Companies like Amazon can do whatever they want within the bounds of the law. It doesn't mean that it's good, however. But again, AMAZON isn't the one in control here...consumers are. If Amazon's greed is repugnant enough, and if enough customers realize that they won't have the choice of shopping "easily" on other e-commerce sites ONLY because of a matter of presentation, they *can* take their money and tell Amazon to get lost.
I personally have never purchased anything from Amazon, mostly because I can usually find what I'm looking for elsehere (Barnes & Noble, or Book-a-Million), and for less. Now it looks like I have another reason.
I don't understand why everyone keeps commenting about child labor. The article doesn't mention anything about the kid actually WORKING, much less accomplishing anything meaningful. Let's SEE one of his little Powerpoint "presentations." This whole thing is rediculous. Show me a three-year-old Linux programmer, and THEN I'll be impressed.
If We the People (to use an american-centric word) don't pass legislation that fines companies loads of money Why count on politicians whose ethics are every bit as corrupt? We don't need government telling them they can't do this - WE need to tell them, by refusing any further patronage. No money, no company.
But unless this information is being used against you in some way, why do you care? How will you know? If someone can tap on a few keys, and have at their disposal an instant, individual profile, how will you have any idea if anything they're seeing is biasing their response to you?
If you're going to be subjected to all sorts of inane advertising, wouldn't you rather it be about something which you might be interested in?
Nope. I buy what I want, when I want, based on what *I* know about the market, *not* what the market thinks it knows about me. This, in my opinion, is how it should be. The way that companies are marketing to consumers is turning consumers into a bunch of brain-dead spend-droids, who it seems, are more than willing to respond: "I see, I like, I buy." Immediacy. Gotta have it.
And we have no one to blame but OURSELVES!
on
Profiling A Nation
·
· Score: 2
Once upon a time, a company (well, one with any sense of integrity) would hold in high regard the relationship with their customers. So much so, that the notion of selling or giving away information about them would have never crossed anyone's mind. Now it happens routinely, and what to WE do? We simply shrug our shoulders and walk on. I see no indication that our lives, the decisions we make, how we spend our time, and what each of us finds important, means enough to us to protect it. Suddendly all of this is everyone's business.
In a sense, this says just as much about the vast abyss of unethical corporate behavior, as it does about how much we really care about it. We're so wrapped up in our immediate, consumeristic, material greed that we're literally selling our souls to the devil in order to get our fix.
It privacy really means anything, we *can* get it back - but it will take something that few people are willing to exercise these days: DISCIPLINE. Find out which companies are using the services of companies like Axciom - and DO NOT BUY FROM THEM. PERIOD. Will it mean inconvience? Probably. Will it mean foregoing some of life's immediate "pleasures"? Probably. The bottom line is this: what does ANY of this mean if you can't live with any sense of dignity, knowing that to someone on the other end of the phone, you're nothing but a summary, a profile, a collection of life-events that is really none of their damned business?
It AMAZES me to no end how they think they've got this all figured out: "Gee...it's not the ENVIRONMENT that's the problem, it's not that we allow scum-bags to taunt and assault people based on whatever arbitrary trait they choose, it's the people being assaulted and taunted that are likely to be the problem."
I saw an edition of one of the morning talk shows where this 14-year-old kid was expelled for calling a bomb threat into his school (with no intention of actually planting one). This was NOT a smart thing to do, but it was a LAST DITCH EFFORT to get someone to listen and respond to his problem. As he explains it, he spent two months being taunted and regularly beaten by a group of bullies at his school. Initially, he did exactly as he was supposed to - he told his father, who then contacted the school. The school administrators, now aware of the problem, assured him that they would take care of it. Uh-huh. After the bullies were supposedly "talked to," the situation only became worse, with no end in sight. It's not the least bit *suprising* that something like this could end up happening. Have the brain-dead teachers, psychologists, and administrators learned *NOTHING* from the incident at Columbine?
The *response* is isn't the problem...it's a SYMPTOM of a bureaucracy that REFUSES to exercise even the slightest bit of competence when it comes to shool discipline. God forbid we put a school's athletic performance at risk by demanding that the jocks (often -but not always- the perpetrators) abide by a few rules, and be held accountable when they don't.
So, let them profile away. Let them demontrate even MORE incompetence. I just hope they try not to look too stupid while standing there with their heads up their asses the next time someone is pushed over the edge, wondering what happened.
How on earth can you draw any meaningful comparison between Jack Van Impe and George Orwell??? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I turn this guy on late at night *only* if I want a good laugh.
Re:Right: It's not invasion of privacy, it's theft
on
Another Software Spy
·
· Score: 1
No, it's EXACTLY the same thing. The only thing different is the method by which the object of value (in this case, the information) is acquired. I think a key phrase used in the previous post was "taking without asking," and that's what is happening here. Neither my video card information nor any other information about my system is there for the taking...it's information I *might* be willing to share, provided I am given the opportunity to make an informed decision. But that's MY choice, not theirs.
You've touched on some points I didn't even consider. It does seem likely that both outright encryption and the use of techniques like Steganography would add significantly to the overhead required to make some determination as to any potential threat imposed by a message's content. And, it would seem, there's no real way to tell if any given image contains any "steganographied" content. This suggests that the use of "decoy" images may increase the overhead even further.
I'm surprised someone hasn't tried setting up a ring of automated servers across the country that simply send er, terminologically-enhanced e-mail to one another. This would certainly give the NSA something to sniff about.
Yo its credit, groups like the ACLU do keep an eye on abuses like this. If there's a legitimate case here, I'd venture to say that they'll become involved. Fortunately, the fed is still subject to the judicial process, just like all the rest of us.
Sometimes the term "legal," especially with respect to issues involving CIVIL matters, is somewhat subjective. Based on legal precedent, there are definite activities or behaviors that we can classify as "illegal" in the sense that they violate someone's rights (discrimination, for example). Here's the deal, though- it's not illegal until it's deemed as such by a court of law. Just because a court hasn't declared Echelon (or certain related activities) illegal, doesn't mean that this is something that will never happen. For one thing, due to Echelon's shroud of secrecy, the courts have never had the opportunity to make any such determination.
Re:Actually doing something?
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
That's one way to go about it, but the beauty of my suggestion is that to make it work, you don't spend money - you save it. Stop buying CDs and paying for concert tickets to see artists supported by the RIAA. Encourage others to do the same. This is about as grass roots as you can get, and it's at the very start of the money chain.
So as not to appear hypocritical, I've been doing this for some time now.
We have one of the most powerful rights already!
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
We have the right to spend our money any way we see fit. If it doesn't include any RIAA-affiliated entities, well, too bad.
The best part about this is that unlike pirating MP3's, it's perfectly legal, and, with enough support, it can bring the RIAA to its knees. But as long as people keep buying, the RIAA will continue on its merry way, and NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
I was using g++ on Redhat 5.1 (soon to be 6.0). I Hehe...between the way that slashdot munges text by default, and the hurry that I seemed to have been in, it came out rather sloppy. I also spelled one occurrence of "mystring" incorrectly. I'll have to be more careful. : )
All you have to do is include one common library, and the size skyrocket. To wit: #include #include int main (void) { string *mytring = new string ("hello world."); cout *mystring endl; } This produces a file that's 577K.
Well, two out of three isn't bad. If Microsoft is behind the license, "saving money" isn't the first thing that comes to mind. StarOffice is another matter altogether.
But even so, I see this a blind acceptance of this by the general user community as somewhat shortsighted. Let's say I have one-year license with an internet service vendor, that "serves" either StarOffice, or the stuff from Microsoft. As soon as I terminate my license, access to any documents I've created using the software is effectively terminated. I may be able to import them into another software package, but this is far from foolproof.
Privacy is another concern. Companies with the required resources can run their own servers, but what about individuals who use the software as service provided by an ISV? With software running on a local machine, at least the TCP stream can be monitored to determine exactly what's being sent, and where. If the software is running on a central server, there's no way to tell what's going on.
I can certainly understand the appeal of this technology, but I'd tend to think that it might lock people into a particular platform. Additionally, if customers *knew* that the potential exists for monitoring everything they do, would it be just as viable?
The thing that really yanks my chain is when Gates can stand up there in front of the media and make the rather bold claim that Microsoft's actions have resulted in "lower prices for consumers." It's not hard to figure out that while the price/performance ratio of computer hardware has undergone several major shifts in favor of the consumer, Microsoft's products haven't seen anything that comes even CLOSE. In fact, because of the excessive bloat often associated with Microsoft products, it might not be unfair to suggest that if anything, Microsoft has *increased* the cost to consumers, since each successive upgrade seems to require more resources in terms of CPU speed, memory, and storage.
There is a *significant* distinction between C and C++. If a CGI that is heavily reliant on string manipulation is written C, then yes...there may be some unintentional inefficiencies in the C code that may result is poorer performance. But with C++, where a string *class* is used (where member functions that perform string manipulation are highly optimized), I'd be willing to bet that it could equal or better anything PERL could do.
Deja? Really? I stopped using it because I got so tired of waiting 25-30 seconds for *each message* to appear, while waiting for all the crap to download that makes up a typical Deja web page. For people with access to a high-speed connection, it's no big deal, but for everyone else, it's infuriating. Now I use Infoseek - not quite as robust as Deja, but very functional, and MUCH faster.
Come on...I'd like to see this guy name one "supermodel," or one "beautiful" person, whose alleged beauty advanced the plight of mankind to even the smallest degree. Think Einstein Think Newton, and others. Were THEY "beautiful"? Would anyone have selected THEM based on their looks in such an auction? Probably not. But their contributions were IMMENSE.
Personally, I can't think of anything more TRITE than the idea of selecting a genetic makeup based on physical appearance - or for that matter, anyone more stupid than those willing to do so.
Did you happen to see this on one of the linked pages?
To place an order, or to acquire information on our Remote PC monitoring software for authorized government agencies
I thought this was rather hypocritical after detailing how worrisome it is that anyone (including Big Brother) with a little knowledge of electronics, can monitor you non-invasively, and with impunity.
Each of your arguments are beside the point. It's the needs of the consumer that will drive the success or failure of a software application, whether it's free or not. There's no end to the kinds of things people want to be able to do, and each successive upgrade generates more ideas, and more ways to make the software do more than it did previously. So, to some extent, consumers are driving the poor quality of commercial software. Commercial developers are simply responding to what consumers want, and to some extent, what they're willing to put up with.
Does this mean that buggy software should be the accepted norm? No. But consumers have to make a choice...that can have what they want *now*, under the premise that it will be reasonably functional (but not bug free), or they can wait just to the left of forever until every possible hardware/software configuration has been tested, and it has been determined that the application is 100% bulletproof. Of course, by then, it will be obsolete anyway.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of consumers would rather pay $99, $129, or whatever for the next upgrade to their proprietary software, so that they can have the newest features *now*, rather than wait for the same feature to amble its way into a free software package - IF it even gets there.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally have never purchased anything from Amazon, mostly because I can usually find what I'm looking for elsehere (Barnes & Noble, or Book-a-Million), and for less. Now it looks like I have another reason.
I don't understand why everyone keeps commenting about child labor. The article doesn't mention anything about the kid actually WORKING, much less accomplishing anything meaningful. Let's SEE one of his little Powerpoint "presentations." This whole thing is rediculous. Show me a three-year-old Linux programmer, and THEN I'll be impressed.
If We the People (to use an american-centric word) don't pass legislation that fines companies loads of money Why count on politicians whose ethics are every bit as corrupt? We don't need government telling them they can't do this - WE need to tell them, by refusing any further patronage. No money, no company.
But unless this information is being used against you in some way, why do you care? How will you know? If someone can tap on a few keys, and have at their disposal an instant, individual profile, how will you have any idea if anything they're seeing is biasing their response to you?
If you're going to be subjected to all sorts of inane advertising, wouldn't you rather it be about something which you might be interested in?
Nope. I buy what I want, when I want, based on what *I* know about the market, *not* what the market thinks it knows about me. This, in my opinion, is how it should be. The way that companies are marketing to consumers is turning consumers into a bunch of brain-dead spend-droids, who it seems, are more than willing to respond: "I see, I like, I buy." Immediacy. Gotta have it.
In a sense, this says just as much about the vast abyss of unethical corporate behavior, as it does about how much we really care about it. We're so wrapped up in our immediate, consumeristic, material greed that we're literally selling our souls to the devil in order to get our fix.
It privacy really means anything, we *can* get it back - but it will take something that few people are willing to exercise these days: DISCIPLINE. Find out which companies are using the services of companies like Axciom - and DO NOT BUY FROM THEM. PERIOD. Will it mean inconvience? Probably. Will it mean foregoing some of life's immediate "pleasures"? Probably. The bottom line is this: what does ANY of this mean if you can't live with any sense of dignity, knowing that to someone on the other end of the phone, you're nothing but a summary, a profile, a collection of life-events that is really none of their damned business?
I saw an edition of one of the morning talk shows where this 14-year-old kid was expelled for calling a bomb threat into his school (with no intention of actually planting one). This was NOT a smart thing to do, but it was a LAST DITCH EFFORT to get someone to listen and respond to his problem. As he explains it, he spent two months being taunted and regularly beaten by a group of bullies at his school. Initially, he did exactly as he was supposed to - he told his father, who then contacted the school. The school administrators, now aware of the problem, assured him that they would take care of it. Uh-huh. After the bullies were supposedly "talked to," the situation only became worse, with no end in sight. It's not the least bit *suprising* that something like this could end up happening. Have the brain-dead teachers, psychologists, and administrators learned *NOTHING* from the incident at Columbine?
The *response* is isn't the problem...it's a SYMPTOM of a bureaucracy that REFUSES to exercise even the slightest bit of competence when it comes to shool discipline. God forbid we put a school's athletic performance at risk by demanding that the jocks (often -but not always- the perpetrators) abide by a few rules, and be held accountable when they don't.
So, let them profile away. Let them demontrate even MORE incompetence. I just hope they try not to look too stupid while standing there with their heads up their asses the next time someone is pushed over the edge, wondering what happened.
How on earth can you draw any meaningful comparison between Jack Van Impe and George Orwell??? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I turn this guy on late at night *only* if I want a good laugh.
You've touched on some points I didn't even consider. It does seem likely that both outright encryption and the use of techniques like Steganography would add significantly to the overhead required to make some determination as to any potential threat imposed by a message's content. And, it would seem, there's no real way to tell if any given image contains any "steganographied" content. This suggests that the use of "decoy" images may increase the overhead even further.
I'm surprised someone hasn't tried setting up a ring of automated servers across the country that simply send er, terminologically-enhanced e-mail to one another. This would certainly give the NSA something to sniff about.
Yo its credit, groups like the ACLU do keep an eye on abuses like this. If there's a legitimate case here, I'd venture to say that they'll become involved. Fortunately, the fed is still subject to the judicial process, just like all the rest of us.
Sometimes the term "legal," especially with respect to issues involving CIVIL matters, is somewhat subjective. Based on legal precedent, there are definite activities or behaviors that we can classify as "illegal" in the sense that they violate someone's rights (discrimination, for example). Here's the deal, though- it's not illegal until it's deemed as such by a court of law. Just because a court hasn't declared Echelon (or certain related activities) illegal, doesn't mean that this is something that will never happen. For one thing, due to Echelon's shroud of secrecy, the courts have never had the opportunity to make any such determination.
That's one way to go about it, but the beauty of my suggestion is that to make it work, you don't spend money - you save it. Stop buying CDs and paying for concert tickets to see artists supported by the RIAA. Encourage others to do the same. This is about as grass roots as you can get, and it's at the very start of the money chain.
So as not to appear hypocritical, I've been doing this for some time now.
We have the right to spend our money any way we see fit. If it doesn't include any RIAA-affiliated entities, well, too bad.
The best part about this is that unlike pirating MP3's, it's perfectly legal, and, with enough support, it can bring the RIAA to its knees. But as long as people keep buying, the RIAA will continue on its merry way, and NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
I was using g++ on Redhat 5.1 (soon to be 6.0). I Hehe...between the way that slashdot munges text by default, and the hurry that I seemed to have been in, it came out rather sloppy. I also spelled one occurrence of "mystring" incorrectly. I'll have to be more careful. : )
All you have to do is include one common library, and the size skyrocket. To wit:
#include
#include
int main (void) {
string *mytring = new string ("hello world.");
cout *mystring endl;
}
This produces a file that's 577K.
All you have to do is include one common library, and the size skyrocket. To wit: #include #include int main (void) { string *mytring = new string ("hello world."); cout *mystring endl; } This produces a file that's 577K.
You're right. Any doofus knows the correction pronunciation of Windows: it's "WINE-dohs".
But even so, I see this a blind acceptance of this by the general user community as somewhat shortsighted. Let's say I have one-year license with an internet service vendor, that "serves" either StarOffice, or the stuff from Microsoft. As soon as I terminate my license, access to any documents I've created using the software is effectively terminated. I may be able to import them into another software package, but this is far from foolproof.
Privacy is another concern. Companies with the required resources can run their own servers, but what about individuals who use the software as service provided by an ISV? With software running on a local machine, at least the TCP stream can be monitored to determine exactly what's being sent, and where. If the software is running on a central server, there's no way to tell what's going on.
I can certainly understand the appeal of this technology, but I'd tend to think that it might lock people into a particular platform. Additionally, if customers *knew* that the potential exists for monitoring everything they do, would it be just as viable?
The thing that really yanks my chain is when Gates can stand up there in front of the media and make the rather bold claim that Microsoft's actions have resulted in "lower prices for consumers." It's not hard to figure out that while the price/performance ratio of computer hardware has undergone several major shifts in favor of the consumer, Microsoft's products haven't seen anything that comes even CLOSE. In fact, because of the excessive bloat often associated with Microsoft products, it might not be unfair to suggest that if anything, Microsoft has *increased* the cost to consumers, since each successive upgrade seems to require more resources in terms of CPU speed, memory, and storage.
Having done something similar as a teenager, I've been on both side of this fence, and they both have their own little hell to contend with.
There is a *significant* distinction between C and C++. If a CGI that is heavily reliant on string manipulation is written C, then yes...there may be some unintentional inefficiencies in the C code that may result is poorer performance. But with C++, where a string *class* is used (where member functions that perform string manipulation are highly optimized), I'd be willing to bet that it could equal or better anything PERL could do.
Deja? Really? I stopped using it because I got so tired of waiting 25-30 seconds for *each message* to appear, while waiting for all the crap to download that makes up a typical Deja web page. For people with access to a high-speed connection, it's no big deal, but for everyone else, it's infuriating. Now I use Infoseek - not quite as robust as Deja, but very functional, and MUCH faster.
Come on...I'd like to see this guy name one "supermodel," or one "beautiful" person, whose alleged beauty advanced the plight of mankind to even the smallest degree. Think Einstein Think Newton, and others. Were THEY "beautiful"? Would anyone have selected THEM based on their looks in such an auction? Probably not. But their contributions were IMMENSE.
Personally, I can't think of anything more TRITE than the idea of selecting a genetic makeup based on physical appearance - or for that matter, anyone more stupid than those willing to do so.
To place an order, or to acquire information on our Remote PC monitoring software for authorized government agencies
I thought this was rather hypocritical after detailing how worrisome it is that anyone (including Big Brother) with a little knowledge of electronics, can monitor you non-invasively, and with impunity.
Each of your arguments are beside the point. It's the needs of the consumer that will drive the success or failure of a software application, whether it's free or not. There's no end to the kinds of things people want to be able to do, and each successive upgrade generates more ideas, and more ways to make the software do more than it did previously. So, to some extent, consumers are driving the poor quality of commercial software. Commercial developers are simply responding to what consumers want, and to some extent, what they're willing to put up with.
Does this mean that buggy software should be the accepted norm? No. But consumers have to make a choice...that can have what they want *now*, under the premise that it will be reasonably functional (but not bug free), or they can wait just to the left of forever until every possible hardware/software configuration has been tested, and it has been determined that the application is 100% bulletproof. Of course, by then, it will be obsolete anyway.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of consumers would rather pay $99, $129, or whatever for the next upgrade to their proprietary software, so that they can have the newest features *now*, rather than wait for the same feature to amble its way into a free software package - IF it even gets there.