PTSD treatments include re-living the memory with small changes, like being aware that you are in a safe environment. You remember, modifying the memory and putting it back changed. A few courses later, the memory is not as strong, or doesn't trigger PTSD for some other reason.
Memory is hardly a secure, safe storage mechanism. It's almost quantum - doing anything to it can change it. Or you can remember things that never happened.
So yeah, you can bypass the duration limit, but at the risk of data loss. Use it or lose it, you break it you buy it.
It's hard to generalize. Open source was scary and forbidden, mostly because SCO and similar lawsuits. Now, we have former developers in key roles, and open source is encouraged.
Big companies nothing, you just have to get the right people into the right role, in every company, to make the change.
You misunderstood the post, and took one line out of it that you had a personal exception to.
The people who would make deals with record labels are the ones that don't need them, and would make money playing live. If you're not good enough or visible enough to be noticed by a record label, you are not in the position to decline a label offer, and are not really the intended audience for that particular bit.
The remainder stands - if you want to do your own promotion, you can. IF you want to make a deal with a label so they do the hard work and take your money, you can also do that.
Ticketmaster does a lot of work with their infrastructure of participating venues, and they get paid in the form of the ticketmaster tax. The labels do work and get paid by claiming you're not profitable.
Not everyone will get enough steam to quit their day job, this is true of any group, label or not. When you have a name and can draw crowds, the money will follow.
I'm caught in the loop where the people I want to see are expensive because of the label and ticketmaster costs, so I've only seen a few live shows. I'll catch the random guy in a bar, who gets money based on a percentage of alcohol sales and doesn't have to sell tickets. And I'll throw some bills in his hat to make it worth his while, if he's good. Lots of people in the area have fun, play good music, and get paid well enough to keep their equipment in good shape without dealing with either large or small scale production problems you list here.
1) Not everyone gets print resources from work 2) While many people prefer old-school, printing on demand instead of making a trip is convenient 3) Not everyone is set up to accept electronic docs. I have had to print, sign, fax several times in the past 2 months 4) 10km is a lot to go out of your way
In short, your life seems to have a natural lack of requirement for a printer. And your built in assumptions suggest that you know why someone might need one, but you assume that somehow your circumstance applies to others despite making assumptions.
My grandparents used to print e-mails and read them, then write letters to reply. My mom regularly prints e-mails, despite knowing they can be retrieved at any time, so they can be next to the calendar. I have an e-Reader, and still print some small documents so I have them in easily accessible form while multitasking.
People buy a desktop printer because they want one, that's your answer. They have processes and workflows and ways of thinking, and perhaps a lack of trying to figure out how not to print anything, that won't necessarily make sense to you.
Of course, I chose a black and white laser printer instead of a color inkjet, so the cost of ink is irrelevant. I don't know what you mean by replacement parts, I will need new toner occasionally but haven't yet. Paper also bought in bulk, not had to re-supply yet. Warranties and headache? Not had to deal with them.
In short, your post is a classic example of "If I can figure out how to live without it, why wouldn't anyone else?" And a few minutes of introspection would answer the question.
It's actually a free Universal Construction Kit, if you check out the Things, they are "uck's Things" and the URL us http://www.thingiverse.com/uck/things/
You can make a big deal about the acronym if you want, as they are probably hoping for free press. Or you can ignore that part, silently giggling when you think of all the lawsuits that will likely include the full acronym, capitalizing 'Free' and including it.
Yes, it would be too obvious. To make it less obvious and more useful, include information about who is making the "not allowed" decision. Is it local law or ordinance? Or the broadcasters colluding somehow? Or has it just always been that way?
If I were in charge of broadcasting, I would have a hard time breaking the convention, regardless of whose decision it is, making it de facto, and mostly to avoid getting letters from parents who have more time to write letters than monitor their children. Because chances are, win or lose, I might end up with a lawsuit filed by parents who have more time to spend annoying me than monitoring their children.
It was too consistent to be compiler intrinsics, but not consistent enough to be straight assembly. That's the impression I got from the original blog post.
No question it would have been possible, but given the rest of the code was compiled in MSVC it made sense that some sort of macro, framework, toolkit, or something was in between the course and the output.
To tag along - it's hard to tell data from code, and it helps the decompiling app to detect what is code vs. data if it knows which compiler created it.
It looks like the original blog used IDA Pro, which has library signatures for different compilers. It can identify functions and auto-comment the code, making disassembly easier. Auto-identify stack variables and keep track of them through lots of PUSH and POP and RETURN X statements, it's quite powerful.
In this case, IDA probably gave a lot of erroneous warnings or disassembled data or refused to disassemble code, requiring lots of manual work. The classes apparently were done inconsistently, making it hard to even write a plug-in to automatically detect them (scripts exist to identify MSVC objects through their RTTI properties, and do a decent job identifying non-RTTI classes, but this would not work with this code).
When reverse engineering, and your tool basically says "WTF do I do with this?" it's one of those moments where you want to know how the attacker made it.
Is it hand-rolled? Or a new attack creation kit that script kiddies can cobble something together using?
And "unknown language" was not a really good way to describe it. "Unrecognized output" would have been better. The assumption is that a language like C would compile to a C-like syntax, C++ would do things differently. But it could have been just C++ with an unknown compiler.
Because entertainment is how sheeple are distracted from actual news. The Friday afternoon bombshell leak, which goes unreported or unnoticed because by Monday morning some celebrity got arrested or awarded for something, or died, and that takes over the airwaves.
I don't believe this myself, but it's as good a theory as any.
The real answer lies in some of the decisions around copyright and ACTA/SOPA/PIPA. Patents protect things that the government wants to be public domain for economic reasons, allowing business to profit from a temporary monopoly followed by a boon in generics. Extending copyright means increased export of copyright goods, it's a simple economic valuation. So I can sum it up in two words:
trade deficit
Reduce buying of cheap Chinese goods, and I guarantee you the support for long copyright will wane among national level politicians. Include oil imports as well (even if we are a net exporter we can still balance trade by reducing imports), and you have no incentive to sustain the long copyright.
While you are correct about "caffeine has been shown to treat the effects of ADHD", you missed the part about "I'm extremely sensitive to caffeine..."
Caffeine does wake me up, but on a cold day the heat of coffee will make me want to take a nap. One of the more effective ways of napping is to drink coffee and then nap. Set your alarm for +15 minutes. A power nap will recharge you, and that's about the time the caffeine will kick in. And if you're really tired, and don't set an alarm, you may get deep enough into sleep that caffeine doesn't wake you immediately.
I won't beat you over the head with the reading comprehension and e-diagnosis bits this time.
I'll add that it is not $0.65, but half a Euro. If the experiment were done in USD, 50 cents would likely be the answer, or 0.7643 Euro (the most recent conversion). It's a nice, round number, and at the amounts they were studying people are unlikely to do percentages in their heads to find an exact number of cents.
I already ranted about this bit above, but since yours is such a good post, I figured this might be a better place to leave it.
Comply, then drive 250 MPH in a school zone (preferably on a non-school day), then move, then dye your hair, put in colored contacts, break both legs and separate the bones by half an inch and let it fill in. And legally change your name.
Then, only your age will be valid, and you can solve that through clever use of relativity. Exercise left to the reader.
You said essentially the same thing as gp post. The only differences are
1) You seem to assume that anything you don't explicitly give out won't be associated or discerned by what you did give 2) You said you try to be careful, on which gp did not take a position
Being careful should also go hand in hand with not making assumptions without something to go on, making these incompatible.
You can still live your life assuming that everyone knows everything about you, and also be careful about who you tell. Telling would simply be confirmation, but it is best avoided if possible.
I could prattle on all day. Yes targeted advertising is nice, but there's a line past which it becomes intrusive. We are hiding from all the things that could go wrong, not what could go right.
Worst case, I shop for myself locally and shop online for presents because friends and family are not in my city. Even 20 minutes away, it's easier to have Amazon ship it directly. So Amazon has a really strange idea of what I like. It does not do a good job making suggestions for gifts for other people because my apparent 20 personalities are not all compatible.
A guy I know is a lawyer who focuses on DUI cases. We were talking about website ideas, and he mentioned that he does a lot of research on laws and the sorts of questions that come up here all the time. Depending on where he is, he frequently gets "Do you need a DUI lawyer?" adverts from some guy 4 or 5 states away. Some advertising network has him marked as a DUI arrestee now. That could pose a problem for someone whose career in part depends on maintaining good standing with the law. This would be easy to explain, but getting in a position where it has to be explained is not good.
On FaceBook (I don't use it any more, nuked my profile), I went through all of the profile and privacy settings, clicking each drop-down to see what the least intrusive option was. Apparently I selected "Interested in.. men". I didn't change it when I realized it a few weeks later because I thought it was funny. Then I got all gay all the time on the adverts that pop up. Finally switched it to women (that did not modify their advertising settings - I had to e-mail support and have them change something else to un-set my advertising preference). The only other option is not setting it blank, but switching to "interested in women". Now I get "Lonely and need a woman who looks exactly like the person in this photo doesn't?" ads, no exception. I'm interested in women, but I'm certainly not using FaceBook for that purpose, and even if I were I'd want to find real women who live near me, not whatever it is behind those ads. Adverts dealing with my posts or my friends' posts, like gmail's ads, would be understandable. But if the profile says "single male interested in women" apparently that sends a stronger message than "I just ate a chimichanga, perhaps I might like mexican restaurant coupons."
And then there's the story of the Target advert sending pregnancy item discounts to a 15-year-old's house. The father was irate that Target would mis-identify his daughter as pregnant, when in reality a clever association of products correctly identified her. There are some things you would prefer that the store either not know about you, or not divulge. Like if I go in to the doctor's office and have a hemorrhoid lanced, I don't want to see the nurse at a restaurant and be asked if I need tome Preparation H because there's a sale at Penny's. She knows, I know, I know she knows, but we just don't mention it.
For 10-15% off, people routinely sign up for business-specific credit cards, like your gas station card, clothing stores, similar 'membership' types like loyalty cards (not a credit card, but an ID that gets scanned for discounts). This was well known before, and the only thing this study does is re-word it poorly.
The study did not actually measure the worth of privacy, invalidating the assumption underlying your question. People will change their behavior for a percentage off, not for a set amount.
If your suggestion got implemented, there would be accounting and lawsuits to ensure the books weren't cooked, and I'm sure it would be handled in exactly the same way that the MAFIAA calculate profit sharing to ensure you don't get paid except as a last resort.
You can certainly try asking for money, and get rejected. You are providing the information, they are doing useful and financially lucrative things with it, so it is of value to them, but not enough to give you a kickback.
Or to put it another way, you assume that because you get no money that no one believes you are owed. Perhaps they do, and because this all started without peoples' knowledge it was just never implemented. And no one gives out money that they don't have to as part of a business plan. Even stock dividends, which are the closest thing to free money I can think of, are strategic incentives to maintain the stock's value.
Plus, you have no leverage. The only way to make the data meaningless is to either go off the grid or die. You are probably gong to continue living and purchasing, and that information will turn into a mountain of data to either keep you engaged or offer you more stuff. You could easily make the argument that targeted advertising, instead of sending plus sized women's catalogs to single men (unless they specifically request that sort of thing, NTTAWWT) you can send more relevant offers. You are being paid in the form of more interesting offers, and less junk.
If you're going to complain, the currency conversion would make a better target..50 Euro number seems like a psychological barrier, not value-based. I would expect 50 cents to be the magic number in USA , or on the high side a dollar. If the same test were done in USD, it would not come out to 65 cents (and fluctuate with the daily rates).
And, the conclusion in the summary is wrong, that it is worth half a Euro. That just happens to be one of the numbers they tried - they didn't isolate it to a penny by re-testing with different numbers and it magically came in at a nice round number. The conclusion is that *approximately* 50 cents, or 10-15% off, is enough to get someone to add more info, not that it is worth that much.
I pay what I want for games, and the game studios don't like that. To people like me, they are overcharging, and then trying to shut down the second-hand market where I can pay what I feel is fair.
I try to buy older games that are still 'new' (not used). If the GameStop guy says they have the same thing used, for less, I politely decline. I want the studios to see what I am willing to pay. Of course, they probably never see the numbers, but they are getting money from my purchase.
If I can't find it old, I'll get it used. If I can't get it used, I'll borrow it from someone at work.
The demand curves they use are not complicated enough to account for these, at least it doesn't appear to be that way. Games kept going up in price, and $60 is the accepted value, not some demand curve based on pre-release anticipation. If they really took that into account, we would see more variation in pricing. Instead, we have the mentality of "If it's less than $60 it's because no one wants it" trap that the companies created by all setting that price as the standard.
I'm sure it's carefully researched, but I would say that places like GameStop put more effort into the pricing curves, based on the highly variable pricing. I found ICO for PS2 after years of looking, and it was $40, just a year ago. For a 10 year old game, and it's currently $70 on Amazon. That is demand pricing, not "Almost everything is $60 because that's the magic number". Yes there are cheaper titles for niche games, but anything targeted to the main gaming audience hits the magic number.
And I would have made the exact post you did in almost any other industry. It's the basics of economic theory, ECON 101. But I don't see it in practice in this industry. Which is why I take every opportunity to set my own prices.
Not true. It's in a tie for last place with about half of the summaries I've read. The others are tied for second, with the first place award being withheld.
I have had this argument before, and it's funny how people can accept the premise that there is a creator. Not necessarily believing in one, just accepting for the sake of argument. And that it can create out of nothing a giant sandwich, and that it is capable of eating at least a sandwich but not necessarily this one.
But having gotten this far, they get hung up on the fact that the sandwich either can or cannot be eaten. If all of the rest is possible, why can't both things be possible?
An all-powerful being should be able to to the impossible, have two mutually exclusive things be true at the same time.
My new response, aka what I should have said, is that an omnipotent being is capable of doing things that defy logic.
I figure if you have enough alcohol in you to be driving poorly enough to get pulled over, you are probably drunk and way over the 0.08.
Statistically, the number of drunk drivers on the road is greater than the number pulled over (for any reason, drunk or not they are shitty drivers). The number of drunk drivers who cause an accident is lower than the number on the road. The numer who cause an injury accident is lower than the ones who cause an accident, which could include a single vehicle. The number who cause a fatal accident is lower than that.
If you are involved in an accident, and anyone has had alcohol greater than the local limit, alcohol is considered a factor and included in "drunk driving" statistics. This is the opposite of what you are claiming, that anyone driving poorly should be pulled over.
If you are absolutely shitfaced, and drive your car into a snowbank on a snowy night, the prosecution should be required to prove that the snow was not a factor in your accident, under the "innocent until proven guilty" premise. The current laws we have now say that even if you are an obese alcoholic who doesn't even feel a buzz until you are at twice the legal limit as measured by an individual-agnostic alcohol concentration, you are legally impaired.
Even more, you can consent to all kinds of things and sign all kinds of things which normally would be invalidated if the individual were proven to be impaired at the time. But the prosecution relies on you legally agreeing to things, often in writing, to prove that you were not legally able to consent to those things.
Getting pulled over is not always when a DUI starts, it is often an after effect of an accident.
Slashdot Mirror
PTSD treatments include re-living the memory with small changes, like being aware that you are in a safe environment. You remember, modifying the memory and putting it back changed. A few courses later, the memory is not as strong, or doesn't trigger PTSD for some other reason.
Memory is hardly a secure, safe storage mechanism. It's almost quantum - doing anything to it can change it. Or you can remember things that never happened.
So yeah, you can bypass the duration limit, but at the risk of data loss. Use it or lose it, you break it you buy it.
It's hard to generalize. Open source was scary and forbidden, mostly because SCO and similar lawsuits. Now, we have former developers in key roles, and open source is encouraged.
Big companies nothing, you just have to get the right people into the right role, in every company, to make the change.
You misunderstood the post, and took one line out of it that you had a personal exception to.
The people who would make deals with record labels are the ones that don't need them, and would make money playing live. If you're not good enough or visible enough to be noticed by a record label, you are not in the position to decline a label offer, and are not really the intended audience for that particular bit.
The remainder stands - if you want to do your own promotion, you can. IF you want to make a deal with a label so they do the hard work and take your money, you can also do that.
Ticketmaster does a lot of work with their infrastructure of participating venues, and they get paid in the form of the ticketmaster tax. The labels do work and get paid by claiming you're not profitable.
Not everyone will get enough steam to quit their day job, this is true of any group, label or not. When you have a name and can draw crowds, the money will follow.
I'm caught in the loop where the people I want to see are expensive because of the label and ticketmaster costs, so I've only seen a few live shows. I'll catch the random guy in a bar, who gets money based on a percentage of alcohol sales and doesn't have to sell tickets. And I'll throw some bills in his hat to make it worth his while, if he's good. Lots of people in the area have fun, play good music, and get paid well enough to keep their equipment in good shape without dealing with either large or small scale production problems you list here.
1) Not everyone gets print resources from work
2) While many people prefer old-school, printing on demand instead of making a trip is convenient
3) Not everyone is set up to accept electronic docs. I have had to print, sign, fax several times in the past 2 months
4) 10km is a lot to go out of your way
In short, your life seems to have a natural lack of requirement for a printer. And your built in assumptions suggest that you know why someone might need one, but you assume that somehow your circumstance applies to others despite making assumptions.
My grandparents used to print e-mails and read them, then write letters to reply. My mom regularly prints e-mails, despite knowing they can be retrieved at any time, so they can be next to the calendar. I have an e-Reader, and still print some small documents so I have them in easily accessible form while multitasking.
People buy a desktop printer because they want one, that's your answer. They have processes and workflows and ways of thinking, and perhaps a lack of trying to figure out how not to print anything, that won't necessarily make sense to you.
Of course, I chose a black and white laser printer instead of a color inkjet, so the cost of ink is irrelevant. I don't know what you mean by replacement parts, I will need new toner occasionally but haven't yet. Paper also bought in bulk, not had to re-supply yet. Warranties and headache? Not had to deal with them.
In short, your post is a classic example of "If I can figure out how to live without it, why wouldn't anyone else?" And a few minutes of introspection would answer the question.
It's actually a free Universal Construction Kit, if you check out the Things, they are "uck's Things" and the URL us http://www.thingiverse.com/uck/things/
You can make a big deal about the acronym if you want, as they are probably hoping for free press. Or you can ignore that part, silently giggling when you think of all the lawsuits that will likely include the full acronym, capitalizing 'Free' and including it.
Congress is not optional. A warning label so you can make up your own mind whether to buy a congress critter makes no sense.
If you have the money, you do it, otherwise you don't.
Yes, it would be too obvious. To make it less obvious and more useful, include information about who is making the "not allowed" decision. Is it local law or ordinance? Or the broadcasters colluding somehow? Or has it just always been that way?
If I were in charge of broadcasting, I would have a hard time breaking the convention, regardless of whose decision it is, making it de facto, and mostly to avoid getting letters from parents who have more time to write letters than monitor their children. Because chances are, win or lose, I might end up with a lawsuit filed by parents who have more time to spend annoying me than monitoring their children.
It was too consistent to be compiler intrinsics, but not consistent enough to be straight assembly. That's the impression I got from the original blog post.
No question it would have been possible, but given the rest of the code was compiled in MSVC it made sense that some sort of macro, framework, toolkit, or something was in between the course and the output.
To tag along - it's hard to tell data from code, and it helps the decompiling app to detect what is code vs. data if it knows which compiler created it.
It looks like the original blog used IDA Pro, which has library signatures for different compilers. It can identify functions and auto-comment the code, making disassembly easier. Auto-identify stack variables and keep track of them through lots of PUSH and POP and RETURN X statements, it's quite powerful.
In this case, IDA probably gave a lot of erroneous warnings or disassembled data or refused to disassemble code, requiring lots of manual work. The classes apparently were done inconsistently, making it hard to even write a plug-in to automatically detect them (scripts exist to identify MSVC objects through their RTTI properties, and do a decent job identifying non-RTTI classes, but this would not work with this code).
http://www.hex-rays.com/products/ida/index.shtml
When reverse engineering, and your tool basically says "WTF do I do with this?" it's one of those moments where you want to know how the attacker made it.
Is it hand-rolled? Or a new attack creation kit that script kiddies can cobble something together using?
And "unknown language" was not a really good way to describe it. "Unrecognized output" would have been better. The assumption is that a language like C would compile to a C-like syntax, C++ would do things differently. But it could have been just C++ with an unknown compiler.
Because entertainment is how sheeple are distracted from actual news. The Friday afternoon bombshell leak, which goes unreported or unnoticed because by Monday morning some celebrity got arrested or awarded for something, or died, and that takes over the airwaves.
I don't believe this myself, but it's as good a theory as any.
The real answer lies in some of the decisions around copyright and ACTA/SOPA/PIPA. Patents protect things that the government wants to be public domain for economic reasons, allowing business to profit from a temporary monopoly followed by a boon in generics. Extending copyright means increased export of copyright goods, it's a simple economic valuation. So I can sum it up in two words:
trade deficit
Reduce buying of cheap Chinese goods, and I guarantee you the support for long copyright will wane among national level politicians. Include oil imports as well (even if we are a net exporter we can still balance trade by reducing imports), and you have no incentive to sustain the long copyright.
My state requires proof of insurance, it's right there on the renewal notice. I've never been asked for it.
While you are correct about "caffeine has been shown to treat the effects of ADHD", you missed the part about "I'm extremely sensitive to caffeine..."
Caffeine does wake me up, but on a cold day the heat of coffee will make me want to take a nap. One of the more effective ways of napping is to drink coffee and then nap. Set your alarm for +15 minutes. A power nap will recharge you, and that's about the time the caffeine will kick in. And if you're really tired, and don't set an alarm, you may get deep enough into sleep that caffeine doesn't wake you immediately.
I won't beat you over the head with the reading comprehension and e-diagnosis bits this time.
Being a citizen on US soil is irrelevant if a border crossing is involved, because everyone is subject to search at the border.
http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2727991&cid=39367407
I'll add that it is not $0.65, but half a Euro. If the experiment were done in USD, 50 cents would likely be the answer, or 0.7643 Euro (the most recent conversion). It's a nice, round number, and at the amounts they were studying people are unlikely to do percentages in their heads to find an exact number of cents.
I already ranted about this bit above, but since yours is such a good post, I figured this might be a better place to leave it.
Comply, then drive 250 MPH in a school zone (preferably on a non-school day), then move, then dye your hair, put in colored contacts, break both legs and separate the bones by half an inch and let it fill in. And legally change your name.
Then, only your age will be valid, and you can solve that through clever use of relativity. Exercise left to the reader.
See? It's not that invasive.
You said essentially the same thing as gp post. The only differences are
1) You seem to assume that anything you don't explicitly give out won't be associated or discerned by what you did give
2) You said you try to be careful, on which gp did not take a position
Being careful should also go hand in hand with not making assumptions without something to go on, making these incompatible.
You can still live your life assuming that everyone knows everything about you, and also be careful about who you tell. Telling would simply be confirmation, but it is best avoided if possible.
Assume the worst, hope for the best.
I could prattle on all day. Yes targeted advertising is nice, but there's a line past which it becomes intrusive. We are hiding from all the things that could go wrong, not what could go right.
Worst case, I shop for myself locally and shop online for presents because friends and family are not in my city. Even 20 minutes away, it's easier to have Amazon ship it directly. So Amazon has a really strange idea of what I like. It does not do a good job making suggestions for gifts for other people because my apparent 20 personalities are not all compatible.
A guy I know is a lawyer who focuses on DUI cases. We were talking about website ideas, and he mentioned that he does a lot of research on laws and the sorts of questions that come up here all the time. Depending on where he is, he frequently gets "Do you need a DUI lawyer?" adverts from some guy 4 or 5 states away. Some advertising network has him marked as a DUI arrestee now. That could pose a problem for someone whose career in part depends on maintaining good standing with the law. This would be easy to explain, but getting in a position where it has to be explained is not good.
On FaceBook (I don't use it any more, nuked my profile), I went through all of the profile and privacy settings, clicking each drop-down to see what the least intrusive option was. Apparently I selected "Interested in.. men". I didn't change it when I realized it a few weeks later because I thought it was funny. Then I got all gay all the time on the adverts that pop up. Finally switched it to women (that did not modify their advertising settings - I had to e-mail support and have them change something else to un-set my advertising preference). The only other option is not setting it blank, but switching to "interested in women". Now I get "Lonely and need a woman who looks exactly like the person in this photo doesn't?" ads, no exception. I'm interested in women, but I'm certainly not using FaceBook for that purpose, and even if I were I'd want to find real women who live near me, not whatever it is behind those ads. Adverts dealing with my posts or my friends' posts, like gmail's ads, would be understandable. But if the profile says "single male interested in women" apparently that sends a stronger message than "I just ate a chimichanga, perhaps I might like mexican restaurant coupons."
And then there's the story of the Target advert sending pregnancy item discounts to a 15-year-old's house. The father was irate that Target would mis-identify his daughter as pregnant, when in reality a clever association of products correctly identified her. There are some things you would prefer that the store either not know about you, or not divulge. Like if I go in to the doctor's office and have a hemorrhoid lanced, I don't want to see the nurse at a restaurant and be asked if I need tome Preparation H because there's a sale at Penny's. She knows, I know, I know she knows, but we just don't mention it.
For 10-15% off, people routinely sign up for business-specific credit cards, like your gas station card, clothing stores, similar 'membership' types like loyalty cards (not a credit card, but an ID that gets scanned for discounts). This was well known before, and the only thing this study does is re-word it poorly.
The study did not actually measure the worth of privacy, invalidating the assumption underlying your question. People will change their behavior for a percentage off, not for a set amount.
If your suggestion got implemented, there would be accounting and lawsuits to ensure the books weren't cooked, and I'm sure it would be handled in exactly the same way that the MAFIAA calculate profit sharing to ensure you don't get paid except as a last resort.
You can certainly try asking for money, and get rejected. You are providing the information, they are doing useful and financially lucrative things with it, so it is of value to them, but not enough to give you a kickback.
Or to put it another way, you assume that because you get no money that no one believes you are owed. Perhaps they do, and because this all started without peoples' knowledge it was just never implemented. And no one gives out money that they don't have to as part of a business plan. Even stock dividends, which are the closest thing to free money I can think of, are strategic incentives to maintain the stock's value.
Plus, you have no leverage. The only way to make the data meaningless is to either go off the grid or die. You are probably gong to continue living and purchasing, and that information will turn into a mountain of data to either keep you engaged or offer you more stuff. You could easily make the argument that targeted advertising, instead of sending plus sized women's catalogs to single men (unless they specifically request that sort of thing, NTTAWWT) you can send more relevant offers. You are being paid in the form of more interesting offers, and less junk.
If you're going to complain, the currency conversion would make a better target. .50 Euro number seems like a psychological barrier, not value-based. I would expect 50 cents to be the magic number in USA , or on the high side a dollar. If the same test were done in USD, it would not come out to 65 cents (and fluctuate with the daily rates).
And, the conclusion in the summary is wrong, that it is worth half a Euro. That just happens to be one of the numbers they tried - they didn't isolate it to a penny by re-testing with different numbers and it magically came in at a nice round number. The conclusion is that *approximately* 50 cents, or 10-15% off, is enough to get someone to add more info, not that it is worth that much.
Another fine hack job.
I pay what I want for games, and the game studios don't like that. To people like me, they are overcharging, and then trying to shut down the second-hand market where I can pay what I feel is fair.
I try to buy older games that are still 'new' (not used). If the GameStop guy says they have the same thing used, for less, I politely decline. I want the studios to see what I am willing to pay. Of course, they probably never see the numbers, but they are getting money from my purchase.
If I can't find it old, I'll get it used. If I can't get it used, I'll borrow it from someone at work.
The demand curves they use are not complicated enough to account for these, at least it doesn't appear to be that way. Games kept going up in price, and $60 is the accepted value, not some demand curve based on pre-release anticipation. If they really took that into account, we would see more variation in pricing. Instead, we have the mentality of "If it's less than $60 it's because no one wants it" trap that the companies created by all setting that price as the standard.
I'm sure it's carefully researched, but I would say that places like GameStop put more effort into the pricing curves, based on the highly variable pricing. I found ICO for PS2 after years of looking, and it was $40, just a year ago. For a 10 year old game, and it's currently $70 on Amazon. That is demand pricing, not "Almost everything is $60 because that's the magic number". Yes there are cheaper titles for niche games, but anything targeted to the main gaming audience hits the magic number.
And I would have made the exact post you did in almost any other industry. It's the basics of economic theory, ECON 101. But I don't see it in practice in this industry. Which is why I take every opportunity to set my own prices.
That has so little to do with DNF, it doesn't actually qualify. I'm still waiting for the real DNF.
Not true. It's in a tie for last place with about half of the summaries I've read. The others are tied for second, with the first place award being withheld.
I have had this argument before, and it's funny how people can accept the premise that there is a creator. Not necessarily believing in one, just accepting for the sake of argument. And that it can create out of nothing a giant sandwich, and that it is capable of eating at least a sandwich but not necessarily this one.
But having gotten this far, they get hung up on the fact that the sandwich either can or cannot be eaten. If all of the rest is possible, why can't both things be possible?
An all-powerful being should be able to to the impossible, have two mutually exclusive things be true at the same time.
My new response, aka what I should have said, is that an omnipotent being is capable of doing things that defy logic.
I have mod points but wanted to reply instead.
Statistically, the number of drunk drivers on the road is greater than the number pulled over (for any reason, drunk or not they are shitty drivers). The number of drunk drivers who cause an accident is lower than the number on the road. The numer who cause an injury accident is lower than the ones who cause an accident, which could include a single vehicle. The number who cause a fatal accident is lower than that.
If you are involved in an accident, and anyone has had alcohol greater than the local limit, alcohol is considered a factor and included in "drunk driving" statistics. This is the opposite of what you are claiming, that anyone driving poorly should be pulled over.
If you are absolutely shitfaced, and drive your car into a snowbank on a snowy night, the prosecution should be required to prove that the snow was not a factor in your accident, under the "innocent until proven guilty" premise. The current laws we have now say that even if you are an obese alcoholic who doesn't even feel a buzz until you are at twice the legal limit as measured by an individual-agnostic alcohol concentration, you are legally impaired.
Even more, you can consent to all kinds of things and sign all kinds of things which normally would be invalidated if the individual were proven to be impaired at the time. But the prosecution relies on you legally agreeing to things, often in writing, to prove that you were not legally able to consent to those things.
Getting pulled over is not always when a DUI starts, it is often an after effect of an accident.