Submitted to mailing list (not sure where else to submit to):
I don't know if this is the correct place to post this suggestion, but as a very small website operator and consumer, I would like to request a third option in the Do Not Track standard.
I have observed through options in Piwik and Firefox that the implementation of DNT seems too absolute. In the browser I can only select to never be tracked or to always be tracked, and in my analytics software I can only select to never track or to ignore tracking requests.
As a consumer I actually like that owners of websites I frequent want to track me and make the site work better for me. Similarly, as a website operator I feel the site is my private property and those people who use my site would benefit from my tracking them and making the site work better based on this data.
However, under the standard there is no way for me as a consumer to communicate to the websites I visit that I approve of their using my tracking data to improve the site, and the reverse is true for me as a website operator in that users cannot communicate to me that they approve my tracking of their usage of my website.
If I understand the standard correctly, what I would like to see is a DNT-2 option to track locally. With this option selected the website operator would not be authorized to share the data for any reason other than to improve the site itself.
I haven't read about the full spec of DNT, but in Piwik I am provided with only the option of not tracking people who are requesting not to be tracked, and the instructions around that particular option (within the GUI) state that it should be left checked. But I disagree with this. My website is my private property, and I should be allowed to track what users do so that I can make my site perform better for my users. This is why I feel there should be options in DNT, which I also don't see in my FF browser options. Options would be something like:
I don't want to be tracked by anyone ever.
I don't want third parties to track me, but tracking my usage of a website for its owners to make better is fine.
I happen to live in an area where pilots regularly violate laws on altitude. IIRC, the law is 1000 feet above ground level in populated areas. My area is definitely *residential* as I am surround with at least 1000 other houses, though they are not close together as in a typical suburb, but clearly it falls under the regulations.
I've been through this before: 1000 people are going to respond and say that I am wrong: it cannot be that these pilots choose to violate the law, but you have never been in a position to try and complain about these things, and I can assure you that unless you can afford a lawyer and a private investigator, there is nothing you can do about the pilots how regularly intrude on your space. I have called the FAA and every law enforcement body that I fall under and all I ever get, at best, is sent to someone's voicemail.
Nobody cares at all about the slim minority of people who are regularly intruded upon by these assholes. The helicopters fly sometimes within 100 feet my house, barely skimming the treetops, and from inside the house everything is shaking. These are the biggest, richest assholes of them all - they are flying to their second home or third or 50th home and could give a shit about being inconvenience to spend the time to ascend and then descend. The next ones are the pilots is small planes. These guys don't vibrate the house, but they are VERY loud and the pitch of the engine and extremely annoying.
In some areas it is even worse with the problem of helicopters, and what I wonder is if these residents who are lasering these pilots do it out of anger for not being able to do anything else about the violations. I do empathize with their position, but violence is not the solution for me. I'd be willing to bet that as more people learn about this cheap method of encouraging pilots to fly elsewhere, the more of the asshole pilots will get lasered. I'm saying it's right, but frankly, they should be flying at higher altitudes.
Plus, you can run it into your Faraday cage conference room.
Re:Actual data: wage disparity is real
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
Okay, perhaps I chose a poor example. What about the total cost to hire an employee? Does the study take into account all costs, such as insurance premiums, legal costs and liabilities, and regulatory costs? My point is costs outside of the specific factors of being a male or female applicant.
Re:Actual data: wage disparity is real
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 2
I don't have any evidence, but what about controls for other factors? I have seen people with the same experience, same sex, same age group, making 50% more money than those around them doing the exact same job. The reason they are paid more is because they are better at negotiating salary. I don't mean to suggest this in a sexist way, though it sounds such, but what if, on average, men are better at negotiating salaries than women are? This is just an example of something that could be outside the male/female comparisons which could contribute to the salary differences.
What if the plaintiff could demonstrate that Google's system inadequately protects copyright holders, and it is in Google's interest to have such a system because they profit from the DMCA violations?
I've always been curious to see how many Californians make purchases from Newegg - I think it's relatively small compared to their overall business throughout the U.S. Amazon will experience the same thing.
You do as most do - dismiss any argument presented by originalists without any debate. I can easily argue that 'respected' scholars are those who support the position of more state power, and as such receive more attention and more money from the state, including promotions within the state-approved and funded educational system (which your provided suggested authors are perfect examples of). I push no political agenda when discussing the Constitution and find several things in the Constitution to be in direct opposition to my personal beliefs, but what I hold above anything else is that if society does not follow the law, then the special interests will take over, which is why I place the findings of the originalists much higher than others. I have read many books on the Constitution, and frankly, most authors do nothing to look at what the beliefs and concerns of the people who ratified the document were. They look at the long line of supreme court rulings that have done little more than break down the system that was democratically established, while maybe quoting a few of the 'founding fathers' and the federalist papers. A friend of a close friend is a public defender and I hear regularly about what it took for him to become a lawyer and it has little to do with understanding the Constitution from the perspective of of the ratifiers and everything to do with supporting the courts, which prefer to effectively rewrite governing documents to assign greater power to themselves.
I don't use Google for much research; I use books. The best example is The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant by Robert G. Natelson. Natelson provides very specific, non-ambiguous, strong evidence that the Constitution is the equivalent to a power of attorney and that these powers cannot be delegated, largely because doing so would override the very purpose of the Constitution. You state "way back in 1935," but this is nearly 150 after the ratification of the Constitution, so in context of what Natelson discusses, this is long after the ratifiers created the document, so the evidence is not really valid when trying to determine the intent of the ratifiers. And as far as the Supreme Court rulings go, they are also not valid as they often are in direct contradiction to what the ratifiers intended as the evidence indicates.
To argue that the Constitution, as ratified, is no longer valid is to undermine the very foundation of democracy, because at the core of the argument is the belief that the state can redefine the governing documents, the dangers of which were so well described by people such as George Orwell.
This is outside the bounds of what the ratifiers of the Constitution intended. The Constitution, as a governing document, is set up like a power of attorney. Any power not specifically authorized by the power of attorney, or in this case, the governing document, is not authorized. The power to delegate authority is something that requires specific authority, and since, as the clause states, it must be Congress that creates the tax, the bill previously passed by Congress is outside their intended powers.
It is an invasion to those who concern themselves with the intent of the ratifiers of the Constitution. This document was written with very specific meanings, especially on the powers of Congress. Sure, Congress can write any law it wants, but that doesn't mean it fits with what the ratifiers of the Constitution intended. If they had intended royalty rates to be set by Congress, then they would have written that into the document. From Article I, Section 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
It specifically only grants Congress the authority to protect artists and scientists, not determine how much money they are supposed to make through this protection.
I didn't understand how this worked until SomaFM went through their big fight several years ago. The rates are the same for everyone, regardless of the distributor. This is a non-market blocking strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Submitted to mailing list (not sure where else to submit to):
I haven't read about the full spec of DNT, but in Piwik I am provided with only the option of not tracking people who are requesting not to be tracked, and the instructions around that particular option (within the GUI) state that it should be left checked. But I disagree with this. My website is my private property, and I should be allowed to track what users do so that I can make my site perform better for my users. This is why I feel there should be options in DNT, which I also don't see in my FF browser options. Options would be something like:
By James P. Carse
Although written by a religious scholar, this is not a book on religion, per se.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
... and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.
Or worse.
So, no, the PC will not live 'forever.'
Yes, there are different regulations near airports, but I am quite a ways from the nearest airport.
I happen to live in an area where pilots regularly violate laws on altitude. IIRC, the law is 1000 feet above ground level in populated areas. My area is definitely *residential* as I am surround with at least 1000 other houses, though they are not close together as in a typical suburb, but clearly it falls under the regulations.
I've been through this before: 1000 people are going to respond and say that I am wrong: it cannot be that these pilots choose to violate the law, but you have never been in a position to try and complain about these things, and I can assure you that unless you can afford a lawyer and a private investigator, there is nothing you can do about the pilots how regularly intrude on your space. I have called the FAA and every law enforcement body that I fall under and all I ever get, at best, is sent to someone's voicemail.
Nobody cares at all about the slim minority of people who are regularly intruded upon by these assholes. The helicopters fly sometimes within 100 feet my house, barely skimming the treetops, and from inside the house everything is shaking. These are the biggest, richest assholes of them all - they are flying to their second home or third or 50th home and could give a shit about being inconvenience to spend the time to ascend and then descend. The next ones are the pilots is small planes. These guys don't vibrate the house, but they are VERY loud and the pitch of the engine and extremely annoying.
In some areas it is even worse with the problem of helicopters, and what I wonder is if these residents who are lasering these pilots do it out of anger for not being able to do anything else about the violations. I do empathize with their position, but violence is not the solution for me. I'd be willing to bet that as more people learn about this cheap method of encouraging pilots to fly elsewhere, the more of the asshole pilots will get lasered. I'm saying it's right, but frankly, they should be flying at higher altitudes.
Plus, you can run it into your Faraday cage conference room.
Okay, perhaps I chose a poor example. What about the total cost to hire an employee? Does the study take into account all costs, such as insurance premiums, legal costs and liabilities, and regulatory costs? My point is costs outside of the specific factors of being a male or female applicant.
I don't have any evidence, but what about controls for other factors? I have seen people with the same experience, same sex, same age group, making 50% more money than those around them doing the exact same job. The reason they are paid more is because they are better at negotiating salary. I don't mean to suggest this in a sexist way, though it sounds such, but what if, on average, men are better at negotiating salaries than women are? This is just an example of something that could be outside the male/female comparisons which could contribute to the salary differences.
What if the plaintiff could demonstrate that Google's system inadequately protects copyright holders, and it is in Google's interest to have such a system because they profit from the DMCA violations?
Uh, Megaupload? Most people have a very difficult time with IP addresses. And have you ever heard of IPv6?
How does the DNS qualify as 'decentralized?'
I've always been curious to see how many Californians make purchases from Newegg - I think it's relatively small compared to their overall business throughout the U.S. Amazon will experience the same thing.
This is why I have gone from 20 flights per year to 2 flights per year.
You do as most do - dismiss any argument presented by originalists without any debate. I can easily argue that 'respected' scholars are those who support the position of more state power, and as such receive more attention and more money from the state, including promotions within the state-approved and funded educational system (which your provided suggested authors are perfect examples of). I push no political agenda when discussing the Constitution and find several things in the Constitution to be in direct opposition to my personal beliefs, but what I hold above anything else is that if society does not follow the law, then the special interests will take over, which is why I place the findings of the originalists much higher than others. I have read many books on the Constitution, and frankly, most authors do nothing to look at what the beliefs and concerns of the people who ratified the document were. They look at the long line of supreme court rulings that have done little more than break down the system that was democratically established, while maybe quoting a few of the 'founding fathers' and the federalist papers. A friend of a close friend is a public defender and I hear regularly about what it took for him to become a lawyer and it has little to do with understanding the Constitution from the perspective of of the ratifiers and everything to do with supporting the courts, which prefer to effectively rewrite governing documents to assign greater power to themselves.
I don't use Google for much research; I use books. The best example is The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant by Robert G. Natelson. Natelson provides very specific, non-ambiguous, strong evidence that the Constitution is the equivalent to a power of attorney and that these powers cannot be delegated, largely because doing so would override the very purpose of the Constitution. You state "way back in 1935," but this is nearly 150 after the ratification of the Constitution, so in context of what Natelson discusses, this is long after the ratifiers created the document, so the evidence is not really valid when trying to determine the intent of the ratifiers. And as far as the Supreme Court rulings go, they are also not valid as they often are in direct contradiction to what the ratifiers intended as the evidence indicates.
To argue that the Constitution, as ratified, is no longer valid is to undermine the very foundation of democracy, because at the core of the argument is the belief that the state can redefine the governing documents, the dangers of which were so well described by people such as George Orwell.
This is outside the bounds of what the ratifiers of the Constitution intended. The Constitution, as a governing document, is set up like a power of attorney. Any power not specifically authorized by the power of attorney, or in this case, the governing document, is not authorized. The power to delegate authority is something that requires specific authority, and since, as the clause states, it must be Congress that creates the tax, the bill previously passed by Congress is outside their intended powers.
Whether or not it's fascist doesn't matter because it violates the Constitution:
Article I, Section 7:
It is an invasion to those who concern themselves with the intent of the ratifiers of the Constitution. This document was written with very specific meanings, especially on the powers of Congress. Sure, Congress can write any law it wants, but that doesn't mean it fits with what the ratifiers of the Constitution intended. If they had intended royalty rates to be set by Congress, then they would have written that into the document. From Article I, Section 8:
It specifically only grants Congress the authority to protect artists and scientists, not determine how much money they are supposed to make through this protection.
The power to grant exclusive rights is not the same as the power to determine royalty rates. That is where the invasion occurs in this example.
Royalty rates are set by Congress and collected by a quasi-nonprofit established by Congress. It's a huge racket.
I didn't understand how this worked until SomaFM went through their big fight several years ago. The rates are the same for everyone, regardless of the distributor. This is a non-market blocking strategy.
It could also read: the employers of Skrillex are suing a college student for sharing his music. The system protects the artists as well.