Those people stupid enough to put important data on other people's servers, where the have no control over who sees them and now, after being warned time and time again that this very thing is inevitable, will find themselves devoid of a bank account eventually. At that point, they will:
1) Learn their lesson the hard way.
Calling them stupid is not fair, I think. A majority of the older generation, especially those in their 60s or 70s are only just dipping their toes into using things like smartphones, iPads, emails, a little Facebook, Skype and maybe services like Dbox or Box to "keep their pictures". They did not grow up being exposed to personal computers or smart devices. They also grew up in a time when it was more common to trust authority figures. So now, they are bombarded by ads etc from M$, Apple and Google saying their services are safe- why would they not trust them?
Your comment about "being warned time and time again that this very thing is inevitable" is specious. Certainly, if you are a techie or geek, you would see and take note of these warnings form the tech sites that you visit. The average Joe would not see it, and even if he did would not understand.
You speak as someone who never had to guide an older family member/relative in how to use smart devices.
I LIKE this idea. Catch the slow and the stupid so that I might drain them of their own precious bodily fluids so that I might prolong my own life.
You do realise that the rich and powerful can easily pay the fast and the strong to catch you so that they can drain your precious bodily fluids so that they can prolong their own lives. Still like the idea?
Look I broadly agree with you that Google today is no longer as good as they used to be, both in terms of their product and their "don't be evil" mentality/mantra/outlook.
But really, dissing their employees is a new low. Most of them have no say in the decision making process and are just working to make a living, like the rest of us.
And I had a look at your posting history. Do you realise that 9 out of your last 10 posts are nothing more than variations of "F*** Google"? And all in this same thread?
Tone it down a bit, chump. You are starting to look like a "Scroogled" fanboy.
Because everyone associates "global warming" change with Al Gore.
No. Because names have power.
We have been calling our enemies "evil", "bad guys" and variations of the same since time immemorial.
And witness how much time, effort and money the RIAA spent to try and link copyright infringement to "piracy".
And how the "Patriot Act" has nothing to do with encouraging or fostering patriotism.
When someone proposes a name change for any subject, you can bet his intention is to try and change public perception of that subject to something that suits his taste.
There is no such thing as a non-radiactive tritium reactor. That is a fact and a law of physics.
There is also no such thing as a non-radioactive sandwich, that's a fact and law of physics. (C-14 for instance.) What has that got to do with anything? That you use scare words like "unbelievably dangerous", "terrorists" and "suicidally stupid" only makes you seem less informed.
You are just a greenpeace troll. Nothing to see here.
I'd mod you up as the voice of reason if I had any mod points.
First point- services granting anonymity are not automatically 'bad' or 'evil' or used to commit crimes. Don't take my word for it, look at what the Turkey government did.
Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, has continued going forward with the censor spree and is now blocking access to the Tor Project website. Just two days ago, Turkish Prime Minister, Erdoan, blocked access to YouTube, and the week before Twitter. Now Erdoan is continuing his censor reign targeting the Tor Project.
As Turkish ISP’s are begin forced into censoring users, Turkish netizens are finding ways around the internet blackout. Turkish users were using Google DNS to evade the censorship and access some of their favorite websites. Turkey has also enforced a ban on Google DNS. As Turkey continues to block popular networks, Turkish citizens are forced into using a VPN or Tor to access some of the largest networks in the world.
But wait- DarkMarket is different because it sells "opium and kitty porn and services to kill people", right? Wrong. Why don't we let its creators tell you what its for :-
In its place, the pair both believe that DarkMarket has the potential to act as a platform for a marketplace truly free from government control. In the demonstration in Toronto, MDMA wasn't the only product listed on DarkMarket. A species of tomatoes that is banned in the EU for safety reasons, marmalade made from soon-to-be-discarded produce from grocery stores, and an asthma inhaler were also listed, which, although seemingly innocuous, are all illegal to sell without regulation.
The last item in particular highlights the less obvious uses of this kind of market. When traveling to the US, it is nearly impossible to purchase an inhaler without a prescription, even if you know you have a condition that requires it. You would need to visit a doctor, be diagnosed, and then allowed to purchase one. “Why can't [someone who has asthma] just buy one, like he needs it?” Swanson asked.
Don't be so quick to assume illegal = evil. Remember that selling alcohol was once illegal in the US, during the Prohibition.
You disagree with a law doesn't give you a moral right to break it.
I'm rather glad the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party do not share your beliefs. The thing is, there are just laws and there are unjust laws. At the end of the day, as a thinking individual, it is up to you to decide personally which is which and to further decide whether or not you will obey it. And if you choose not to obey it, to be prepared for the consequences flowing from it.
History is full of examples of people who chose to disobey unjust laws, such as Ms. Rosa Parks who decided that the race segregation laws at that time were unjust and refused to obey it.
Laws are the creation of ordinary flawed men, often to benefit a particular class or segment of the population at the expense of others. Just because something is "the law" does not mean that it is just, right, immutable or unchallengeable. The more we humans learn to think critically for ourselves instead of blindly following "the law" like sheep, the better it will be for humankind.
We'd be better off trying to catch their attention by doing the cosmic equivalent of yelling (i.e. sending strong radio pulses) at them. But it's going to be like trying to get the attention of a rock fan in the mosh pit from the back row in the stadium using your cupped hands.
You're assuming that they do not have access to better technology, science and knowledge which will enable them to do just that. I wouldn't take that bet.
We probably should clean up our own house and get our act together before even considering exporting our poison to other unsuspecting corners of the universe.
The use of actual pseudonyms is a little more complex. All pseudonym requests will require some kind of evidence, which could range from a URL to your scanned driver’s license. Google+ is not, however, accepting new pseudonyms. This is designed for “established ones.” Horowitz explained that the new account naming option is intended for “people who have earned credit in other social systems and want to redeem that credit in Google+ We will swing the doors open and welcome them to our system.” Google will destroy all documentation you send them once the account verification process is complete.
And the G+ faq pretty much wants you to use real names. No help on making these pseudonymous accounts there.
A lot of hoop jumping just to get some anonymity, won't you say.
I'm sorry, but G+ will fail because it doesn't reflect how humans interact with each other. We hide things from each other all the time. Human beings are multi-faceted creatures, and throughout our day we present different masks to different people.
To my pro-Republican boss, I show my hard worker side. I don't tell him I post rabidly on liberal websites.
To my co-worker, I show him I'm a cooperative team player. I don't show him that I bitch about his back stabbing habits to my colleagues.
To my wife, I show that I am a loving husband who appreciates her love handles. I don't let her know that I am a card carrying member of the Playboy Club.
To my secretary, I show that I am a pro-feminist boss who buys gifts on Secretary's Week. I don't let her know that I visit Hooters every other week and that I tell my friends she has a hot ass.
To that cute florist on the ground floor of my building, I am that that guy who always has time to chat with her in the morning. I hide my ring.
None of this is true of course, but I'm simply illustrating that we tell white lies all the time. Everyone has something to hide. Putting everything under one unified identity, with the possibility of those that you deal with discovering previously unknown sides to you that you have been keeping secret from them is simply too big a risk to bear.
Your comment is so misrepresentative of that 78% that its close enough to being a lie to call it a lie.
I never said that reason was representative of the 78%. Nice strawman argument there.
The majority of the Android market is from free phones that are GIVEN AWAY with plans, not from actual phones that can do anything useful.
And your proof is? The feeling in your gut does not count.
Stop pretending everyone owns a Galaxy or Nexus.
Considering that I never even mentioned Galaxy or Nexus, I'm somewhat boggled how this even came up. If you are an ardent iPhone fanboy taking offence at the facts I raised, your lack of literacy and comprehension skills is embarassing the other iPhone users out there.
Yes, I can, because I don't own a smart phone, and expressly for those reasons. I also don't post pics of relatives or give out information of their behaviours online, with OR without their permission. No twitting, no facebooking, no blogging of habits.
Fair enough, but even you must recognize that that your standards are rather extreme and far from the norm. And I suspect unacceptable to the majority of people. Its the same as preaching total abstinence from sex as the cure for AIDS - it definitely works, but most people won't do it.
No, I don't contradict, because they NORMALLY give up their information freely (posts, pics, updates) and it's gotten so prevalent they aren't even cognizant that they do so anymore. As I said, it's tangentially related, not directly. It isn't that she didn't secure her phone, it's that she let her phone give her information out all the time, and had gotten so used to it as to forget that it did so. Afterwards she didn't turn it off, she was FINE with that feature.
You are arguing that because she normally spills her personal data on Facebook, she deserves to have it spilled through geolocation without her knowledge. Which seems unfair. You said that shes not tech savvy, does she even know what ticking on the geolocation box does? Is it fair to put all the burden of securing their data on the users, when the companies that provide services go out of their way to make it difficult for their users to hide their data?
Under a settlement that Facebook signed with the Federal Trade Commission last year, it was barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers’ personal information. It also agreed to obtain users’ consent before making changes that override their privacy preferences, among other things.
The data (or at least a decent portion) is out there to be collected, but a formalised request for it, one that could possibly be of actual benefit for the target, makes it a knee-jerk bad.
This is why we need strong privacy laws. Just because personal data is easy to harvest and collect and use does not mean it should be allowed.
Umm... Project Ara and Phonebloks are partners, yo.
The Ara group has already partnered with 3D Systems and Phonebloks, and plans to collaborate with more partners, including academic experts at MIT and Carnegie Mellon, CNET said.
I don't agree. A lot of users seem to value customization and personalization. Just look at how huge is the market for phone casings, icon packs, wallpapers, custom ringtones...
Apple has proven this time and time again... They've built the largest computer (mostly mobile) empire on hardware that is idiot proof and has no options. This is what consumers want.
You do realise that Apple users are in no way, shape or form representative of the majority of phone users. According to this report from IDC which is the most current I could find, Android took 78.1% of the 4Q 2013 market share compared to iOS' 17.6%. It seems safe to conclude that most if not all of these users chose to pick up Android phones over the iPhone precisely because they were dissatisfied with some aspect of Apple's product, i.e. it was not what they wanted.
Also, one often cited reason for users switching from iPhone to Android is the lack of customisation options and/or lockdown of the devices and of the platform.
I don't like ios and most likely will never upgrade since I do not like their new models.
A somewhat ironic comment since your opinion is that Apple apparently knows what consumers want... with you being the exception?
...how many of these 'concerned parents' are spewing that same data daily over facebook, without a care?
She was convinced someone blabbed, when all along was 'use geolocation services' or some such on their phones. They simply had no idea what information they were freely handing out.
You contradict yourself. First you claim that the parents spew data "without a care". But in your example, the niece clearly did care about the loss of data, she was simply technologically inept at securing her phone.
And, even that is understandable. Frankly speaking, can you honestly claim that you know and approve of every bit of data that leaves your phone? That you are fully conversant and familiar with the multitude of information that is being broadcasted from your phone, right this minute, by the OS, the various apps, the underlying hardware itself?
Hypocrisy is also evident when you accuse others of sins being committed by yourself.
The ultimate poison pill for any startup company. This would effectively prohibit any future funding or merger. "Gee, guys, you have a great idea and we'd love to buy you out to bring your idea to a larger audience, but our lawyers won't let us assume the liability of dealing with your data."
You're overlooking the fact that if there was such a law, it would apply to everyone, not just startups. Want to deal with existing established companies? Same problem. So now you have the interesting choice of either accepting the risk, or leaving the market entirely.
And there will be some companies who are willing to accept the risk, provided the rewards are commensurate.
I'm sure the data will be of interest to any individual or organization targeting vulnerable children, and their fearful parents.
Some possibilities off the top of my head:-
Quacks selling miracle cures for sick children. Organisations selling therapy/schemes/camps/training for out of control children. Quasi-religious entities recruiting impressionable members. Criminal organizations seeking malleable stooges. Adults seeking children with less adult supervision for more nefarious activities.
In contrast, marketing would be the least of my concerns, actually.
It reports that the inBloom database could track 400 different data fields about students, including details such as family relationships, reasons for enrollment changes (such as sicknesses, or being a victim of a serious violent incident)
Wow. Sounds like a gross invasion of privacy. If I was the student, I wouldn't want my teacher to know that I was a "victim of a serious violent incident". Not to mention once this kind of data gets into a database, its pretty dang hard to get it permanently scrubbed. So, what do the students get out of giving away their personal details?
Over the last year, the incredibly talented team at inBloom has developed and introduced a technical solution that addresses the complex challenges that teachers, educators and parents face when trying to best utilize the student data available to them. That solution can provide a high impact and cost-effective service to every school district across the country, enabling teachers to more easily tailor education to students’ individual learning needs.
Do teachers really need all this information to teach effectively? Do teachers even have the time to prowl through these thick databases to "tailor" their teaching methods? And what's wrong with teachers getting this information they need the old fashioned way -by winning the trust and confidence of the student/parent and being told directly? And is the student's teacher the only one privy to this information?
Even more fundamentally, it is fair to pigeonhole the students, each of whom are unique individuals with their own feelings, drives, desires and motivations into anonymous datasets and discrete categories so that they can be dealt with by the numbers?
This initiative seems to have been very badly thought out. Humans are not machines.
The letter is from Gogo LLC to the Federal Communications Commission. In the letter, Gogo was trying to persuade the FCC that it was unnecessary for the FCC to specify a mandatory list of capabilities that Gogo would have to implement as a condition for their license. This mandatory list is being pushed for by the U.S.Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S.Department of Homeland Security. Gogo's argument is that it was unnecessary because, in their own words:-
Gogo worked with federal agencies to reach agreement regarding a set of additional capabilities to accommodate law enforcement interests. Gogo then implemented those functionalities into its system design.
What I see here is a company trying to get it's business off the ground and fighting not to be saddled by mandatory government rules violating the privacy of its customers. Did they bend over backwards to try and "accommodate" the spy agencies? Undoubtedly, yes. But by far the larger portion of the blame has to rest with the government spy agencies who made it impossible to do business unless you play ball with them.
Except... It's not actually true that these are all "games that are designed to exploit people for money on a continuous basis". At least some of the games that have adopted F2P models have worked very, very, hard to avoid exploiting players.
Agreed, but the underlying problem with the f2p model is the financial pressure on its developers/publisher to milk their players, as follows:- 1. A large majority of players play f2p games for free. 2. A small minority of players spend money on the game. 3. Games cost money to produce, and have ongoing expenses to maintain. 4. When their quota/sales target is not met, developers/publishers are under pressure to make up the difference. 5. One of the easiest ways to boost sales is to introduce items which will confer a greatly desired benefit on its purchasers. OTOH, non-buyers who cannot enjoy the greatly desired benefit will endure a comparatively degraded playing experience.
Developers/publisher will continually be tempted to intentionally degrade the players' playing experience so as to create demand for new items that will remove the obstruction. One example is EA's infamous lawnmower tax where a previously free feature, lawnmowers was made a purchase item.
In summary, players who play f2p games have to live perpetually with the fear that the developers/publisher may at any time modify their game in any number of ways to try to gouge more cash from them. Not all f2p games gouge their players, but the risk that they may do so in the next patch is always there.
Your point is that the Bible should be read in context and should not be read literally, and I agree.
The problem is that some believers DO read the Bible literally and use it as justification for many acts which others may find abhorrent.
Such as the Bible phrases the controversial Westboro Church use to justify them hating on others.
Granted Westboro is an extreme case, but then again I have been shocked by the tone and hatred shown by some of the pro-life, anti-gay, anti-Semitic etc. crowd who object on religious grounds.
You might want to take back that statement after visiting FDA's 'Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience' database and do a search on cochlear implant contradictions or failures.
I did visit the link. Cochlear implant is not even a product class. If you have something to say, say it. Don't ask others to do your research for you.
Given your singular inability to provide any evidence to the contrary, parent post's point still stands -There is no down side to going from not hearing to hearing except for having to listen to contemporary "music".
Maybe we are adapting to skimming, filtering, and jumping from source to source of information. Given that this is the way the (modern?) real world works, I don't see it as a problem. The only drawback is the sentimental loss of no longer being able to sit down and be completely focused on a single thing for any length of time. Whilst this may be a shame, the fact is that such an activity these days is purely recreational and probably impractical for most people anyway. Time has moved on and so should we.
Amassing more data from diverse sources is in no way superior to gaining deep insight/understanding by focusing on, and thinking through a particular topic. Have you ever had an argument over the internet with someone who doesn't even understand the fundamentals of what he's arguing about, whose response is to blindly regurgitate what others have correctly or wrongly posted elsewhere, whose stock reply is "But this website says..."?That is a product of this skimming culture.
When you skim sources, do you remember the details of what you read a day later, a week later? I know I don't, and I'll wager many others don't either hence the popularity of keeping bookmarks, saving files, apps like Pocket etc.
If we don't even remember the details, how can we ever formulate anything beyond a superficial understanding of what we skimmed? It's a safe bet that Newton would not have been able to write the Mathematica Principia if he skimmed mathematics texts. I'm certain you would not like it if your doctor skimmed his medical texts in med school. I don't think you will be happy if your lawyer skimmed through law journals while preparing for your case.
Skimming has its uses, but loss of focus is not the 'sentimental loss' you claim it to be. There will be times when you want yourself, and the people you deal with, to be focused like a laser.
Slashdot Mirror
Calling them stupid is not fair, I think. A majority of the older generation, especially those in their 60s or 70s are only just dipping their toes into using things like smartphones, iPads, emails, a little Facebook, Skype and maybe services like Dbox or Box to "keep their pictures". They did not grow up being exposed to personal computers or smart devices. They also grew up in a time when it was more common to trust authority figures. So now, they are bombarded by ads etc from M$, Apple and Google saying their services are safe- why would they not trust them?
Your comment about "being warned time and time again that this very thing is inevitable" is specious. Certainly, if you are a techie or geek, you would see and take note of these warnings form the tech sites that you visit. The average Joe would not see it, and even if he did would not understand.
You speak as someone who never had to guide an older family member/relative in how to use smart devices.
You do realise that the rich and powerful can easily pay the fast and the strong to catch you so that they can drain your precious bodily fluids so that they can prolong their own lives. Still like the idea?
Look I broadly agree with you that Google today is no longer as good as they used to be, both in terms of their product and their "don't be evil" mentality/mantra/outlook.
But really, dissing their employees is a new low. Most of them have no say in the decision making process and are just working to make a living, like the rest of us.
And I had a look at your posting history. Do you realise that 9 out of your last 10 posts are nothing more than variations of "F*** Google"? And all in this same thread?
Tone it down a bit, chump. You are starting to look like a "Scroogled" fanboy.
No. Because names have power.
We have been calling our enemies "evil", "bad guys" and variations of the same since time immemorial.
And witness how much time, effort and money the RIAA spent to try and link copyright infringement to "piracy".
And how the "Patriot Act" has nothing to do with encouraging or fostering patriotism.
When someone proposes a name change for any subject, you can bet his intention is to try and change public perception of that subject to something that suits his taste.
There is no such thing as a non-radiactive tritium reactor. That is a fact and a law of physics.
There is also no such thing as a non-radioactive sandwich, that's a fact and law of physics. (C-14 for instance.) What has that got to do with anything? That you use scare words like "unbelievably dangerous", "terrorists" and "suicidally stupid" only makes you seem less informed.
You are just a greenpeace troll. Nothing to see here.
I'd mod you up as the voice of reason if I had any mod points.
Lets tackle your premises one by one.
First point- services granting anonymity are not automatically 'bad' or 'evil' or used to commit crimes. Don't take my word for it, look at what the Turkey government did .
But wait- DarkMarket is different because it sells "opium and kitty porn and services to kill people", right? Wrong. Why don't we let its creators tell you what its for :-
Don't be so quick to assume illegal = evil. Remember that selling alcohol was once illegal in the US, during the Prohibition.
You disagree with a law doesn't give you a moral right to break it.
I'm rather glad the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party do not share your beliefs. The thing is, there are just laws and there are unjust laws. At the end of the day, as a thinking individual, it is up to you to decide personally which is which and to further decide whether or not you will obey it. And if you choose not to obey it, to be prepared for the consequences flowing from it.
History is full of examples of people who chose to disobey unjust laws, such as Ms. Rosa Parks who decided that the race segregation laws at that time were unjust and refused to obey it.
Laws are the creation of ordinary flawed men, often to benefit a particular class or segment of the population at the expense of others. Just because something is "the law" does not mean that it is just, right, immutable or unchallengeable. The more we humans learn to think critically for ourselves instead of blindly following "the law" like sheep, the better it will be for humankind.
We'd be better off trying to catch their attention by doing the cosmic equivalent of yelling (i.e. sending strong radio pulses) at them. But it's going to be like trying to get the attention of a rock fan in the mosh pit from the back row in the stadium using your cupped hands.
You're assuming that they do not have access to better technology, science and knowledge which will enable them to do just that. I wouldn't take that bet.
I truly hope not.
We probably should clean up our own house and get our act together before even considering exporting our poison to other unsuspecting corners of the universe.
I'm sorry, that wasn't possible when I joined G+. Back then they ban accounts with fake names
And setting one up doesn't sound so easy to me.
And the G+ faq pretty much wants you to use real names. No help on making these pseudonymous accounts there.
A lot of hoop jumping just to get some anonymity, won't you say.
I'm sorry, but G+ will fail because it doesn't reflect how humans interact with each other. We hide things from each other all the time. Human beings are multi-faceted creatures, and throughout our day we present different masks to different people.
None of this is true of course, but I'm simply illustrating that we tell white lies all the time. Everyone has something to hide. Putting everything under one unified identity, with the possibility of those that you deal with discovering previously unknown sides to you that you have been keeping secret from them is simply too big a risk to bear.
I never said that reason was representative of the 78%. Nice strawman argument there.
And your proof is? The feeling in your gut does not count.
Considering that I never even mentioned Galaxy or Nexus, I'm somewhat boggled how this even came up. If you are an ardent iPhone fanboy taking offence at the facts I raised, your lack of literacy and comprehension skills is embarassing the other iPhone users out there.
Fair enough, but even you must recognize that that your standards are rather extreme and far from the norm. And I suspect unacceptable to the majority of people. Its the same as preaching total abstinence from sex as the cure for AIDS - it definitely works, but most people won't do it.
You are arguing that because she normally spills her personal data on Facebook, she deserves to have it spilled through geolocation without her knowledge. Which seems unfair. You said that shes not tech savvy, does she even know what ticking on the geolocation box does? Is it fair to put all the burden of securing their data on the users, when the companies that provide services go out of their way to make it difficult for their users to hide their data?
Under a settlement that Facebook signed with the Federal Trade Commission last year, it was barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers’ personal information. It also agreed to obtain users’ consent before making changes that override their privacy preferences, among other things.
This is why we need strong privacy laws. Just because personal data is easy to harvest and collect and use does not mean it should be allowed.
Umm... Project Ara and Phonebloks are partners, yo.
Right now. Prices will go down assuming there is mass adoption. Remember than personal computers used to sell for 4 digit numbers in the past.
I don't agree. A lot of users seem to value customization and personalization. Just look at how huge is the market for phone casings, icon packs, wallpapers, custom ringtones...
You do realise that Apple users are in no way, shape or form representative of the majority of phone users. According to this report from IDC which is the most current I could find, Android took 78.1% of the 4Q 2013 market share compared to iOS' 17.6%. It seems safe to conclude that most if not all of these users chose to pick up Android phones over the iPhone precisely because they were dissatisfied with some aspect of Apple's product, i.e. it was not what they wanted.
Also, one often cited reason for users switching from iPhone to Android is the lack of customisation options and/or lockdown of the devices and of the platform.
A somewhat ironic comment since your opinion is that Apple apparently knows what consumers want... with you being the exception?
...how many of these 'concerned parents' are spewing that same data daily over facebook, without a care?
She was convinced someone blabbed, when all along was 'use geolocation services' or some such on their phones. They simply had no idea what information they were freely handing out.
You contradict yourself. First you claim that the parents spew data "without a care". But in your example, the niece clearly did care about the loss of data, she was simply technologically inept at securing her phone.
And, even that is understandable. Frankly speaking, can you honestly claim that you know and approve of every bit of data that leaves your phone? That you are fully conversant and familiar with the multitude of information that is being broadcasted from your phone, right this minute, by the OS, the various apps, the underlying hardware itself?
Hypocrisy is also evident when you accuse others of sins being committed by yourself.
The ultimate poison pill for any startup company. This would effectively prohibit any future funding or merger. "Gee, guys, you have a great idea and we'd love to buy you out to bring your idea to a larger audience, but our lawyers won't let us assume the liability of dealing with your data."
You're overlooking the fact that if there was such a law, it would apply to everyone, not just startups. Want to deal with existing established companies? Same problem. So now you have the interesting choice of either accepting the risk, or leaving the market entirely.
And there will be some companies who are willing to accept the risk, provided the rewards are commensurate.
I'm sure the data will be of interest to any individual or organization targeting vulnerable children, and their fearful parents.
Some possibilities off the top of my head:-
Quacks selling miracle cures for sick children.
Organisations selling therapy/schemes/camps/training for out of control children.
Quasi-religious entities recruiting impressionable members.
Criminal organizations seeking malleable stooges.
Adults seeking children with less adult supervision for more nefarious activities.
In contrast, marketing would be the least of my concerns, actually.
FTA:-
Wow. Sounds like a gross invasion of privacy. If I was the student, I wouldn't want my teacher to know that I was a "victim of a serious violent incident". Not to mention once this kind of data gets into a database, its pretty dang hard to get it permanently scrubbed. So, what do the students get out of giving away their personal details?
Do teachers really need all this information to teach effectively? Do teachers even have the time to prowl through these thick databases to "tailor" their teaching methods? And what's wrong with teachers getting this information they need the old fashioned way -by winning the trust and confidence of the student/parent and being told directly? And is the student's teacher the only one privy to this information?
Even more fundamentally, it is fair to pigeonhole the students, each of whom are unique individuals with their own feelings, drives, desires and motivations into anonymous datasets and discrete categories so that they can be dealt with by the numbers?
This initiative seems to have been very badly thought out. Humans are not machines.
A timely reminder why users should stick with a stable, proven OS such as Win7 (and to a lesser extent, WinXP).
Less fancy unnecessary features like Metro also means less chances for cock-ups to happen.
If MS' intention is to migrate users of older OSes to Win8.1, it is not doing itself any favors here.
Let me break it down.
The letter is from Gogo LLC to the Federal Communications Commission. In the letter, Gogo was trying to persuade the FCC that it was unnecessary for the FCC to specify a mandatory list of capabilities that Gogo would have to implement as a condition for their license. This mandatory list is being pushed for by the U.S.Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S.Department of Homeland Security. Gogo's argument is that it was unnecessary because, in their own words :-
What I see here is a company trying to get it's business off the ground and fighting not to be saddled by mandatory government rules violating the privacy of its customers. Did they bend over backwards to try and "accommodate" the spy agencies? Undoubtedly, yes. But by far the larger portion of the blame has to rest with the government spy agencies who made it impossible to do business unless you play ball with them.
Except... It's not actually true that these are all "games that are designed to exploit people for money on a continuous basis". At least some of the games that have adopted F2P models have worked very, very, hard to avoid exploiting players.
Agreed, but the underlying problem with the f2p model is the financial pressure on its developers/publisher to milk their players, as follows :-
1. A large majority of players play f2p games for free.
2. A small minority of players spend money on the game.
3. Games cost money to produce, and have ongoing expenses to maintain.
4. When their quota/sales target is not met, developers/publishers are under pressure to make up the difference.
5. One of the easiest ways to boost sales is to introduce items which will confer a greatly desired benefit on its purchasers. OTOH, non-buyers who cannot enjoy the greatly desired benefit will endure a comparatively degraded playing experience.
Developers/publisher will continually be tempted to intentionally degrade the players' playing experience so as to create demand for new items that will remove the obstruction. One example is EA's infamous lawnmower tax where a previously free feature, lawnmowers was made a purchase item.
In summary, players who play f2p games have to live perpetually with the fear that the developers/publisher may at any time modify their game in any number of ways to try to gouge more cash from them. Not all f2p games gouge their players, but the risk that they may do so in the next patch is always there.
Your point is that the Bible should be read in context and should not be read literally, and I agree.
The problem is that some believers DO read the Bible literally and use it as justification for many acts which others may find abhorrent.
Such as the Bible phrases the controversial Westboro Church use to justify them hating on others.
Granted Westboro is an extreme case, but then again I have been shocked by the tone and hatred shown by some of the pro-life, anti-gay, anti-Semitic etc. crowd who object on religious grounds.
You might want to take back that statement after visiting FDA's 'Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience' database and do a search on cochlear implant contradictions or failures.
I did visit the link. Cochlear implant is not even a product class. If you have something to say, say it. Don't ask others to do your research for you.
Given your singular inability to provide any evidence to the contrary, parent post's point still stands -There is no down side to going from not hearing to hearing except for having to listen to contemporary "music".
Maybe we are adapting to skimming, filtering, and jumping from source to source of information.
Given that this is the way the (modern?) real world works, I don't see it as a problem.
The only drawback is the sentimental loss of no longer being able to sit down and be completely focused on a single thing for any length of time. Whilst this may be a shame, the fact is that such an activity these days is purely recreational and probably impractical for most people anyway. Time has moved on and so should we.
Amassing more data from diverse sources is in no way superior to gaining deep insight/understanding by focusing on, and thinking through a particular topic. Have you ever had an argument over the internet with someone who doesn't even understand the fundamentals of what he's arguing about, whose response is to blindly regurgitate what others have correctly or wrongly posted elsewhere, whose stock reply is "But this website says..."? That is a product of this skimming culture.
When you skim sources, do you remember the details of what you read a day later, a week later? I know I don't, and I'll wager many others don't either hence the popularity of keeping bookmarks, saving files, apps like Pocket etc.
If we don't even remember the details, how can we ever formulate anything beyond a superficial understanding of what we skimmed? It's a safe bet that Newton would not have been able to write the Mathematica Principia if he skimmed mathematics texts. I'm certain you would not like it if your doctor skimmed his medical texts in med school. I don't think you will be happy if your lawyer skimmed through law journals while preparing for your case.
Skimming has its uses, but loss of focus is not the 'sentimental loss' you claim it to be. There will be times when you want yourself, and the people you deal with, to be focused like a laser.