I fail to see the logic in that. Oh look, he bought , that means he must like , let's bombard him with offers for MORE of . If I just bought one, it's actually LESS likely I am going to buy that same kind of product again...no matter how many ads.
Knowing your purchasing history helps see what kind of products/services you may be interested in either now or at some point in the future. This is more about direct marketing on a one to one basis than it is about advertising in a more traditional sense. If anything, profiling for advertising helps deliver ads for products/services you are more likely to be interested in than ones you aren't. It can also help better target buyers of consumables that are currently purchasing from competitors. Look at grocery stores that spit out a coupon for laundry detergent X at the cash register after you've just bought laundry detergent Y. Online - just a few examples - music downloads, software, books, dating services, employment sites, wedding services.
The only problem I can see with this is if the software is somehow fallible and law enforcement or the courts treat it as infallible. Then the wrong people end up arrested.
Look at DNA testing: For several years, most people have considered it to be infallible (many still do), yet we now know that is not the case. So far we have identical twins and chimeras. I'd think that facial recognition software would be much less accurate than DNA testing.
There are so many ways to have vulnerabilities, and punitive damages might lead to things worse than the current patent system as far as hindering new technologies and features etc.
You can compare this to the pharmaceutical industry which is rampant with lawsuits. Getting a new drug to the market in the U.S. involves considerable expense and testing. That still doesn't absolve pharmaceutical companies from negligence by not thoroughly testing a drug before it's released to the general population.
Why should software be any different? Shouldn't software companies be responsible for fully testing software before it is released to the public? Are we in that much of a rush to run the final release of Vista?:P
Back to the pharmaceutical industry comparison... what has happened there in the U.S.? Well, as most people here probably know, the U.S. is one of the most expensive countries in the world for drugs. What would happen with a successful verdict against one or more software companies? Probably a combination of 2 things: software companies would do more thorough testing before release and we'd see higher prices. Given the end user cost of security vulnerabilities, is this such a bad thing?
I say this as an ex smoker, hehehe. Sure. But you don't HAVE to smoke in the theatre (or other public place). Whereas the people in there HAVE to breathe your smoke if you light up. Not everyone wants to breathe your smoke. Ergo, smoke somewhere else, where there's more ventilation. Now if you can't make it though a film without a cigarette I strongly suggest you quit this habit before it kills you;)
You missed that I was being facetious I guess! I won't bother commenting on the rest because I just read your other post on the topic and saw we're actually on the same side.
If I'm at the movies and someone in my family gets in a car accident or there is an emergency, I want to know.
What would you have done 20 or 30 years ago?
Just because some people are rude or forgetful doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. The issue is the noise and distraction, not the cell phone itself (most people put theirs on vibrate). By going after cell phones, you're taking away freedoms/privileges and are being overly broad.
I guess by the same token you'd probably like to bring back smoking in movie theatres? Isn't smoking a freedom/privilege for smokers? Yeah, I understand this is an apples and oranges analogy - but it does come down to infringing upon the freedoms of others. If I pay to see a movie - and for me, like many others, the true cost is much more than the ticket price - then I want to be able to enjoy it. And heck, if you disagree with the analogy on the basis of cell phones not posing a health issue, you'd need to talk with one of my neighbours (a respected psychiatrist nonetheless) who truly believes they cause brain cancer.:P
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see the logic in that. Oh look, he bought , that means he must like , let's bombard him with offers for MORE of . If I just bought one, it's actually LESS likely I am going to buy that same kind of product again...no matter how many ads.
Knowing your purchasing history helps see what kind of products/services you may be interested in either now or at some point in the future. This is more about direct marketing on a one to one basis than it is about advertising in a more traditional sense. If anything, profiling for advertising helps deliver ads for products/services you are more likely to be interested in than ones you aren't. It can also help better target buyers of consumables that are currently purchasing from competitors. Look at grocery stores that spit out a coupon for laundry detergent X at the cash register after you've just bought laundry detergent Y. Online - just a few examples - music downloads, software, books, dating services, employment sites, wedding services.
The only problem I can see with this is if the software is somehow fallible and law enforcement or the courts treat it as infallible. Then the wrong people end up arrested. Look at DNA testing: For several years, most people have considered it to be infallible (many still do), yet we now know that is not the case. So far we have identical twins and chimeras. I'd think that facial recognition software would be much less accurate than DNA testing.
There are so many ways to have vulnerabilities, and punitive damages might lead to things worse than the current patent system as far as hindering new technologies and features etc.
You can compare this to the pharmaceutical industry which is rampant with lawsuits. Getting a new drug to the market in the U.S. involves considerable expense and testing. That still doesn't absolve pharmaceutical companies from negligence by not thoroughly testing a drug before it's released to the general population.
Why should software be any different? Shouldn't software companies be responsible for fully testing software before it is released to the public? Are we in that much of a rush to run the final release of Vista? :P
Back to the pharmaceutical industry comparison... what has happened there in the U.S.? Well, as most people here probably know, the U.S. is one of the most expensive countries in the world for drugs. What would happen with a successful verdict against one or more software companies? Probably a combination of 2 things: software companies would do more thorough testing before release and we'd see higher prices. Given the end user cost of security vulnerabilities, is this such a bad thing?
I say this as an ex smoker, hehehe. Sure. But you don't HAVE to smoke in the theatre (or other public place). Whereas the people in there HAVE to breathe your smoke if you light up. Not everyone wants to breathe your smoke. Ergo, smoke somewhere else, where there's more ventilation. Now if you can't make it though a film without a cigarette I strongly suggest you quit this habit before it kills you ;)
You missed that I was being facetious I guess! I won't bother commenting on the rest because I just read your other post on the topic and saw we're actually on the same side.
If I'm at the movies and someone in my family gets in a car accident or there is an emergency, I want to know. What would you have done 20 or 30 years ago? Just because some people are rude or forgetful doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. The issue is the noise and distraction, not the cell phone itself (most people put theirs on vibrate). By going after cell phones, you're taking away freedoms/privileges and are being overly broad. I guess by the same token you'd probably like to bring back smoking in movie theatres? Isn't smoking a freedom/privilege for smokers? Yeah, I understand this is an apples and oranges analogy - but it does come down to infringing upon the freedoms of others. If I pay to see a movie - and for me, like many others, the true cost is much more than the ticket price - then I want to be able to enjoy it. And heck, if you disagree with the analogy on the basis of cell phones not posing a health issue, you'd need to talk with one of my neighbours (a respected psychiatrist nonetheless) who truly believes they cause brain cancer. :P