013-06-03 09:09 · Score: 1

Violets are blue. Have you ever gotten one to smile or go out for a night of fun? They just sit there, like they're rooted to the ground.
Re:I hope so by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 10:08 · Score: 0

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I suck at poetry
Re:I hope so by ArcadeMan · 2013-06-03 10:51 · Score: 1

Just in case someone didn't get the reference...

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:I hope so by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 17:39 · Score: 0

Roses Are Red
Bacon Is Red
Rhyming is Hard
Bacon
Re:I hope so by Steve_Ussler · 2013-06-04 15:51 · Score: 1

wow...most /. users are no so lame, u must be gnu.

Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:03 · Score: -1

Never going to happen, these companies want your information for free, and in an unregulated way in order to maximize corporate profits.

America has no interest in protecting people's privacy, and is incapable of having any priority besides the wishes of companies.

Consumers will never get anything here except screwed.

Re:Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Big data is nothing but a scam. No one will ever make money from this data, except the people who sell it.
The purchasers are suckers, just like people who pay spammers to send spam.
Re:Not on your life ... by Krojack · 2013-06-03 07:15 · Score: 1

And some companies enjoy the fact that you pay them to give then your data only to have them sell it and make even more money.
Re:Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:36 · Score: 0

Meh.
Seriously, are you hoping to get kicked back a fraction of a penny for your user data?
What corporations are selling is not individual data- that is essentially worthless. What they are selling is large amounts of aggregate data. The amount of compensation that would be owed you just for your data isn't even worth the amount of time it takes to piss and whine about it on slashdot.
Re:Not on your life ... by WOOFYGOOFY · 2013-06-03 07:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

I actually agree with this to an extent and would mod you up had I points.
A lot of the alleged "intelligence" being pulled out of big data are merely correlational and of a unscientific sampling at that- example the bullshit about which states are unhappiest based on people's Twittering .
Upon this, as upon the credit default swaps and derivatives, an entire "science" of "big data" will be built. The chief and only certain beneficiaries will be the horseshit factories that churn this out out to the mathematically illiterate and experientially provincial.
In fact, since the data cannot be assumed to normally distributed and the variables in question independent of anything, including each other, most of mathematics CANNOT be used to analyze this data still less to predict future states of any system reified - and presumed to really exist- from that data.
Never mind though. Rest assured the asshole quants on working the case even now because while no KNOWLEDGE can be derived from it, a fuck of a lot of money sure can be had.
Still big data is interesting in some limited context and can be applied in useful ways to the betterment of applications, for instance.
But that's not what we're all about, is it ? We're all about putting some lipstick on that pig and selling it.
If you're the sorting type, it's only a matter of timing any Big Data fungus, er./.. I mean companies, as they crop up.
Re:Not on your life ... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-06-03 07:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

these companies want your information for free
I would be willing to give them accurate information from free. That would be better than the inaccurate data they have now. Then they could compete to give me what I want, instead of what they think I want. A few months ago, I shopped online for a minivan. The marketers recognized this almost immediately, and I started getting web ads and even paper mail ads. But most of them were very poorly targeted. They tried to sell me SUVs, which I had no interest in, or vans with insufficient seats (I drive a car pool thrice a week for 7 people). Then a week later, I bought the van. Now, months later, I am still getting the ads for vans. I would be really slick if I could tell them the exact criteria I wanted, the best offer I had received so far, and when is my cut off for a final decision. Then they could tailor their offers to me. They would save marketing dollars, and I would save time and get a better deal.
Re:Not on your life ... by drummerboybac · 2013-06-03 08:22 · Score: 5, Informative

This whole post operates on a narrow definition of Big Data. Big Data could mean, data from the LHC, or data from video analysis, or any number of other things.
Re:Not on your life ... by Obfuscant · 2013-06-03 08:24 · Score: 2

I would be really slick if I could tell them the exact criteria I wanted, the best offer I had received so far, and when is my cut off for a final decision. Then they could tailor their offers to me.
But that would never happen. They aren't going to limit their offers to the specific details you give them simply because too many people think they want one thing when they want another, or would want another if they knew about it. If they don't have exactly what you want, or they tell you "here it is" and you don't buy, they don't make a sale. But if they say "here's something like what you asked for..." and you actually like it and buy, they win.
A very trivial anecdote. Two weeks ago I went to a new restaurant. I looked at the menu and based my decision on the descriptions I saw there. After I ordered, I walked by another table and saw what I really wanted. I didn't know I wanted it until I saw it (actually, I thought it was too expensive), and the waiter didn't show it to me based on what I told him I wanted. Had he done so, I'd have bought something that cost almost twice as much and I'd have liked three times better. That's what drives marketing, not trying to meet explicit statements of desire, it's creating desire.
Re:Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 08:24 · Score: 0

Hmmmm. Non-parametric statistics is a long established field -- one could argue that *parametric* statistics is the aberration -- and that the whole business p0.05 or bust is just silliness introduced by Fisher when he felt like a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong was strong enough. One of the points of really big data is that you don't have to make parametric assumptions -- if you have enough samples then permutation testing works just fine.
Re:Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 09:21 · Score: 0

>It would be really slick if I could tell them
You can't talk to a machine. The reason you got waist deep in spamshit was because the whole process is automated. Sure, they'd love to custom-build you a tailored negotiation - if it requires zero man hours and a few cents of electricity.
This isn't big brother actively monitoring you, it's just a virtual derp of a drone telling another machine to put you on mailing lists.
Really now, a tailored negotiation? When you're considered little more than cattle?
Re:Not on your life ... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-06-03 09:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't really think so myself. Efficiency is the key thing to making "stuff" more affordable and therefore more ubiquitous. For example, efficiencies in semiconductor fabrication enabled personal computers to be affordable by the average joe, even really poor people, whereas it used to be only the very rich owned them. The same thing can be said for cars and Ford's original Model T.
One key part of this is economies of scale, which means you need to sell large quantities of something in order for it to be affordable by the masses. And subsequently, a key part of that is marketing. Marketing is expensive as hell, and goes into the cost of those goods. If big data makes marketing cheaper, then that savings will eventually (though not immediately) make its way to joe sixpack.
So yes, you as the producer of that data DO benefit, just the benefit isn't obvious.
For another perspective on that, you ought to read Bestiat's parable of the broken window. Basically, when you can save money on an expense, then that money can go towards something more useful elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
This is exactly how the poor become wealthy. In spite of popular claim, the poor are in fact wealthier than they have ever been. Not by a little, but by a lot. Don't confuse money and income with wealth. By that I mean like what I stated above. It used to be that only the very rich owned cars, later TV's, and then later personal computers, later mobile phones (remember when car phones were neat?). A rich person from yesterday would be envious of the wealth that a poor person has today.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-stossel-on-the-poor-americas-poor-live-better-than-most-have-lived-through-history/
TL;DR and summary: I have a hard time seeing big data as being a scam, but rather as being a benefit. You may lose a bit of privacy, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy say a nosy neighbor. And before the accusations fly; no, I'm not a paid shill. Hell, I wish I were, because then I could get paid to muse about something I already believed in anyways.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Not on your life ... by IanCal · 2013-06-03 09:29 · Score: 1

How about predicting disease transmission from twitter?
Re:Not on your life ... by lgw · 2013-06-03 09:37 · Score: 1

Never going to happen, these companies want your information for free, and in an unregulated way in order to maximize corporate profits.
Hey, if I get to see the RIAA or MPAA argue "no, we wont stop sharing that, it's not stealing, information wants to be free!" it will all be worth it.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 09:52 · Score: 0

It's news to Amazon that they can't make money off Big Data. Lots of money.
People who made purchases similar to yours also looked at....
Re:Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 09:55 · Score: 1

Big Data could mean, data from the LHC, or data from video analysis, or any number of other things.
Well it could mean a lot of htings. But in the context of TFA it is clear what definition of "Big Data" is relevant.
Re:Not on your life ... by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 10:17 · Score: 1

It used to be that only the very rich owned cars, later TV's, and then later personal computers, later mobile phones (remember when car phones were neat?). A rich person from yesterday would be envious of the wealth that a poor person has today.
So, a poor person has some shiny baubles --- a car to help them go to work for the rich, a TV to help them watch propaganda from the rich, a personal computer and mobile phone to keep them working for the rich 24/7. Yes, if you're happy being a slave with a giant shiny TV, then you might prefer being poor today to being rich a century ago. On the other hand, if you had some higher ideals --- a love of autonomy, freedom, self-actualization, intellectual expansion, etc., then you might rather be rich with the opportunity to explore/develop your own interests on your own terms (in a world with books, paintings, music, plays, ... but no TV), than a wage slave with gold-plated chains.
Re:Not on your life ... by skegg · 2013-06-03 10:18 · Score: 1

Ah-ha! So, we've established my proposal as sound in principle. Now, we're just haggling over price.
Jack Sparrow
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Re:Not on your life ... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-06-03 10:44 · Score: 1

I don't really see how I could be identified as a slave. Especially today where it's rather easy to get away with not working at all. Hell, I did that for several years. Through student grants and other whatnots I was getting paid to go to college. Look at that, intellectual expansion. Just yesterday I watched a rather shocking episode of game of thrones, but you're telling me that game of thrones is corporate propaganda to make me slave for the rich. Granted there are slaves in that show, I don't see the message where I should become a slave.
Wait a minute - are you one of those who insist that watching TV rots your brain? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that theory was debunked a long time ago. And to be honest, I don't particularly fancy either paintings or plays. As for paintings, I'm not into them at all. I don't like plays because I don't like waiting in line to sit down in a crowded theater listening to people cough and chew popcorn, and the production values aren't particularly good compared to the competition. TV on the other hand, I dropped $3k on a 7.1 system with lossless audio, a 55" tv, and a nice leather couch that is far more comfortable than any theater chair. If things went your way, I'd have paid not less than $20,000 for all of this stuff. Game of thrones would have no more so called propaganda on my LCD screen than it would if it were in a play. Meanwhile, I'm having a hard time figuring out how a play would manage to include realistic looking dragons and very large and very acrobatic wolves.
You're a bit old fashioned my friend. I think it's time to leave your fief.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Not on your life ... by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 11:00 · Score: 1

I don't really see how I could be identified as a slave. Especially today where it's rather easy to get away with not working at all. Hell, I did that for several years. Through student grants and other whatnots I was getting paid to go to college.
Well, it sounds like you don't really fall into the broader category of being poor in this country. Being "temporarily" poor while going to college --- before securing a solidly-above-median salary job --- isn't the same as being a career minimum wage worker, born to career minimum wage workers, with very little prospect of going to college in the first place (even if you're pretty smart).

but you're telling me that game of thrones is corporate propaganda to make me slave for the rich
It certainly isn't helping you to see the injustice in the system. And, if you're watching either the ads between, or the "news," you'll get a full-bore propaganda blast.

Wait a minute - are you one of those who insist that watching TV rots your brain?
Only some of it; I enjoy watching a few shows myself. I'm more of a "live free or die" type. If you offered the trade: live as a poor person today, or a rich person before ubiquitous cars and TVs, I'd take the choice that gave me real personal autonomy over a shiny TV and a shitty Taylorized job.

If things went your way, I'd have paid not less than $20,000 for all of this stuff.
Oh, boo hoo. Also, false --- why do you think "my way" of doing things means crappier TVs? I'm fine with a society with good TVs *and* good equality and opportunity for all. And, if we're talking about the poor --- a $3K home entertainment setup might be a bit of a stretch at two and a half months of minimum wage salary, which is hard to save up after rent and grocery bills.

Meanwhile, I'm having a hard time figuring out how a play would manage to include realistic looking dragons and very large and very acrobatic wolves.
You're missing some important equipment in the cranium department if this is the primary criterion by which you judge plays.
Re:Not on your life ... by Cryacin · 2013-06-03 11:01 · Score: 1

He's not old fashioned. He just dreams of blowing up his worldly possessions and learning how to make soap.

--
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Re:Not on your life ... by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 11:30 · Score: 1

Well, I've already got the beard to be Amish... but I'm really not that much into blowing up my own worldly possessions (a bit too attached to the classic camera lens collection). I'm more partial to the Luddites --- which means blowing up the equipment used to reduce people to subservient interchangeable cogs in a corporate machine.
Re:Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 14:41 · Score: 0

I'm more partial to the Luddites --- which means blowing up the equipment used to reduce people to subservient interchangeable cogs in a corporate machine.
There never seems to be a shortage of people like you who talk big and do nothing (like a good corporate servant) except provide themselves as comic fodder of course. All we need is for you to keep thinking you are an individual and to allow you to spread your propaganda and 'dissent' and you will continue to play your valuable part as yet another subservient, interchangeable part of the "corporate machine", loopy nutjobs have their place too.
Re:Not on your life ... by number17 · 2013-06-03 14:43 · Score: 1

If big data makes marketing cheaper, then that savings will eventually (though not immediately) make its way to joe sixpack.
How would you explain this trickle down economics in relation to the billions in cash that Apple has? Is it just hard for cash to trickle down?
Re:Not on your life ... by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 15:01 · Score: 1

My paychecks for being a double-agent deep-cover reverse-psychology corporate shill seem to be getting lost in the mail; I haven't received one yet. Can you please pass this complaint --- err, observation --- along to the Illuminati (whichever sect is currently in power), and ask them to please double-check their payroll database? My address may have changed since your recruitment mind-control ray last contacted me. Thanks!
Re:Not on your life ... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-06-03 15:02 · Score: 1

Well, it sounds like you don't really fall into the broader category of being poor in this country. Being "temporarily" poor while going to college --- before securing a solidly-above-median salary job --- isn't the same as being a career minimum wage worker, born to career minimum wage workers, with very little prospect of going to college in the first place (even if you're pretty smart).
That's strange, since the whole time I was in school, I was well below the threshold of what the government defines as poverty.

It certainly isn't helping you to see the injustice in the system. And, if you're watching either the ads between, or the "news," you'll get a full-bore propaganda blast.
What injustice? Oh, you believe in the idea of social justice. Well, I don't, and let me tell you why: I believe in rewarding somebody who does something good. However I don't believe in rewarding anybody who hasn't done anything at all. Now consider the concept of TINSTAAFL. When you reward somebody for doing nothing, you've taken from somebody else. THAT is an injustice.

Only some of it; I enjoy watching a few shows myself. I'm more of a "live free or die" type. If you offered the trade: live as a poor person today, or a rich person before ubiquitous cars and TVs, I'd take the choice that gave me real personal autonomy over a shiny TV and a shitty Taylorized job.
That's the thing you don't realize: We have real personal autonomy. Far more than we ever have. Cars for example allow you to go places and do things which in the past you'd probably never do. For example, I can make a holiday weekend trip to the beach, whereas without a car we're looking at about two weeks of travel time alone, with much greater expense because you have to actually eat along the way.
But you come and tell me that cars are slave tools....I mean really? I don't understand how you can view it that way, it's just insane. And I don't make that statement lightly, I mean like batshit insane to the level of believing the moonlandings were faked and that 9/11 was an inside job. That's just how cheesy and unrealistic of a conspiracy theory that it is.

Oh, boo hoo. Also, false --- why do you think "my way" of doing things means crappier TVs? I'm fine with a society with good TVs *and* good equality and opportunity for all. And, if we're talking about the poor --- a $3K home entertainment setup might be a bit of a stretch at two and a half months of minimum wage salary, which is hard to save up after rent and grocery bills.
Well if you scaled things down a bit, you could drop that to $1k. For example buy a $500 HTIB and a $500 40" TV. By the way, did I mention I bought these things during the height of my college years? All while making less than minimum wage. You know how this is possible? Because I don't spend $200 on a pair of tickets to watch cheesy actors I've never heard of gawk at one another, and instead opt for $8 for an entire month worth of content. I'm probably one of the most financially disciplined people you'll ever run across, in fact in spite of having a credit rating of 842, I have never had any significant debts (I buy with my credit card, and pay the balance in full before it is due, gaining the credit card perks with zero percent interest or any other fees of any kind.) In fact I've never borrowed a cent that I couldn't pay back an hour later.

You're missing some important equipment in the cranium department if this is the primary criterion by which you judge plays.
Or perhaps I'm just not interested in plays. This is just one example; there's also the cost, the time, the inconvenience, and the fact that being at home is far more comfortable. People who listen to opera music have the same attitude that you do towards those who don't enjoy their past time either. Of course, I'm not terribly into TV either, I was just using it as an example. I LOVE video gam

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Not on your life ... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-06-03 15:04 · Score: 1

Yes because the luddites highly valued a world where even the clothes on your back were just plain shitty unless you were very rich.
To be frank, people like you don't support the poor at all. You think you do, but your goals and values would do nothing but make things more miserable for anybody who isn't rich.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Not on your life ... by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 15:33 · Score: 1

Have you read much about the Luddites, aside from sophomoric propaganda setting them up as a straw man? Luddites weren't rich folks coming in to paternalistically interfere with the working classes based on some high-minded abstract idealism. They *were* the working class --- with a very direct "feet on the ground" experience of how technology (in the hands of the rich) was impacting their selves, their families, and their communities. Control over work was shifted entirely away from skilled craftsmen to industrial overlords; very little of the benefit of increased production came back to the workers, though the strain of toiling at ever higher rates, in unhealthy conditions, on extremely dangerous power equipment, for decreasing wages certainly did hit them hard. Initial impacts on "the clothes on your back" were actually quite *negative* --- early machine-made material was coarse, thin, and weak; reduced wages from competition with high-productivity machines made the working class only able to afford the mass-manufactured shoddy goods (with the vast majority being exported to profit the wealthy, rather than increasing overall living standards). Only later labor movement resistance --- (indirectly) inspired in part by Ned Ludd's Hammer --- gained back some of the advantages of mechanization (increased output) for the working class, as they collectively forced better labor conditions and guaranteed wages for more humane working hours by threat/action of strikes and sit-ins and lockouts.
Re:Not on your life ... by m00sh · 2013-06-03 16:47 · Score: 2

Say that to Amazon. After they started using their own data, they disbanded their entire staff of experts for recommendations. The computer algorithms were giving three times more sales and costing a fraction of the price of the salaries of the experts.
Say that to Google. When they made their translate program, they didn't use experts but used web-pages to learn translation. Or the auto-completion of queries. Or even pagerank itself.
Unscientific sampling? Big data is about the opposite of sampling. Sampling is a subset of big data. Before, statistics was hypothesis testing but big data is about lots and lots of automated hypothesis testing. The mathematics and statistics is basically the same. Why can't data be assumed to be normally distributed? If you have big data, you can just plot the damn thing or measure how close to normal it is. You know what the cure for analyzing data that is not independent is, yes more data for more complex tests across groups.
In fact, big data has shown to be a better predictor than experts in many fields. See Amazon's voice, IBM Watson and google translate. The limitations of big data is the same as for the conventional hypothesis testing and probably it's being conducted by statistically illiterate CS people.
Re:Not on your life ... by chrismcb · 2013-06-03 16:53 · Score: 1

Consumers will never get anything here except screwed.
Except for what the consumers are already getting. First of all "BIG" data is only worthwhile in BIG chunks. Your 'chunk' of data isn't big enough, just a drop of water in the pail. It isn't really worth money.
But it is worth goods and services. Because that is what they have been offering you for your data. A lot of people claim you are the product not the consumer for Facebook. And yet Facebook is offering you a service, for you be their product. It might not be a service you like or care for, but many people do find a use for it. And they get it for "free," well paying for it with their data.
Re:Not on your life ... by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 16:53 · Score: 1

That's strange, since the whole time I was in school, I was well below the threshold of what the government defines as poverty.
Well, that just shows the problem with trying to define "poverty" with the most simplistic way (annual income filed on a 1040-EZ). A billionaire who gives enough to charity to add up to $0 annual taxable income is not poor. A playboy frat kid coasting through college on daddy's money into a guaranteed high-dollar position at daddy's firm is not poor. While the simplistic "poverty line" definition is useful in some cases for generally-correct classification, there are certainly plenty of exceptional cases where the simplicity is obviously inadequate. If all "poor" people were just college students living the good life before (nearly guaranteed) placement into well-above-poverty positions, then I wouldn't be worried about "poverty" as a problem. Unfortunately, that's not the case --- and, regardless of the fine details in exactly where you draw the lines, being *actually* poor is a significantly sucky thing (that I don't think is alleviated by access to big flat panel TVs).

I believe in rewarding somebody who does something good. However I don't believe in rewarding anybody who hasn't done anything at all.
I also believe in rewarding folks who do good. But to go with that, it's vital to have systems where people have the *opportunity* to do things in the first place. Extremes of poverty suck most because they steal away that opportunity --- not absolutely; you can always find the few exceptions to prove the rule who rose out of poverty --- but it's a far more uphill battle, often requiring work and effort that would be "heroic" for middle-class just to stay above water. Poverty means you probably won't have good access to education, or even good nutrition (empty calories that make you fat are not a balanced diet for developing child minds); hence poor access to good jobs; even exclusion from the workforce. The same "human material" could be capable of so much more if given opportunity beyond poverty --- but instead, poverty becomes a self-reinforcing cycle of not being able to do anything at all, hence not getting rewarded, hence not being able to do anything at all.

We have real personal autonomy. Far more than we ever have.
Not if you're comparing a poor person today against a rich person of yesteryear (which seemed to be your contention above), unless you're using an especially circular definition of "autonomy" that means "has the biggest TV". Poor person on minimum wage: for at least 40 hours a week, someone else demands where you are, how you dress, what you do, what you say, when you go to the bathroom, even how you move ("your burger assembly time is dropping below 11.3 seconds! No dawdling!"). During the rest of your time, you can't do anything that would jeopardize your ability to serve your corporate masters --- not that you have much energy to do much after grueling days of manual labor. You live in a shitty, crime-ridden neighborhood (because that's all you can afford), one paycheck from being out on the street. You can't afford much travel (if any at all), you have no vacations, your food is cheap and terrible and dull (you can get fat, but not healthy and well-nourished). You call this "real personal autonomy" for the poor because they can choose from a large variety of TV programming. I'd call it a wage-slavery hellhole, with extremely limited options to get out (death, winning the lottery, death, crime, death), TV and car be damned.

But you come and tell me that cars are slave tools....I mean really?
Not entirely --- but the poorer you are, the more your car is a worker-subsidized way to get you to work rather than a self-empowering tool for leisurely road trips and exploration. When gas money is tight, you won't be hopping in the car to cruise 200 miles to visit Grandma or the beach over the weekend. You'll be spending the vas
Re:Not on your life ... by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-06-03 17:02 · Score: 1

I don't really think so myself. Efficiency is the key thing to making "stuff" more affordable and therefore more ubiquitous.
Relatively cheap is the key to making stuff more ubiquitous. Having a good deal of *demand* is probably even a lot more important. Efficiency may or may not enter into it based heavily on just how much a prototype costs relatively to what the market can bare. Which leads too...

For example, efficiencies in semiconductor fabrication enabled personal computers to be affordable by the average joe, even really poor people, whereas it used to be only the very rich owned them.
No, the integrated circuit (aka semiconductor fabrication itself) is the primary based upon which more than the very rich owned a personal computer. Before that point, all the transistors and wires were a bulky mess which didn't entirely forego the non-very rich from owning a personal computer, but it certainly set the stage for allowing the progressive miniaturization in lithography that were those "efficiencies" you speak of. Yet, well before that point, of course, plenty of people had their own PC. Of course, the IC itself could be said to be an example of the "efficiencies" you speak of, but that's not right really. What made ICs so important is that it allowed the bulk package of everything together which in itself made the production a unified thing. I guess that again could be chalked up to a point of efficiency, like the assembly line, but it was the fact that computers can do so much that spurred so much adoption. Yes, without a lower floor on the price of a PC, computers would certainly be a lot less ubiquitous. But they'd be well outside of the scope of for just "the very rich".

The same thing can be said for cars and Ford's original Model T.
Again, no. Yes, at the start the Model T was more of a novelty to the very rich who could potentially waste a great deal of money on something that may not pan out . But, the very nature of the current shipping system we have today I think shows that there's a strong commercial interest in having a horseless carriage. So, the ubiquitous nature of cars would seem to be based heavily on demand there as well. Of course, being cheaper makes them *more* ubiquitous, but without the demand in the first place...

One key part of this is economies of scale, which means you need to sell large quantities of something in order for it to be affordable by the masses. And subsequently, a key part of that is marketing. Marketing is expensive as hell, and goes into the cost of those goods. If big data makes marketing cheaper, then that savings will eventually (though not immediately) make its way to joe sixpack.
Except the rule has consistently been to spend yet even more money on marketing to spur even further sales to produce further revenue to pay for said marketing. The truth is, big data as a concept is very, very old. It's based on the idea that if you can collect enough information about potential customers, you can make them actual customers. Yet, just like directed advertising, it forgets the key point of marketing is not to sell products but to inform a consumer who has a demand, even if he hasn't fully realized it yet. The thing is, we're already well to the point of having a system where ads can read potential customers. And ads continue to stray further and further into trying to conjure up a demand out of nothing, rather than informing a consumer into a real demand they have.
So, the real specter of big data is to yet further manipulate consumers even more than directed ads do--and if you don't see how trying to create a per-user view of available products doesn't manipulate the consumer, you'll already well lost--by further trying to take what consumers already buy or know and try to match them up with...stuff the select few companies who pay the most want to sell. Meanwhile,

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Not on your life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 17:03 · Score: 0

2 years later you are diagnosed with cancer... sucks to be you. Ob.m.rot is all you are to them. The quicker the better.
Re:Not on your life ... by Steve_Ussler · 2013-06-04 15:54 · Score: 1

Love this comment!

Short answer: by B33rNinj4 · 2013-06-03 07:08 · Score: 2

No.

Re:Short answer: by hairyfeet · 2013-06-03 11:35 · Score: 1

People can laugh but that is why I switched to Bing Search, it gives me a slice in the form of Amazon gift cards. If you want to make money off my data? Fine, give me a slice, hell it doesn't even have to be a big slice, I'm sure what I'm getting from Bing isn't much compared to how much they get for the data, but its better than not getting anything and all those Amazon cards means that just by doing the searches I'd have to do anyway at the shop all those little odds and ends i always need, adapters, cables, CD envelopes, etc, are all paid for by the slice I get from Bing.
So whether others will get you a cut or not is up in the air but if any of them are listening I'm a hell of a lot more likely to use your service if i get a slice, no matter how thin that slice is. I'm also more likely to point other people to your service, I've probably had 100 people switch simply by pointing out they can get stuff, from movies to gift cards, just by doing what they were gonna do for free. Its really not a hard sell and once they cash in some points and see how easy it is to get stuff? they're hooked.
It really is in their best interests to give us a slice, because with all the competition we have today for our limited time its an easy way to get and retain users.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Short answer: by dotancohen · 2013-06-04 02:22 · Score: 1

Bing Rewards isn't available yet in your country or region.
Funny, _all_ of Google's services are available in my country. Guess I'll stick with the lesser evit, then.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Short answer: by hairyfeet · 2013-06-04 13:20 · Score: 1

So you give up your data and get not a single dime, congrats. Me I'd rather get paid, even a small slice is better than nothing, but if you wanna stick with google after their nasty privacy policy changes you go right on ahead, I'm sure they just love guys like you.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Short answer... no.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:09 · Score: 1

Long answer... No fucking way are you crazy?

"You, and I, are not in the big club."

We'll be lucky to know the data was gathered and exists. Let alone what it says. Or have a say in what it says...

creepy... (captcha:warrants) how does it DO that...

Those selling "Big Disks" . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-06-03 07:09 · Score: 0

. . . will get the most from the "Big Data" Pie . . . all that needs to be stored somewhere . . .

. . . is anyone selling "Big Data Clouds" already . . . ?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Those selling "Big Disks" . . . by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-06-03 07:35 · Score: 1

IBM's attempts to do exactly that appear to occupy about 30% of Slashdot's ad space these days... At this point, they'll probably have to move a few mainframes just to pay their abstract-but-inspiring-clip-art bills.

flowchart... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:12 · Score: 1

are you in the CEO class? ---> yes... SURE DEAL
\
\
\---> no... screw you.

Welcome to Serfdom 2.0, scab.

I've often wondered by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:12 · Score: 1

Why in the US (western ingeneral) companies get the benefit of the doubt and people are seen as kooks. If Google say it, it must be true; if Tom, Dick, or Harry say it, take it with a grain of salt.

Anyone/companies not interested in privacy, people first before profit,is to be avoided.

Re:I've often wondered by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:14 · Score: -1

Christianity is not the U.S. religion... it's CEO worship.
Only here would we thing a fatass that does nothing is worth 1000x more money than the people doing the actual designing and footwork.
Re:I've often wondered by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-06-03 07:37 · Score: 1

As quoth the dubious but attractively glib folk wisdom: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"...
Re:I've often wondered by Altrag · 2013-06-03 22:32 · Score: 1

Because major companies tend to care about their reputation more than your average whackjob.
Individuals with a track record of making smart, relevant statements are treated with plenty of respect around here. Of course they're mostly ignored because $$$ moves things in this part of the world, not respect. But we still give them the props they deserve.
Similarly, we don't really trust anything some fly-by-night company we've never heard of throws out. Companies have to earn respect just as much as people.
The trick is building the track record to earn such respect. Very few companies of any size are willing to risk the PR hit of saying completely off-the-wall things (unless they're flat out dishonest but that's another story) so companies tend to get the benefit of the doubt based on the assumption that they'll have cleansed the worst of the garbage from their statements (but we also assume that their arguments, no matter how relevant, are also going to be heavily lop-sided thanks to that same PR spin.)
On the other hand, there's no shortage of kooks out there willing to yell out their personal theories to anyone who will listen. And they don't have PR departments so you get unfiltered crazy from them. We've (mostly) learned not to listen.
The bigger problem is usually what companies don't say. Google for the most part seems to uphold their "don't be evil" mantra on the surface.. but who knows what's going on behind the scenes? We've realized that they know dangerous amounts of information about most of us but we can only trust that they're handling it safely and appropriately since they'll never tell us otherwise (unless forced to admit something due to a leak or whatever.)

Already there by gr8_phk · 2013-06-03 07:14 · Score: 0

The World Economic Forum is also involved, hoping that one day, 'a person's data would be equivalent to their money ... controlled, managed, exchanged and accounted for just like personal banking services operate today.'

Companies are increasingly getting more access to peoples money with "services" like automatic bill pay, fancy non-check checking, direct deposit, etc... The goal is to give everyone easy access to your money with minimal intervention from the owner of that money. Personal data is already way beyond this with opt-out (or not at all) data collection, sharing, and selling. The only exception seems to be HIPPA in the US. People after your money could only wish to have the level of access the information folks have.

Damn you Pavlov! by Mitchell314 · 2013-06-03 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

You know, my BS meter is starting to get attuned to go off anytime I see 'Big ' used as a proper noun.

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie

Re:Damn you Pavlov! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:27 · Score: 4, Funny

This is because of all the collusion going on behind the scenes with Big Meter. They've intentionally calibrated their BS detectors with a low threshold so that we'll all always be wary of other Big interests.
Re:Damn you Pavlov! by dkleinsc · 2013-06-03 08:03 · Score: 1

That's just Big Idiocy at work.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Damn you Pavlov! by Radiophobic · 2013-06-03 08:24 · Score: 1

Completely. It s pretty much become a blanket term used by people who don't seem to bother researching something they don't fully understand, but want to complain about it at the same time.
Re:Damn you Pavlov! by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-06-03 09:26 · Score: 1

Thank you. I really get annoyed when I hear Big stuck before anything, because it has connotations of somebody being oppressed, with immediate injected bias against the subject of the discussion.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK

You should be paid for watching television by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2013-06-03 07:16 · Score: 1

If the networks shared ad revenue with their television watchers, you could feasibly get paid for watching tv.

What is more likely to happen though is for game shows to be made into video game form, and then when you play the video game, you can earn money if the game is competitive. I was considering making an online poker site where you never deposit money, but at the end of the month, people who won tournaments share in a real money prize pool. The legality of online poker in the United States though means if the feds are having a bad day, they'll ruin your business model. It doesn't have to be just poker, you could have competitive video games in general.

Oh and just so you guys catch wind of this semiabusive style of player treatment: Combine Freemium with "Able to win money back". Then you'll have players who think they're investing by buying into your pay to win scheme.

--
God spoke to me

Smart Meters by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:16 · Score: 0

Got a smart meter a year and a half ago. Don't have access to any of the data.

I may be the only one on the block that got one, though. Fuckers still haven't got me because there is nothing going on!

Re:Smart Meters by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:35 · Score: 1

I got a smart meter late last year, and my power company is constantly sending me stuff about all the "cool data" I now have access to.

Not that I care enough to look at that data (or to even look at what the data is). So for all I know, I don't actually have access to "the good stuff".

Compensation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:17 · Score: 0

Don't people already get compensation with free email, social networking, calendar and office apps from Google/Facebook etc? I know I get mine in the form of free 2-day shipping from Amazon. You can either pay for services with cash, or you can pay for them with your personal information. Asking for both seems a bit greedy to me.

Re:Compensation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 08:08 · Score: 0

I don't think you meant it this way, but I'm not sure how you might've meant it. So I'll just ask, it is greedy to want to be able to choose to pay with cash or with information?

An intolerable precedent. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:18 · Score: 1

If it is allowed that a person's data has monetary value, then it surely follows that the person may elect not to sell it. People will never be allowed to opt out.

Re:An intolerable precedent. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:19 · Score: 0

You don't want corporations to make money off your back?
What are you, a motherfucking communist??
Re:An intolerable precedent. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 08:29 · Score: 0

+1 lol
captcha: billon
Re:An intolerable precedent. by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 09:53 · Score: 1

It is allowed that people's labor has value --- yet few are in the position to elect not to sell it. Unless you're independently wealthy, you're pretty much forced to sell your labor to benefit those who *are* independently wealthy (and set the terms of employment to benefit themselves and their self-reinforcing ability to dictate the terms on which you must sell your labor). So, even if your data has theoretically "withholdable" value, in practice you may not find much success getting groceries, renting an apartment, or even getting a job if you don't "willingly pay" whatever chunk of data your plutocratic corporate overlords demand.

Well, we are fucked... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-06-03 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

If "'a person's data would be equivalent to their money ... controlled, managed, exchanged and accounted for just like personal banking services operate today.'" is the optimistic-pie-in-the-sky vision of the future, I think it's safe to say that we are 100% fucked.

Financial services is not... exactly... a shining beacon of customer service, egalitarian contracting, and transparency, and the deal gets worse the smaller your scale. If that's the ideal, the outcome seems likely to be grim indeed.

Re:Well, we are fucked... by Knuckles · 2013-06-03 08:05 · Score: 1

Yeah, that sentence is one of the scariest things I've read in a while.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Well, we are fucked... by vidnet · 2013-06-03 11:18 · Score: 1

Basically, it's like Bitcoin where instead of cryptographic keys, the public ledger and proof-of-work you have the honor system.
What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Well, we are fucked... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 11:20 · Score: 0

The statement means very different things depending on the country and its consumer protection and banking laws. Somehow the idea that a value is put to observations made by a second or a third party is making me nervous. A contract compensating for such observations must clear for all parties for it to be valid and legal. Besides, selling ones personal information carries tax implications which are sometimes complicated.

Long Answer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:19 · Score: 3, Funny

No.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I don't want a piece of the action. by Seumas · 2013-06-03 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Instead of giving me a piece of the action - give me the option not to be part of the action in the first place. My privacy and ownership of my own data and control over who can have it and do what with it is infinitely more valuable than a couple dollars.

Re:I don't want a piece of the action. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 14:09 · Score: 1

if you're asking the wolves for the option not to be eaten, you're an idiot. best thing to do is protect yourself. nobody else will watch over your affairs better than you.
Re:I don't want a piece of the action. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 19:06 · Score: 0

Instead of giving me a piece of the action - give me the option not to be part of the action in the first place.
That could only happen if entity resolution actually worked and could resolve you as an individual who desired to be private, at which point you're already in the system.
Of course, entity resolution does not fucking work. At least, not past some shitty demo.

They already do by Overzeetop · 2013-06-03 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Discounts on groceries, gasoline, hotels, airline flights, free meals, free email, social network accounts, streaming music, streaming TV. We're getting compensated for our data, and those who do not participate are both less compensated and less tracked.

Now, if you're wondering whether individuals will become the sellers of their data for their financial gain - no. The value in data is in large aggregation of both quantitative (age, sex, ethnicity) and qualitative (likes, interests, behaviours) so that groups can be targeted for whatever an entity is looking for. You are not a beautiful jewel in a sea of dull pebbles, and even if you were you're value in paving the road to advertising is just that of a dull pebble. You don't go buy your stone a pebble at a time, you buy it from someone who has a quarry full and can give it to you by the truckload.

The value in personal data lies in the value many have in aggregate (get it - stones, aggregate - Ha!). It's not surprising that we will never find value in our personal data except to us, and those who market will have to have billions of data points. The value isn't great enough to warrant negotiation with every individual.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:They already do by game+kid · 2013-06-03 07:29 · Score: 2

Pretty much. At the extreme, "offer walls" basically offer Joe and Jane in-game currencies or other bonuses (depending on where used), if they are willing to pick a sponsor's ad(s) on it and watch videos, give their address and email and phone-#, take surveys...
So yeah, you can already get a slice of the pie. Just don't expect a substantial one unless you really like the service you find those ads on (you probably won't get much actual cash for them), and do expect to feel dirty and less secure-in-privacy for it.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:They already do by Sarten-X · 2013-06-03 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly right.
I worked in Big Data on a project involving medical records. We harvested medical data from millions of unsuspecting patients, thanks to a probably-unread clause in hospitals' privacy policy. Patients never knew that we had their data, and we never actually paid anybody for it, to my knowledge. The end product (which the providing hospitals got free (I think) access to) was a system for making drug research far faster and cheaper, and tracking doctors that had statistically-poor outcomes, and tracking hereditary disease, and even predicting diagnoses. The implications are pretty clear: cheaper and better health care for everybody, at the cost of privacy for medical data (which was anonymized, salted, hashed, encrypted, anonymized again, and stored in a secure cluster, to comply with all the madness of regulation).
Everything about Big Data relies on the assumption that having more complete information allows a particular business to improve efficiency. For advertising and medicine, this is pretty obvious. Just saying a brand name to the right person at the right time makes a sale. A doctor who can see the symptoms and outcomes of tens of millions of patients can better match a particular patient's case with an earlier example. If that assumption holds true, Big Data is useful.
This ultimately boils down to the issue of anecdotal vs. statistical evidence. Each individual's information is an anecdote, and holds value to the erson (or people) it relates to, but the anecdote doesn't really provide insight for the future. On the other hand, statistical information is only useful on a large scale with a large sample, collected from people who know little enough about the project to alter its outcome. As you said, the statistical information is worth buying, but anecdotes aren't.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:They already do by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Discounts on groceries, gasoline, hotels, airline flights, free meals, free email, social network accounts, streaming music, streaming TV. We're getting compensated for our data, and those who do not participate are both less compensated and less tracked.
How much of these "discounts" would people be availing themselves of if their spending habits weren't being engineered by Big Data et. al. in the first place?
Or did you want that house full of pointless crap and that extra 30 lbs. of fat?
Re:They already do by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 08:47 · Score: 0

VuDyne
Re:They already do by Overzeetop · 2013-06-03 09:01 · Score: 2

I have a reasonable idea of when I don't want to be tracked and how to mostly avoid it. That said, most of my info I freely distribute. I'm not really a slave to commercialism, so I'm not heavily swayed by advertising. However, if I'm going to see ads, I'd rather see a bunch of ads for stuff I'm interested in than a page filled with "collectible" plates, Cialis, and feminine care products. If I get advertising which is appropriate and engaging (entertaining) in return for stuff that I'd be happy making public anyway, it seems pretty win-win. Google gives me several hundred dollars worth of hosting every year, Facebook gives me (probably) hundreds in hosting and communication, Pandora streams me music in return for my preferences and eyeballs, Kroger knows what kind of bread I buy and chips in $10-$20/mo for gas. I feel I'm getting value for my product (me), and that's good enough for me.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:They already do by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 10:44 · Score: 0

Goods and services are cheaper if companies can predict demand more precisely. It's not all evil advertising.
Re:They already do by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 12:00 · Score: 1

Kroger knows what kind of bread I buy and chips in $10-$20/mo for gas.
Krogers has probably raised your bread and chips price by $10-$20/mo to cover this exchange (well, spread over all your groceries, assuming you buy more than bread and chips). And you do realize that all those "amazing" "discounts" for loyalty card holders are just fabricated by jacking up the "non-card" price by several dollars? Don't think that the Invisible Markets Fairy is somehow assuring you're getting a fair deal in this exchange --- you're just getting shafted for your detailed buying data so Krogers can know how to mark up all the other products you buy while keeping you hooked with a few "amazing deal" loss-leaders. The better Krogers knows how to manipulate each consumer, the more (asymmetrical) advantage they'll have for subtly price gouging you with complex pricing schemes: "look, what a great deal on avocados today! Soap seems a little more expensive than I remembered, but I may as well pick it up while I'm here." The less Krogers can tell about the complex buying patterns of their customers, the more they'll be stuck simply competing on best price for each individual item, instead of elaborate pricing strategies to cause market confusion and make it harder for consumers to competitively shop around.
Re:They already do by Overzeetop · 2013-06-03 13:10 · Score: 1

Oh, I have no illusion that Kroger - or anyplace else with a reward program - makes their money back somewhere. I also shop at Walmart - they may do shitty things to some vendors, but I have no worries that Kellog or General Mills is getting put out of business by the Waltons - and I know what market value is for much of what I buy. Kroger is close to me (6 blocks), so it has certain cost advantages for small purchases; their meat is of higher quality than most other non-specialty vendors in my area and, when on sale, is competitively priced in primal cuts. I actually shop based on loss leaders and buy what I can use before the sale date. I do pick up extras in the store, but generally only things I know the price of. If it's not a bargain, and I don't need it for a specific meal, it stays on the shelf.
Sadly, you describe how my wife shops, and it burns me to no end the money she seems to be willing to throw away for the sake of convenience - which is why I try to do the shopping for the more expensive items myself. The whole targeted setup does make it harder for those who aren't careful. For those who are, it is an advantage.Luckily, my signature holds in general and I get to be the one who benefits from their loss.
As a side note, I used to shop a Stater Bros. in So Cal. They were just plain awesome. The stores were older, but clean, and the prices were (back then) awesome because they never went into debt to fund expansion. Their stores were all served by the limits of their warehouse distribution and they stopped expanding when they hit that limit.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:They already do by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 14:00 · Score: 0

Did you then sell those records to a US insurance company, who went on to deny health care to millions of sick americans?
(Edit: Captcha: pleurisy, which hurts. Haven't had it? Then you probably are still able to get health insurance.)
Re:They already do by femtobyte · 2013-06-03 14:08 · Score: 1

Yes, for now you can still game the system --- the store pricing models are designed to maximize profit off the "average" customer, so if you're willing/able to stock up, opportunistically identify and take/avoid the good/bad bargains, you can nullify (or even benefit from) the pricing chicanery.
Of course, it's game over for that once the stores roll out the logical goal of fine-grained individualized monitoring: the truly "personalized shopping experience," that Amazon has gotten some flak for flirting with, but which will eventually be hard to avoid in our corporate-centric nation. "Special deals, just for you": prices ("reduced" from the ridiculously marked up "default" on-shelf prices) displayed specially for your identity-tied shopping cart, algorithmically generated to maximize profit from your own purchasing behavior. Wave goodbye to meaningful comparison shopping or any market price transparency.
Re:They already do by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-06-03 17:36 · Score: 1

Everything about Big Data relies on the assumption that having more complete information allows a particular business to improve efficiency.
That word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Now, if you mean "improve sales"...

For advertising and medicine, this is pretty obvious. Just saying a brand name to the right person at the right time makes a sale.
And taking that same person at the right time and showing them that generic X is equivalent to brand name except for the label and the much cheaper prices increases efficiency. Funny that. Not very "Big Data" efficient, though.

A doctor who can see the symptoms and outcomes of tens of millions of patients can better match a particular patient's case with an earlier example. If that assumption holds true, Big Data is useful.
Congratulations. You've proven correlation == causation. Oh, wait, no you didn't. Ten million people might have a cough because it's flu season. But, Joe may cough because he has lung cancer. Big Data *is* more efficient, though, if it means Joe is given some zinc pills and dies. And by efficient, I mean cheaper for the hospital when it can push people through on a diagnostic assembly line and cheaper for insurance companies that have to pay for a cheap prescription instead of having to fund expensive anti-cancer drugs.

This ultimately boils down to the issue of anecdotal vs. statistical evidence. Each individual's information is an anecdote, and holds value to the erson (or people) it relates to, but the anecdote doesn't really provide insight for the future. On the other hand, statistical information is only useful on a large scale with a large sample, collected from people who know little enough about the project to alter its outcome. As you said, the statistical information is worth buying, but anecdotes aren't.
So true. Too bad the plural of anecdote isn't data. So Big "Data" isn't inherently good for statistical analysis. Oh, and did I mention that real statistical analysis is really, really hard? I mean it-requires-a-human hard. But, since Big "Data" is all about trying to push through (aka "analyze" with an algorithm) more anecdotes than individuals can reasonably process... That's not to say it's impossible, sometimes, to pull out little threads of insight. I know throughout medical history there's been plenty of examples of that happening; I mean, sure, it might take thousands of false positives and a dedicated researcher to manually go over them... But the hype and hope of Big "Data" is in the same scope of nativity (or con, if you're a cynic) as trying to make a programming language/ui/whatever that anyone can use. A few isolated examples or scopes of problems? Sure. But remotely in general? Completely, insanely impossible.
PS - I really hope your work is an exception to the rule.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:They already do by CodeBuster · 2013-06-03 17:59 · Score: 1

Everything about Big Data relies on the assumption that having more complete information allows a particular business to improve efficiency. For advertising and medicine, this is pretty obvious.
Training predictive agents on data sets, large and small, for the purpose of decision making is nothing new. These types of systems have been known in AI circles for decades now. The problem was and remains the relative inability of these systems to perform well on problems where the state of the system is non-deterministic or stochastic. The classic examples of predictive AIs were always in well understood areas with little randomness such as agriculture or medical diagnostics. However, many real world problems that people would like to solve are in fact stochastic, which makes them difficult to automate from a decision making standpoint. Having a larger data set isn't a panacea either. Indeed, a big problem with big data is that it assumes that more data is always better when in fact that's not necessarily true and especially not in problems that are stochastic or involve randomness. Predicting future prices on real world stock markets is a classic example of a stochastic problem that's hard to decide with Artificial Intelligence no matter how much data one has. Past performance at stock picking is no guarantee of future results, as the financial firms are fond of warning clients. Of course, that hasn't discouraged some people from spending millions of dollars trying to build these systems. It's telling that the high frequency traders rely not upon superior reasoning or decision making to beat the market but trading speeds that nobody else can match. That's the brute force way to win with computing (albeit at fractions of a penny per trade), but it still falls well short of a true predictive AI for the stock markets if indeed such a thing is even possible.
Re:They already do by CodeBuster · 2013-06-03 18:08 · Score: 1

Another tactic that you might want to consider is deliberate seeding of misinformation about yourself into the advertising streams. For example using many false birthdates, occupations and wildly divergent incomes along with different plausible addresses, phone numbers, etc. I often use this technique, usually also with aliases, depending upon how important it is for the information to be accurate and usually it's not very important at all. Very few organizations actually require accurate information about you, so why be truthful when dealing with anyone else who feels like asking for it? If they insist on me providing them with something then Fake Name Generator is always ready to serve them plausible yet useless data whenever the need arises.
Re:They already do by CodeBuster · 2013-06-03 18:13 · Score: 1

Does anyone actually provide their real name and address in exchange for a "loyalty" card? I have the cards, but I've never given anything for them and I always pay for my groceries in cash.
Re:They already do by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 01:27 · Score: 0

Does anyone actually provide their real name and address in exchange for a "loyalty" card? I have the cards, but I've never given anything for them and I always pay for my groceries in cash.
A lot of them mail coupons and rebate checks, so I would guess, "Yes", people do.
Re:They already do by Sarten-X · 2013-06-04 03:35 · Score: 1
Now, if you mean "improve sales"...
No, I mean efficiency. If your main business is sales, then it means improving sales without raising expenses, but Big Data analysis is useful elsewhere, too. If you'd actually read my comment without the gross prejudice, you'd find several examples of improving efficiency in medicine - more accurately detecting trends, showing comorbidity, and finding doctors that ordered excessive tests. Inefficiencies like that are hard to see individually, but in aggregate, outliers are much easier to see.
Some examples from other industries that I've encountered in research:
- Arranging small shipments on large transports.
- Determining which screenwriters wrote the best parts of a collaborative work.
- Turning off HVAC in unused offices.
- Arranging water towers in a city.
- Monitoring the growth and migration of endangered species
And taking that same person at the right time and showing them that generic X is equivalent to brand name except for the label and the much cheaper prices increases efficiency. Funny that. Not very "Big Data" efficient, though.
Well, yes, but that's rather unrelated to the advertising-industry obvious example I was talking about. Interestingly, that was one of the capabilities of our medical-data system. It differentiated generic and name-brand prescriptions, so researchers could compare efficacies.

Congratulations. You've proven correlation == causation. Oh, wait, no you didn't.
To quote XKCD: Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

Ten million people might have a cough because it's flu season. But, Joe may cough because he has lung cancer.
It seems you're suggesting that every unknown cough should be treated like it's cancer. That's exactly one inefficiency that raises healthcare costs so much. Out of fear (mostly of malpractice suits), doctors must order extra tests that don't even make sense, just in case the patient has some rare disorder. Maybe Joe also has a funny feeling in his chest that the doctor should know about. A Big Data system can highlight the correlation between cough, that odd feeling, and cancer, and lead the doctor to ask about the feeling. Then there's an indication for Joe to get the extra test, but not for the ten million with the flu. That's ten million fewer x-rays, and a few hundred million dollars in savings for the hospital, insurance providers, and patients.

So true. Too bad the plural of anecdote isn't data. So Big "Data" isn't inherently good for statistical analysis.
Well, the plural actually is data, but I digress. More accurately, data is a set of anecdotes with their subjective interpretations and biases stripped away. That makes them far more useful for statistical analysis, because they're now reduced to a mere set of facts.

Oh, and did I mention that real statistical analysis is really, really hard? I mean it-requires-a-human hard.
Just like playing chess, recognizing speech, driving a car, optimizing circuits, and all those other "hard" things that we now use computers for daily. The actual computations aren't really hard, but what is difficult is knowing exactly what computations are appropriate for the questions being asked. That's not a problem most Big Data systems even try to solve. Rather, they assemble data and prepare predefined statistics to make it easier for humans to get answers to their questions. For example, we can take a set of millions of medical procedures, and ask "which doctors order more tests than others, over one standard deviation from the average for their diagno
--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:They already do by neminem · 2013-06-04 04:40 · Score: 1

> "How much of these "discounts" would people be availing themselves of if their spending habits weren't being engineered by Big Data et. al. in the first place?"
None, because they wouldn't exist. Hard to avail myself of a discount that isn't available.
But if you mean how many of those things would I purchase if I wasn't supposedly being brainwashed by whatever companies you imagine are brainwashing us to want things? All of them that I buy now, I'm pretty sure. I need to eat, so that's groceries and meals. I like traveling, so that's gas, hotels, airline flights. And tv and email, I like getting those too. None of those things sound like "pointless crap". (In fact, none of those things even sound like things that fill one's house, crap or otherwise...)
Re:They already do by CodeBuster · 2013-06-04 15:51 · Score: 1

The coupons and rebate checks can be considered the price of your privacy then. However, since the cards offer immediate discounts on selected in store items they're still worth carrying even if one forgoes the rebate checks and coupons. Alternatively, the coupons and rebates could be redirected to a UPS store box, but I doubt that they would be enough by themselves to cover the box fees for an individual.

Bunch of fools by Synerg1y · 2013-06-03 07:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Individually your data is worth nothing, when summarized it provides trends and statistics, when integrated it can vastly improve the healthcare system and make the government run smoother.

The first market personal data collectors seem like fly by night type people who don't really know what they're doing. I mean the very concept of willingly giving data for money screams put your best foot forward, greatly skewing the data and making it worthless.

Google already started a version of it by Sedated2000 · 2013-06-03 07:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Google has already tried this.

Re:Google already started a version of it by auric_dude · 2013-06-03 08:30 · Score: 1

When using Google search engine and the Firefox extension Ghostry https://www.ghostery.com/ I find that in some cases I have to unblock / allow Doubleclick to function otherwise Google seems to choke on something when attempting to provide results. By the way running Ghostery sure gives a good idea of who is tracking you and who may well have a financial interest in your browsing habits. I fear that I only get a pay back if I click on something and accept any discount they decide to offer but if I click or not they (whoever they are) have my data to pass on to trusted partners at I expect a good price.
Re:Google already started a version of it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 12:53 · Score: 0

Ghostery is also selling your data to advertisers:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/31/ghostery-a-web-tracking-blocker-that-actually-helps-the-ad-industry/

my data by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:41 · Score: 0

They compare the value of personal data to that of money, but what is the value of someone's data if they're willing to give it up? What's the value of a dollar if everyone is willing to give it up?

In this way, wha'ts the difference between the big companies and a begger on the street? I'll tell you the difference. In this way, the begger will eventually gain enough power to begin directing streets themselves, to flow traffic nearer to where he's standing, and there will be a toll eventually.

Selling information about yourself, cannot ever make you worth more. It can only make you worth less (not worthless).

how many glass beads you want for this island? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 07:45 · Score: 0

you people are insane. it what world do my activities and product preferences matter enough as a contribution
that its a substantial fraction of my overall worth to society (income)

Re:how many glass beads you want for this island? by Steve_Ussler · 2013-06-04 16:04 · Score: 1

u understand zero about privacy...

Big Data by VortexCortex · 2013-06-03 08:24 · Score: 1

We give you a decentralized network self healing near instantly even when whole cities disappearing off the map, and you put your data in a centralized data silo, then market it as "Big Data". It's not outright stupid, just a bit ignorant, eh?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: by tocsy · 2013-06-03 08:35 · Score: 2

Whenever the title to a story on Slashdot is a question, the answer is (almost always) no.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again: by Steve_Ussler · 2013-06-04 16:07 · Score: 1

what about if an exclamation point is used?

Already too late... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 09:04 · Score: 0

It's already too late for a nice, symbiotic relationship between the data gatherers and the public. Even if the abuses of power and creeping surveillance from the last decade were rolled back, it is no longer just geeks who mistrust corporations, the government and anyone else who want to know everything about them. The seeds of suspicion are now deeply rooted in the general public consciousness. As it happens, most of the entities which make up the burgeoning 'surveillance industrial complex' have little interest in playing nice anyway.

Big data currently relies mostly on deception, with a little coercion. Offering free services to entice people to give away their data before they realise what they're doing counts as deception, but people are slowly getting wise to this. Hence, the future will see a shift to more coercion, where you don't really have a choice to opt out of being spied upon, at least if you want to remain a part of society. A fairly 'soft' example would be when every ISP starts selling your browsing habits to the highest bidder, and the only way out is to either not use the internet at all or relying on open wifi etc. The harder examples typically involve the government passing some new law which makes it illegal not to give your data away in situations where previously you wouldn't have to.

Way to Solve This by turkeyfish · 2013-06-03 09:39 · Score: 1

Is for people to turn over the exclusive status of all their personal data to a non-profit personal data representative, who will then seek payment or punative damanges from any other entity corporate or individual that seeks to use such personal information without first paying for the privilege or first paying for the information they have already obtained without having yet paid for it. The payment would then be sent to the people who provided the non-profit personal data representative with their personal information, minus a small transaction fee to the non-profit to cover the cost of collecting the money and suing for damages or enforcing a cease and desist order as required.

There is no reasons the googles, apples, of the world etc. should get this kind of information for free, since it is not theirs to begin with.

Comedy Club quotes.... by rts008 · 2013-06-03 09:54 · Score: 1

Will Users Get a Slice of the "Big Data" Pie?

Users ARE the 'pie'. Just who are you trying to kid?

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

In the near future by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 10:05 · Score: 0

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Big Data owns You.

How Do I Opt Out? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 11:16 · Score: 0

I do not want any of my medical records being stored electronically. I do not want any of my personal being bought and sold by anyone - including me. Why can't I have a say in what happens to my own data?

Pollution by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 11:52 · Score: 0

Do what I do, when I get telemarketing calls I poison my information by giving false data (I am single but different companies think I have spouses - my imaginary partners all have different names) and where possible give different callers different data about your views, lifestyle, family, and income. Try putting together any kind of picture about me from multiple marketing sources and it won't make any sense or it will at least look like I'm a bigamist.

Nope by rsilvergun · 2013-06-03 12:03 · Score: 2

but the huge increases in efficiency will put lots of people out of work, and the money saved will look lovely in some 1%ers bank account. Plus as there are fewer and fewer jobs we'll fight harder and harder amongst ourselves for them. Sure, the world needs ditch diggers. Well, one guy to fix the 20,000+ robot ditch diggers anyway...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Tail wags dog? by JimtownKelly · 2013-06-03 15:35 · Score: 1

Insights create the value in Big Data, so it's absurd to predict which data might be those that create the insights. Bottom line is what you think might be valuable data might be rubbish.

--
-- Jimtown Kelly

Big Data Answer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 19:00 · Score: 0

Entity: N
Fragments: N, No

Entity: o
Fragments: o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, undefined, o, o, o, o, o, o

Don't ask, tell by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-03 19:06 · Score: 0

Why should it be a question of giving you the option. Demand it!

DId you get a slice of increased productivity ? by WOOFYGOOFY · 2013-06-04 01:07 · Score: 2

Productivity of the average American worker went through the roof since 1979:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-worker-productivity-rising-faster-wage-growth-1114871

Did your inflation-adjusted paycheck? Oh hell no, you're (the average American ) treading water.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6

and have been for decades... DECADES

OK then. All this cost savings is pocketed by billionaires , not passed on to you. The ONLY form in which it's ever passed on to ordinary people is at their own expense, e.g. Walmart prices and Walmart

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/03/1213437/-What-Walmart-Costs-Taxpayers

http://www.walmarteffectbook.com/

So if you want to realize what any of the productivity gains / cost savings you've worked for and created, start a company, force everyone who works for you be to be part time, steal the benefits of THEIR increase in productivity, lobby your congresspig for tax breaks for the wealthy..... oh and shop at Walmart.

America is a nation of by and for billionaires, who fund our elections, occupy our political offices, write our laws and own our media. They do this for their own benefit and anything which does not effect their personal lives is not *real* and doesn't matter.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2296684923/

So no- it's not for you.

Now get back to work.

Re:DId you get a slice of increased productivity ? by Steve_Ussler · 2013-06-04 16:00 · Score: 1

does went thru the roof mean went up or down?

Slashdot Mirror

Will Users Get a Slice of the "Big Data" Pie?

123 comments