Only end users "share" data. Google doesn't. Apple doesn't. It's hardly surprising that the car companies aren't "sharing" data, and want to be compensated for it.
The only surprise is that people let companies monetize data about them.
That depends entirely upon the terms of the purchase agreement you made when you bought the car.
And the laws. We (used to) pass laws against stupid bullshit like this.
You might have a license to use it but you don't own it. You might own the data or you might not. Depends on the license agreement and the applicable laws.
Almost everyone is saying, (a) legally, the consumer, not the company, should own the data and (b) practically, the consumer can block the company.
The Star Trek reboots explain best why he should bneer get another job. The first was fine as an homage/on-off. But Star Trek has a huge and complex universe, and he just demolishes any continuity. But most importantly, he leaves the franchise with no where to go.
Look, the fucking Fast & Furious movies are strong right now. But there hasn't been another star trek movie because the first used up 100% of the interesting material available.
Then you board with the two parents and two children taking the four seats straddling the aisle. If you have more little children than people able to care for them (which could be older kids, whatever) where you cannot sit them "child in center, responsible person on aisle", you should have to bring a nanny, cause you're not controlling that many kids, and I don't want to put up with them. Bonus, small person in the center seat.
Families should board last, and have aisle seats and adjacent center seats, or board as individual passengers, not a family. You're riding together, maybe you don't need to stand next to each other getting onboard.
Except parents of small children, which goes back to the matching aisle/center seat solution.
(I don't live in or do business in the USA. And I like it that way.)
Europe is just as bad, just different. We worked with a client that was working on a... massive. Beyond massive. Rollout of new content based on their IP. We worked on their coordinated app. In spite of a well-paid on retainer legal team that mostly dealt with IP issues (okay, Copyright, not Trademark usually), we still had our app pulled from the Apple Store without notice over a trademark in some stupid European country. (related only to the app)
, "Does this dress make me fat" is, in the long run, better off for everyone if the simple unadulterated truth is used.
On a long enough timeline, it's absolutely meaningless. Whether your long term "benefits now outweigh the costs" happens before the meaningless longterm is a question of fact with tons of variables and no universal answer.
it will lead the dress-wearer to select more actually flattering clothing, which in turn would be actually appreciated by the admirer
Asserted without evidence. First, you're assuming that there is no other way to guide someone to more flattering clothes. Actually, first should be there's no proof that someone will interpret that as "a different dress would look better" instead of "you're fat, and all dresses will make you look fat. Then there's whether the asker is choosing based on whether the dress makes her look fat, or wants to wear the dress regardless. And, possibly most importantly, there's absolutely no guarantee that the admirer will be the one who gets to enjoy the better dress choices in the future, as opposed to someone with more tact.
At minimum, it would let both parties know more about the preferences of the other
You're assuming that the preferences of each other are of any real importance. Maybe that's just a favorite dress that will be worn regardless of actual preferences.
At minimum, it would let both parties know more about the preferences of the other
Or it could lead to the asker feeling worse, and therefore being less attractive (because of lower confidence), wear what they want anyway and be upset at the messanger (the responder). The responder meanwhile may see their feedback as not being respected, and feel worse as well.
White lies are still lies and still lead to undesirable outcomes eventually.
The only time lying is permissible is in hard situations like the classic "Nazi asking if there are Jews in your house" or some other flavor of serious and unjust consequences for telling the truth.
Bold assertion. What about "little white lies" - lies constructed so that all people involved are better off, or at least neutral, believing it. You know like "I thought that dress last night looked good on you"
Beyond that, I may want to consistently lie to distort the data collected about me on the internet for marketing purposes. In this case (and many others) lies increase privacy.
What about a male crossdresser who identifies as female to Google so he can see ads for shoes and makeup? Everyone wins, because of how that data will be used.
And those are all cases that work if you think that lying is somehow wrong and needs to be counterbalanced in some way. I would think a more accurate statement is stuff like "getting someone to be falsely imprisoned" is wrong and lying is but one tool to cause that to happen.
What the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld is that people don't lose their first amendment rights when they form partnerships or tightly-held corporations (as the latter are effectively partnerships). You don't lose the right to free speech, or the right to freedom of religion, or the right to peacefully assemble, just because you start a business.
Nobody claimed that the people would lose their first amendment rights. The question was whether said partnership/closely held corporation had first amendment rights of its own.
I believe the corporate entity should not have any religious rights (unless the primary purpose is to facilitate religion, like a church.)
America has some of the best doctors in the entire world
You're conflating the best individual care with the system. Imagine two countries, both with a billion people (for shits and giggles). One has up and running, I dunno, like a million doctors. The other has exactly one of those machines from Elysium that autocures someone in five minutes. Which has the best system?
Well, to those people able to get into the machine, I'm guessing they would say the Elysium-like one. But to society as a whole? The million doctors.
he medical schools are full of foreigners who come to train and then go back to their home countries.
We should put a stop to that. We need those slots for Americans who will practice in America.
Doctors *are* smarter. They have to be. You won't find many double-digit IQs because they don't make it out of undergraduate study.
Currently, 30% of the population gets an undergraduate degree. Doctors aren't necessarily stupid, but there are lots of careers for smart people. And most medicine doesn't require a world-class mind. It's a waste to use a great brain in a away that does not scale.
That just seems to imply that doctors shouldn't be trained to work stupid-long immune system destroying hours, should be overstaffed (not understaffed) to allow for frequent sick days, etc. In other words, double the number of medical schools, reduce the on-call stress that hurts the immune system and reform the residency system. Maybe also get rid of the concept that doctors are so much smarter/more honorable than the poluace instead of just having a different skillset.
Medicine is pretty poorly done in, well, the US. Maybe the whole world, but I have no idea how other countries train doctors.
Also, what kind of fringe benefits do I get? If someone offends me, can I make a call? Can I buy cheap stuff of the back of a truck? If someone kidnaps my daughter, do I get to make a phone call to a Liam Neeson clone?
Unlike in government, in business you don't often get to fail, then redefine the objective and declare success.
Isn't that what a pivot is?
But pivots are often only for startups. IN a large company, you most certainly can redefine the objective to some degree and/or have it set so low initially that it's a guaranteed success.
The profligate wastes of government are nothing new, but - especially in the US
The absolute numbers are quite high, but the percentages are quite low. And the wastes are primarily related to military purchases and sports stadiums.
Greece doesn't owe you anything. It may owe your government, or an institution you invested in. But not you personally.
The reforms were in large part implemented... but the reforms that were demanded were wrongheaded, and in turn hurt the whole economy. It's one thing to complain about a lack of responsibility. It's a totally different thing to complain that what Greece agreed to while desperate was stupid, so they stopped doing it.
I think the key to avoiding depression is to have a good idea from the start, not something that relies on advertising to make money
You're confusing "likelihood of success" with "likelihood of continued success". There were a lot of competitors to be eBay, Netflix or Amazon. Most startups will fail. Those that eventually succeed will often look like they are going to fail. Devoting 1/5 of your productive life to something that fails is pretty depressing.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have (W) and (GW) backwards. (GW) was Sr.
Only end users "share" data. Google doesn't. Apple doesn't. It's hardly surprising that the car companies aren't "sharing" data, and want to be compensated for it.
The only surprise is that people let companies monetize data about them.
And the laws. We (used to) pass laws against stupid bullshit like this.
Almost everyone is saying, (a) legally, the consumer, not the company, should own the data and (b) practically, the consumer can block the company.
Yes, there was a second. But they've been "making" the third for long enough that it's iffy if it will ever get done.
The Star Trek reboots explain best why he should bneer get another job. The first was fine as an homage/on-off. But Star Trek has a huge and complex universe, and he just demolishes any continuity. But most importantly, he leaves the franchise with no where to go.
Look, the fucking Fast & Furious movies are strong right now. But there hasn't been another star trek movie because the first used up 100% of the interesting material available.
Then you board with the two parents and two children taking the four seats straddling the aisle. If you have more little children than people able to care for them (which could be older kids, whatever) where you cannot sit them "child in center, responsible person on aisle", you should have to bring a nanny, cause you're not controlling that many kids, and I don't want to put up with them. Bonus, small person in the center seat.
Families should board last, and have aisle seats and adjacent center seats, or board as individual passengers, not a family. You're riding together, maybe you don't need to stand next to each other getting onboard.
Except parents of small children, which goes back to the matching aisle/center seat solution.
Europe is just as bad, just different. We worked with a client that was working on a... massive. Beyond massive. Rollout of new content based on their IP. We worked on their coordinated app. In spite of a well-paid on retainer legal team that mostly dealt with IP issues (okay, Copyright, not Trademark usually), we still had our app pulled from the Apple Store without notice over a trademark in some stupid European country. (related only to the app)
And we, Apple, and our clients are all US based.
On a long enough timeline, it's absolutely meaningless. Whether your long term "benefits now outweigh the costs" happens before the meaningless longterm is a question of fact with tons of variables and no universal answer.
Asserted without evidence. First, you're assuming that there is no other way to guide someone to more flattering clothes. Actually, first should be there's no proof that someone will interpret that as "a different dress would look better" instead of "you're fat, and all dresses will make you look fat. Then there's whether the asker is choosing based on whether the dress makes her look fat, or wants to wear the dress regardless. And, possibly most importantly, there's absolutely no guarantee that the admirer will be the one who gets to enjoy the better dress choices in the future, as opposed to someone with more tact.
You're assuming that the preferences of each other are of any real importance. Maybe that's just a favorite dress that will be worn regardless of actual preferences.
Or it could lead to the asker feeling worse, and therefore being less attractive (because of lower confidence), wear what they want anyway and be upset at the messanger (the responder). The responder meanwhile may see their feedback as not being respected, and feel worse as well.
Prove it.
Doubtful. The WSJ went down before the NYSE closed.
Bold assertion. What about "little white lies" - lies constructed so that all people involved are better off, or at least neutral, believing it. You know like "I thought that dress last night looked good on you"
Beyond that, I may want to consistently lie to distort the data collected about me on the internet for marketing purposes. In this case (and many others) lies increase privacy.
What about a male crossdresser who identifies as female to Google so he can see ads for shoes and makeup? Everyone wins, because of how that data will be used.
And those are all cases that work if you think that lying is somehow wrong and needs to be counterbalanced in some way. I would think a more accurate statement is stuff like "getting someone to be falsely imprisoned" is wrong and lying is but one tool to cause that to happen.
No. From a client who didn't want to pay me what they owed me. It only took a letter, which was nice.
Why shouldn't the victim, who took it upon themselves to seek justice (instead of the state) and their lawyer be compensated for that benefit?
Except it's not. Women not getting high-paid jobs is one thing, but not receiving a Google Ad for a scam is totally different.
Nobody claimed that the people would lose their first amendment rights. The question was whether said partnership/closely held corporation had first amendment rights of its own.
I believe the corporate entity should not have any religious rights (unless the primary purpose is to facilitate religion, like a church.)
The Wall Street Journal also went down.
Hey, lawyers have actually helped me in the past.
You're conflating the best individual care with the system. Imagine two countries, both with a billion people (for shits and giggles). One has up and running, I dunno, like a million doctors. The other has exactly one of those machines from Elysium that autocures someone in five minutes. Which has the best system?
Well, to those people able to get into the machine, I'm guessing they would say the Elysium-like one. But to society as a whole? The million doctors.
We should put a stop to that. We need those slots for Americans who will practice in America.
Currently, 30% of the population gets an undergraduate degree. Doctors aren't necessarily stupid, but there are lots of careers for smart people. And most medicine doesn't require a world-class mind. It's a waste to use a great brain in a away that does not scale.
That just seems to imply that doctors shouldn't be trained to work stupid-long immune system destroying hours, should be overstaffed (not understaffed) to allow for frequent sick days, etc. In other words, double the number of medical schools, reduce the on-call stress that hurts the immune system and reform the residency system. Maybe also get rid of the concept that doctors are so much smarter/more honorable than the poluace instead of just having a different skillset.
Medicine is pretty poorly done in, well, the US. Maybe the whole world, but I have no idea how other countries train doctors.
Also, what kind of fringe benefits do I get? If someone offends me, can I make a call? Can I buy cheap stuff of the back of a truck? If someone kidnaps my daughter, do I get to make a phone call to a Liam Neeson clone?
Isn't that what a pivot is?
But pivots are often only for startups. IN a large company, you most certainly can redefine the objective to some degree and/or have it set so low initially that it's a guaranteed success.
The absolute numbers are quite high, but the percentages are quite low. And the wastes are primarily related to military purchases and sports stadiums.
Greece doesn't owe you anything. It may owe your government, or an institution you invested in. But not you personally.
The reforms were in large part implemented... but the reforms that were demanded were wrongheaded, and in turn hurt the whole economy. It's one thing to complain about a lack of responsibility. It's a totally different thing to complain that what Greece agreed to while desperate was stupid, so they stopped doing it.
Productivity is down worldwide over the past 7 years. Which is to be expected as labor has gotten cheaper.
You're confusing "likelihood of success" with "likelihood of continued success". There were a lot of competitors to be eBay, Netflix or Amazon. Most startups will fail. Those that eventually succeed will often look like they are going to fail. Devoting 1/5 of your productive life to something that fails is pretty depressing.