I'm fine with that, and am mindful of what I publish. My point was there is such a thing as oversharing. You can minimize what is data mined by engaging the platform to a limited extent.
Except I don't use heroin to keep in touch with friends, and, unless you can provide a platform that is not subject to data mining, I see little choice. I have friends and family that live abroad. Platforms such as Facebook puts staying in touch at fingertips.
Because those avenues are NOT data mined? Well, to give you a straight answer, it's because of what the other poster said. By not adopting the tools everyone else around you utilizes to communicate, you get left behind basically. So you do your best to control what you share, with the assumption that EVERYTHING you share is data mined.
I'm acutely aware of that. My point wasn't to say I am not being data mined, but by being mindful of the data I choose to share, I can curtail some of it. So what social platform can I migrate over if I want to stay in touch with my family and friends that live abroad?
Social platforms are far from being the only entity that do this, so to call them out on this merit is short-sighted. The reality is you cannot shield yourself completely from what you correctly identified, but you can take steps to limit what you share.
I suppose I should have provided this context to begin with.
I use Facebook. None of what Stephen talks about applies to me. I use Facebook to strictly keep in touch with close friends and family. I don't click on ads, I don't click on videos, I don't post pictures of my breakfast, lunch, dinner. I don't have my profile publicly available. I am extremely strict with whom is on my list of friends and what I share. Social media platforms are tools and they can easily be misused. Their misuse is the issue, not their existence.
Social networks are what you make of them. I have not read his essay, but from OP alone it seems to me that there's a distinction to be made here, between "doing it right" and "doing it wrong".
Ok, so you can't fire a gun in the air, I am OK with that, it makes sense. Would it legally be permissible to fire an EMP pulse at the craft, disabling it, assuming this was done in a moment the drone did not poze a hazard by becoming a falling object? I'd be interested to see whether or not EMP-gun DIY guides will emerge eventually as a response to more drones popping up. If your drone is on my property, flying low, it's mine.
I'm a licensed claim rep. Your scenario with the car inching forward to go then stopping because they changed their mind, doesn't have negligence. Negligence rests on the vehicle behind 100%, and that negligence is assigned for driving forward and yet not looking there. Negligence assigned for assumption that the car in front actually completed the maneuver. Negligence assigned for the duty owed to maintain proper following distance. While it does take two to cause an accident, your kind of mentality leaves us in a world where rarely is anyone never at fault. You can't assign negligence by sheer fact of someone being at the scene of the accident.
There's just too many DIY options out there for self monitoring to make it worth paying somebody else to do what the owner can themselves. But then again there certainly are different needs for different people.
For example EyezOn has a module called Envisalink 3 which works with DSC and Honeywell security systems: it makes them accessible via the web and alerts can be sent via text/email to a number of contacts for a number of events. I've had the module for about a year now, picked it up for around $130, it was easy to install and I am very happy with it.
Just throwing it out there.
Nobody made an appeal to authority; that is a logical fallacy. This isn't about committees either, it's about the data and the hard evidence and where that evidence points to. Thus far evolution is the best model we have that has been derived from the available evidence.
Exactly my point. There is a distinction between a theory colloquially speaking and a scientific theory. Many opponents of the theory of evolution do not understand or refuse to acknowledge this distinction. My post was a poe.
I understand your point of view, but why do you feel this is owed by the insurance company?
The insurance company owes the policyholder indemnity, and that is, the cost to repair the vehicle.
The policyholder has the ultimate say who does the repair. The insurance company paid for an OE airbag replacement. The shop (most likely) unknowingly put the counterfeit in.
It is between the owner of the vehicle and the body shop at that point.
I am considering deleting G+ but the one thing holding me back is the fear Picasa will be affected. Has yours been affected in any way? Have ANY other services been affected?
Perfect example of gaming the Amazon review system.
Product has only one review, by a user which only has 2 reviews, both for the same product and company.
Honestly if you think that you can buy yourself the ability to track the location of ANY cell phone, arbitrarily, for a mere 1.99, I suppose it is completely out of the question to expect such an individual to actually read the description of something he is about to pay for.
Apple is not acting unprofessional here. The app is clearly marked as a prank, functions as a prank and does everything outlined in a make-believe fashion.
And here comes government to save the idiots from themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Keep in touch with friends and family as one lives abroad is much better done via pen, paper and snail mail.
I'm fine with that, and am mindful of what I publish. My point was there is such a thing as oversharing. You can minimize what is data mined by engaging the platform to a limited extent.
Except I don't use heroin to keep in touch with friends, and, unless you can provide a platform that is not subject to data mining, I see little choice. I have friends and family that live abroad. Platforms such as Facebook puts staying in touch at fingertips.
Because those avenues are NOT data mined? Well, to give you a straight answer, it's because of what the other poster said. By not adopting the tools everyone else around you utilizes to communicate, you get left behind basically. So you do your best to control what you share, with the assumption that EVERYTHING you share is data mined.
I'm acutely aware of that. My point wasn't to say I am not being data mined, but by being mindful of the data I choose to share, I can curtail some of it. So what social platform can I migrate over if I want to stay in touch with my family and friends that live abroad?
Social platforms are far from being the only entity that do this, so to call them out on this merit is short-sighted. The reality is you cannot shield yourself completely from what you correctly identified, but you can take steps to limit what you share.
I suppose I should have provided this context to begin with. I use Facebook. None of what Stephen talks about applies to me. I use Facebook to strictly keep in touch with close friends and family. I don't click on ads, I don't click on videos, I don't post pictures of my breakfast, lunch, dinner. I don't have my profile publicly available. I am extremely strict with whom is on my list of friends and what I share. Social media platforms are tools and they can easily be misused. Their misuse is the issue, not their existence.
Social networks are what you make of them. I have not read his essay, but from OP alone it seems to me that there's a distinction to be made here, between "doing it right" and "doing it wrong".
Ok, so you can't fire a gun in the air, I am OK with that, it makes sense. Would it legally be permissible to fire an EMP pulse at the craft, disabling it, assuming this was done in a moment the drone did not poze a hazard by becoming a falling object? I'd be interested to see whether or not EMP-gun DIY guides will emerge eventually as a response to more drones popping up. If your drone is on my property, flying low, it's mine.
I'm a licensed claim rep. Your scenario with the car inching forward to go then stopping because they changed their mind, doesn't have negligence. Negligence rests on the vehicle behind 100%, and that negligence is assigned for driving forward and yet not looking there. Negligence assigned for assumption that the car in front actually completed the maneuver. Negligence assigned for the duty owed to maintain proper following distance. While it does take two to cause an accident, your kind of mentality leaves us in a world where rarely is anyone never at fault. You can't assign negligence by sheer fact of someone being at the scene of the accident.
Evidence. That's what matters. Not insistence.
There's just too many DIY options out there for self monitoring to make it worth paying somebody else to do what the owner can themselves. But then again there certainly are different needs for different people. For example EyezOn has a module called Envisalink 3 which works with DSC and Honeywell security systems: it makes them accessible via the web and alerts can be sent via text/email to a number of contacts for a number of events. I've had the module for about a year now, picked it up for around $130, it was easy to install and I am very happy with it. Just throwing it out there.
You've got access to the internet, take the initiative and I'll save you your attempt to employ genetic fallacies and question begging.
Nobody made an appeal to authority; that is a logical fallacy. This isn't about committees either, it's about the data and the hard evidence and where that evidence points to. Thus far evolution is the best model we have that has been derived from the available evidence.
Exactly my point. There is a distinction between a theory colloquially speaking and a scientific theory. Many opponents of the theory of evolution do not understand or refuse to acknowledge this distinction. My post was a poe.
Oh, you mean a SCIENTIFIC theory? Then in that case it's a conspiracy of mass proportion. My god trumps your heathen lies.
Out of that third, some do have that science education and reject it anyway in favor of various delusional world views.
I understand your point of view, but why do you feel this is owed by the insurance company? The insurance company owes the policyholder indemnity, and that is, the cost to repair the vehicle. The policyholder has the ultimate say who does the repair. The insurance company paid for an OE airbag replacement. The shop (most likely) unknowingly put the counterfeit in. It is between the owner of the vehicle and the body shop at that point.
Here is the link. http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIView_Class/UIView/UIView.html%23//apple_ref/occ/instp/UIView/autoresizingMask
If you are talking about iOS as I believe you are, that is not true. See mccodemonkey's post above. iOS has supported dynamic positioning since iOS 2.
I am considering deleting G+ but the one thing holding me back is the fear Picasa will be affected. Has yours been affected in any way? Have ANY other services been affected?
If by simplifying editing procedures you mean getting rid of the untouchable wiki nazi admins, there may be hope still.
Perfect example of gaming the Amazon review system. Product has only one review, by a user which only has 2 reviews, both for the same product and company.
Rather than addressing individual apps/con jobs, you'd rather apply a blanket rule over all. How can that possibly go wrong?
Honestly if you think that you can buy yourself the ability to track the location of ANY cell phone, arbitrarily, for a mere 1.99, I suppose it is completely out of the question to expect such an individual to actually read the description of something he is about to pay for. Apple is not acting unprofessional here. The app is clearly marked as a prank, functions as a prank and does everything outlined in a make-believe fashion. And here comes government to save the idiots from themselves.