I have the qunexus, which is the $149 version of this (it adds a few more connection options). I use it all the time and highly recommend either to anyone needing a keyboard for music apps. Responsive and nigh-indestructible.
Now back to grading papers and beginning a new nine-year span before commenting on Slashdot again.
The expense incurred is in the loss of one's privacy.
My point is that it is immoral and unethical for corporations to collect and then sell personal information without the express consent of the individual. You obviously have no problem with such practices. Fair enough.
Omniture claims that it is not true in this instance, and even they concede that it is for ethical reasons that they aren't (though they do collect similar sorts of information for other clients). I think it naive to rely upon the ethical rigor of data-mining/marketing corporations to not attempt to make money at an individual's expense.
Making money off of information, when there is no contractual obligation not to make money off that information, is perfectly legal. That does not mean that it is moral or ethical to do so.
The point of the whole article is that those who used Intuit's site to file their taxes might (should) be disturbed that Intuit is paying a third party (Omniture) to collect information that most people would consider to be of a sensitive nature and that many would (should) not be pleased to know that their sensitive information was a potential revenue source for both companies.
As to "okayness" versus "empirical facts" - I can choose to give my credit card information to a company in order to purchase something from them. It is an empirical fact that it is therefore possible for that company to use my credit card information in ways I would not wish them to. Typically they don't, because we have laws against such types of theft. We have these laws because society considers the unauthorized use of someone else's money/credit to be immoral. Similarly, it is immoral for a company to make money off of information that you give to them (or, in this case, information you've given to an entirely different company) for a specific other purpose - we just don't have laws against it, yet. Hence, me implying that such data marketing practices are not "ok".
I did RTFA and I also know folks who work there - and if you're so naive as to think that it's ok that they can do it simply because they don't (for this particular customer, in this particular instance), then you deserve the world you're helping to create and I hope it comes to bite you personally on your smug ass.
This falls under the "not actually a joke" section of today's Slashdot. Read the article - it's actually kind of interesting and the pictures of the feet non-shoe wearing native tribes vs. the pictures of the shoe wearing are really striking. Comparing my own feet to the pictures of the un-shod is pretty striking too - and all of a sudden my cramped dogs are feeling kinda crummy.
Viruses? While theoretical vulnerabilities have been pointed out (and quickly fixed by Apple), I've yet to see and actual in the wild virus for OS X. Do you have any examples? Thanks...
Odd that you've been told they'll provide no client as iPass makes an OSX client and Cisco makes an OSX version of its VPN client which I have running on my AlBook right now (I believe you must have an account with Cisco to get it from their site, but Google shows many hits with the download).
Ha! That would be the ultimate test of whether Moore is more interested in getting his work to the public or whether he is more interested in getting paid.
I would guess it is the latter, but I'd be thrilled to see him prove me wrong.
I work for a large western-state school district and we've been purchasing all of our systems from Dell for a while now. My personal experience with their Indian tech help is that, yes, they are very friendly and attempt to be helpful - but even if their accent is not too thick for me to understand (or to be fair, mine for them to understand) our speech patterns are very different which caused all kinds of problems. By this I mean odd things like they never knew if I'd finished a sentence, and expressions I'd never considered idiomatic of American English totally confused them. Honestly, I often had far less frustrating experiences with thickly southern-accented Dell techs who had little interest in being helpful.
Hey, can you (or anyone else) suggest a source for learning what the above means. I guess what I'm asking for is a primer on chip/board design. I really appreciate it.
OL
The control issue is less what control the company has over the computer than what greater control this allows the company to have over the worker. Now, since everyone has a company provided computer with high speed net access you have no excuse not to log on from home to continue your work during evenings and weekends - your co-workers surely will and you have to be competitive, right? This is like the cottage industries of the 19th century with an industry provided loom in your home - except you'll be expected to go into work for 8-10 hours a day as well as use your nice new corporate gifted loom/computer from home. I dunno, a big screen tv and a Florida vaction don't seem worth it to me. But maybe that's just me
You're obviously right about the voting (though the argument could be made that they do so with lobbying funds/pacs and have significantly more voice than the voter)- and the whole line of argument in so far as I should not have made the blanket statement that they are "citizens" in the exact same sense as an individual citizen. However, my real point was that as courtroom entities they are treated with the same respect as individual citizens which I, personally, think is problematic. As regards public corporations, yes these things are also obvious but a private company like, say, Cargill has no such restrictions or responsibilities and is still possesses "citizen-esque" (let me get away with that one?) rights. As to the privacy which was my main point - laws based upon "reasonable expectation" are easily altered and confabulated as societal outlooks change. Constitutional rights are less so. But ultimately, mea culpa on my hasty word choice.
An expectation of privacy and the legal right to privacy are not at all the same thing. Even given the the provisions in the ninth amendment, every day we see a total lack of legal privacy protection in the U.S.
As to there being limits placed upon a corporation's legal rights, that's obviously true of the individual as well. Furthermore, how exactly are you defining the corporation's "special rights and responsibilities" as seperate from those of individual citizens? Which one of the items in the Bill of Rights is specifically denied to corporations? Speech, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, due process?
In my mind, a corporation does NOT have the same right to privacy as an individual
Legally, U.S. corporations do have citizenship. Legally, no U.S. citizen has a right to privacy. Perhaps we as a citizenry should give serious thought to changing both of those things.
While a discussion of ownership is an interesting one, abstractly, in this case it seems many of you are missing the true point here. Anyone who followed the media's coverage of this "anniversary" would have seen many stories discussing culpability that variously put things in the laps of the police, the parents (of Harris and Klebold), various flavors of media/stimulation - but hardly a word was said about the systemic abuse perpetrated against the "different" by not only fellow students, but the "adults" in schools as well. I work in a high school and not five minutes ago one of the brightest students here approached me and said that she'd been dragged into the office by the "Life Skills" teacher (irony, eh? - and note that the word "teacher" form here on out is used questioningly) for her "inappropriate" dress. After making the kid sit for a half-hour the teacher asked this student what her G.P.A. was and when the student (honestly) replied that it was a 4.0 the teacher sneered, "Kids like you don't get good grades".
If "Hellmouth" can instigate the _necessary_ dialogue on these issues then I'm all for it and, frankly, bless Jon and Slashdot and Andover for putting it together.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the qunexus, which is the $149 version of this (it adds a few more connection options). I use it all the time and highly recommend either to anyone needing a keyboard for music apps. Responsive and nigh-indestructible.
Now back to grading papers and beginning a new nine-year span before commenting on Slashdot again.
Then you already know all, my friend.
The expense incurred is in the loss of one's privacy.
My point is that it is immoral and unethical for corporations to collect and then sell personal information without the express consent of the individual. You obviously have no problem with such practices. Fair enough.
Toe-may-toe
Omniture claims that it is not true in this instance, and even they concede that it is for ethical reasons that they aren't (though they do collect similar sorts of information for other clients). I think it naive to rely upon the ethical rigor of data-mining/marketing corporations to not attempt to make money at an individual's expense.
Making money off of information, when there is no contractual obligation not to make money off that information, is perfectly legal. That does not mean that it is moral or ethical to do so.
The point of the whole article is that those who used Intuit's site to file their taxes might (should) be disturbed that Intuit is paying a third party (Omniture) to collect information that most people would consider to be of a sensitive nature and that many would (should) not be pleased to know that their sensitive information was a potential revenue source for both companies.
As to "okayness" versus "empirical facts" - I can choose to give my credit card information to a company in order to purchase something from them. It is an empirical fact that it is therefore possible for that company to use my credit card information in ways I would not wish them to. Typically they don't, because we have laws against such types of theft. We have these laws because society considers the unauthorized use of someone else's money/credit to be immoral. Similarly, it is immoral for a company to make money off of information that you give to them (or, in this case, information you've given to an entirely different company) for a specific other purpose - we just don't have laws against it, yet. Hence, me implying that such data marketing practices are not "ok".
I did RTFA and I also know folks who work there - and if you're so naive as to think that it's ok that they can do it simply because they don't (for this particular customer, in this particular instance), then you deserve the world you're helping to create and I hope it comes to bite you personally on your smug ass.
Yes, and the quote from the VP at Omniture shows you exactly what sorts of things happen these days when we "let the free market do the rest."
This falls under the "not actually a joke" section of today's Slashdot. Read the article - it's actually kind of interesting and the pictures of the feet non-shoe wearing native tribes vs. the pictures of the shoe wearing are really striking. Comparing my own feet to the pictures of the un-shod is pretty striking too - and all of a sudden my cramped dogs are feeling kinda crummy.
Viruses? While theoretical vulnerabilities have been pointed out (and quickly fixed by Apple), I've yet to see and actual in the wild virus for OS X. Do you have any examples? Thanks...
Odd that you've been told they'll provide no client as iPass makes an OSX client and Cisco makes an OSX version of its VPN client which I have running on my AlBook right now (I believe you must have an account with Cisco to get it from their site, but Google shows many hits with the download).
Ha! That would be the ultimate test of whether Moore is more interested in getting his work to the public or whether he is more interested in getting paid.
I would guess it is the latter, but I'd be thrilled to see him prove me wrong.
I work for a large western-state school district and we've been purchasing all of our systems from Dell for a while now. My personal experience with their Indian tech help is that, yes, they are very friendly and attempt to be helpful - but even if their accent is not too thick for me to understand (or to be fair, mine for them to understand) our speech patterns are very different which caused all kinds of problems. By this I mean odd things like they never knew if I'd finished a sentence, and expressions I'd never considered idiomatic of American English totally confused them. Honestly, I often had far less frustrating experiences with thickly southern-accented Dell techs who had little interest in being helpful.
Hey, can you (or anyone else) suggest a source for learning what the above means. I guess what I'm asking for is a primer on chip/board design. I really appreciate it. OL
The control issue is less what control the company has over the computer than what greater control this allows the company to have over the worker. Now, since everyone has a company provided computer with high speed net access you have no excuse not to log on from home to continue your work during evenings and weekends - your co-workers surely will and you have to be competitive, right? This is like the cottage industries of the 19th century with an industry provided loom in your home - except you'll be expected to go into work for 8-10 hours a day as well as use your nice new corporate gifted loom/computer from home.
I dunno, a big screen tv and a Florida vaction don't seem worth it to me.
But maybe that's just me
You're obviously right about the voting (though the argument could be made that they do so with lobbying funds/pacs and have significantly more voice than the voter)- and the whole line of argument in so far as I should not have made the blanket statement that they are "citizens" in the exact same sense as an individual citizen. However, my real point was that as courtroom entities they are treated with the same respect as individual citizens which I, personally, think is problematic. As regards public corporations, yes these things are also obvious but a private company like, say, Cargill has no such restrictions or responsibilities and is still possesses "citizen-esque" (let me get away with that one?) rights. As to the privacy which was my main point - laws based upon "reasonable expectation" are easily altered and confabulated as societal outlooks change. Constitutional rights are less so. But ultimately, mea culpa on my hasty word choice.
An expectation of privacy and the legal right to privacy are not at all the same thing. Even given the the provisions in the ninth amendment, every day we see a total lack of legal privacy protection in the U.S.
As to there being limits placed upon a corporation's legal rights, that's obviously true of the individual as well. Furthermore, how exactly are you defining the corporation's "special rights and responsibilities" as seperate from those of individual citizens? Which one of the items in the Bill of Rights is specifically denied to corporations? Speech, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, due process?
In my mind, a corporation does NOT have the same right to privacy as an individual
Legally, U.S. corporations do have citizenship.
Legally, no U.S. citizen has a right to privacy.
Perhaps we as a citizenry should give serious thought to changing both of those things.
While a discussion of ownership is an interesting one, abstractly, in this case it seems many of you are missing the true point here. Anyone who followed the media's coverage of this "anniversary" would have seen many stories discussing culpability that variously put things in the laps of the police, the parents (of Harris and Klebold), various flavors of media/stimulation - but hardly a word was said about the systemic abuse perpetrated against the "different" by not only fellow students, but the "adults" in schools as well.
I work in a high school and not five minutes ago one of the brightest students here approached me and said that she'd been dragged into the office by the "Life Skills" teacher (irony, eh? - and note that the word "teacher" form here on out is used questioningly) for her "inappropriate" dress. After making the kid sit for a half-hour the teacher asked this student what her G.P.A. was and when the student (honestly) replied that it was a 4.0 the teacher sneered, "Kids like you don't get good grades".
If "Hellmouth" can instigate the _necessary_ dialogue on these issues then I'm all for it and, frankly, bless Jon and Slashdot and Andover for putting it together.