People are accustomed to bait-and-switch language
on
The Privacy Paradox
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
We live in a world today where pretty much anything that a government or a private entity tells you is more or less the opposite of reality.
People are accustomed to seeing legislation such as the "Defense of Marriage Act", which attacks and limits people's right to marry... the "Patriot Act", which exploits patriotism toward ends which no patriot could support... etc. How many Congressional bills DON'T have a name that is 180-degrees opposite from the bill's contents?
People are accustomed to private sector speech meaning its exact opposite as well. You never see a food company describe its product as "gourmet" unless it isn't. "Employee Rights" policies are generally about limiting employee rights. More relevant here, anyone who has even glanced at a "Privacy Policy" from their bank or other business institution knows that it really deals with how little privacy you have, and the hoops they make you jump through even to protect that.
Where's the "paradox" here? We have grown accustomed to any language about our "rights" actually being a bait-and-switch. So, yes... when we hear assurances that our privacy is safeguarded, we assume that you wouldn't even have brought it up unless it wasn't.
Both parties are now firmly tucked into their respective corporate pockets and neither one represents the interests of the average voter...
The other parties are non-entities locked into unrealistic idealism. Until we get a viable 3rd party that actually considers the constitution a relevant document and the needs of the individual voters over special interest groups, it's all downhill from here.
Your post illustrates perfectly why nothing will ever change. You understand that the two major parties are hopeless, but this healthy cynicism doesn't translate into any form of action whatsoever (even simply pulling the lever for another party).
You criticize third-parties for being "too idealistic"... but then describe your desired alternative in terms of idealism! So what does "viable" really mean, then? The Libertarian Party over the past 10 years has streamlined its platform to cut out the extreme elements, and has built to the point of this year having former a U.S. congressman and senator debating for its Presidential nomination. They'll have ballot access in 49 if not all 50 states.
If that's not "viable", then I suppose your definition of "viable" is really, "They must be one vote away from winning, so that I can jump on the bandwagon at the last second and take credit for it all along". Even that might be too generous. It's more likely that "viable" means, "They've already won, and now I'm going to focus on criticizing why they suck now."
It's the same mentality as a pirate saying that they would of course pay for all their video games, if only publishers would completely do away with all copy protections. That's a disingenuous argument, because you: (1) know that they won't, and (2) wouldn't really pay for all your games even if they did. You likewise set the bar for supporting a third-party at some level unlikely to be met, and would probably just criticize any third-party just like the big two if they ever did meet it.
I don't get all the questions about Wine's support for MS Office. I think most of this comes from people who haven't tried Wine in years (or maybe have never used it at all). I run Office 2003 under Wine every day, and have for awhile. PowerPoint doesn't work, but Word and Excel run perfectly fine. Once in a blue moon I get a crash, so I save my work a bit more often than I normally would under Windows, but it's nowhere near frequent enough to be a problem for me.
Why the Wine team chose to target the Word and Excel VIEWERS for "official support", rather than the apps themselves, is a bit of a mystery to me as well. However, those two base apps DO run fine under Wine currently. Seeing as how those two apps are the only reason I'd ever need to run Windows in the first place, Wine is good stuff in my book.
I suspect (or at least hope!) that Taco was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with this entire post. A Perl guy criticizing another language's learning curve?!?
Still, addressing the point at face-value, I fail to see how the large array of Java libraries and frameworks is a liability rather than an asset. Sure, nobody can learn ALL of them... but neither is anyone expected to. You learn the libraries and/or frameworks that are relevant to the task you are trying to accomplish. How is this worse (or even different) from the suggested alternative... learning entirely separately languages for each task?
For all Java's issues with version compatibility, etc, at least learning that language gives you a common platform from which you can tackle almost any problem. You can pick and choose the libraries and frameworks that are best suited to the task at hand, and at least have the possible option of later integrating it with other Java code without having to go through pipes or services or some other loose-coupling technique.
For the problems that Java does have, pretty much the only reason why they aren't shared by "newer, more lightweight" technologies is because those haven't been around long enough yet for version compatibility to even be a concern. For any given example of technology, check back with me in 5-10 years and let me know how its maturity lifecycle has compared with Java's.
Obviously, a reduction in the number of human languages spoken is a good thing in many ways. It's certainly more efficient, and arguably gives us one less cultural division to promote war (although I never underestimate human ingenuity in coming up with new ways to divide ourselves). However, the downside to this trend is its impact in the area of cognitive science.
I'm not an expert in the field, but just a guy who's read Steven Pinker's books (really fascinating stuff if you're interested in linguistics and/or how the brain works). Basically linguists, psychologists, and other cognitive scientists have learned a ton about how the human brain functions and evolved by examining differences in the world's languages... especially native languages of small indigenous populations that have been cut off from the rest of global civilization. As those populations and their languages get assimilated (insert Borg joke) and disappear, much of this research will become impossible.
I'm not sure that the drawbacks outweigh the advantages overall, and there's probably nothing we could do about it even if they did... but this does mean that an important branch of science has to work against the clock to make all the breakthroughs they can before their test data dries up.
A couple of weeks ago I ordered a new Prius from the Toyota dealership, and moved $10,000 from my brokerage account to my NetBank account in preparation for the down payment. I scheduled to pick up my car on 9/28. Right before heading up to the dealership, I went online to double-check my account balance one more time... and nearly crapped a Toyota Prius in my pants!
I do 90% of my shopping online, but online banking has been a touchy subject. I became a NetBank customer 6 or 7 years ago only because they bought my account from CompuBank... my PREVIOUS online bank that went belly up also. I know these failures were due to bad management and not anything inherantly wrong with an online model, but after the run I've had I just don't think I could trust an online-only bank again. Come Monday morning, I'll be switching my payroll direct deposit over to a credit union account... and saying farewell for good to banking through that series of tubes they call the Internets.
Slashdot Mirror
If they include dancing CGI creatures, or replace shotguns with walkie-talkies, I'll be PISSED.
... eBay wouldn't have turned him in.
Oh come on, you were almost there! How about:
"Renowned Researchers Rebuke Recent Riemann Reasoning"
We live in a world today where pretty much anything that a government or a private entity tells you is more or less the opposite of reality.
People are accustomed to seeing legislation such as the "Defense of Marriage Act", which attacks and limits people's right to marry... the "Patriot Act", which exploits patriotism toward ends which no patriot could support... etc. How many Congressional bills DON'T have a name that is 180-degrees opposite from the bill's contents?
People are accustomed to private sector speech meaning its exact opposite as well. You never see a food company describe its product as "gourmet" unless it isn't. "Employee Rights" policies are generally about limiting employee rights. More relevant here, anyone who has even glanced at a "Privacy Policy" from their bank or other business institution knows that it really deals with how little privacy you have, and the hoops they make you jump through even to protect that.
Where's the "paradox" here? We have grown accustomed to any language about our "rights" actually being a bait-and-switch. So, yes... when we hear assurances that our privacy is safeguarded, we assume that you wouldn't even have brought it up unless it wasn't.
Your post illustrates perfectly why nothing will ever change. You understand that the two major parties are hopeless, but this healthy cynicism doesn't translate into any form of action whatsoever (even simply pulling the lever for another party).
You criticize third-parties for being "too idealistic"... but then describe your desired alternative in terms of idealism! So what does "viable" really mean, then? The Libertarian Party over the past 10 years has streamlined its platform to cut out the extreme elements, and has built to the point of this year having former a U.S. congressman and senator debating for its Presidential nomination. They'll have ballot access in 49 if not all 50 states.
If that's not "viable", then I suppose your definition of "viable" is really, "They must be one vote away from winning, so that I can jump on the bandwagon at the last second and take credit for it all along". Even that might be too generous. It's more likely that "viable" means, "They've already won, and now I'm going to focus on criticizing why they suck now."
It's the same mentality as a pirate saying that they would of course pay for all their video games, if only publishers would completely do away with all copy protections. That's a disingenuous argument, because you: (1) know that they won't, and (2) wouldn't really pay for all your games even if they did. You likewise set the bar for supporting a third-party at some level unlikely to be met, and would probably just criticize any third-party just like the big two if they ever did meet it.
I don't get all the questions about Wine's support for MS Office. I think most of this comes from people who haven't tried Wine in years (or maybe have never used it at all). I run Office 2003 under Wine every day, and have for awhile. PowerPoint doesn't work, but Word and Excel run perfectly fine. Once in a blue moon I get a crash, so I save my work a bit more often than I normally would under Windows, but it's nowhere near frequent enough to be a problem for me.
Why the Wine team chose to target the Word and Excel VIEWERS for "official support", rather than the apps themselves, is a bit of a mystery to me as well. However, those two base apps DO run fine under Wine currently. Seeing as how those two apps are the only reason I'd ever need to run Windows in the first place, Wine is good stuff in my book.
I suspect (or at least hope!) that Taco was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with this entire post. A Perl guy criticizing another language's learning curve?!?
Still, addressing the point at face-value, I fail to see how the large array of Java libraries and frameworks is a liability rather than an asset. Sure, nobody can learn ALL of them... but neither is anyone expected to. You learn the libraries and/or frameworks that are relevant to the task you are trying to accomplish. How is this worse (or even different) from the suggested alternative... learning entirely separately languages for each task? For all Java's issues with version compatibility, etc, at least learning that language gives you a common platform from which you can tackle almost any problem. You can pick and choose the libraries and frameworks that are best suited to the task at hand, and at least have the possible option of later integrating it with other Java code without having to go through pipes or services or some other loose-coupling technique.
For the problems that Java does have, pretty much the only reason why they aren't shared by "newer, more lightweight" technologies is because those haven't been around long enough yet for version compatibility to even be a concern. For any given example of technology, check back with me in 5-10 years and let me know how its maturity lifecycle has compared with Java's.
I'm not an expert in the field, but just a guy who's read Steven Pinker's books (really fascinating stuff if you're interested in linguistics and/or how the brain works). Basically linguists, psychologists, and other cognitive scientists have learned a ton about how the human brain functions and evolved by examining differences in the world's languages... especially native languages of small indigenous populations that have been cut off from the rest of global civilization. As those populations and their languages get assimilated (insert Borg joke) and disappear, much of this research will become impossible.
I'm not sure that the drawbacks outweigh the advantages overall, and there's probably nothing we could do about it even if they did... but this does mean that an important branch of science has to work against the clock to make all the breakthroughs they can before their test data dries up.
I do 90% of my shopping online, but online banking has been a touchy subject. I became a NetBank customer 6 or 7 years ago only because they bought my account from CompuBank... my PREVIOUS online bank that went belly up also. I know these failures were due to bad management and not anything inherantly wrong with an online model, but after the run I've had I just don't think I could trust an online-only bank again. Come Monday morning, I'll be switching my payroll direct deposit over to a credit union account... and saying farewell for good to banking through that series of tubes they call the Internets.