We can give them that opportunity right here on Earth. We're good here for another six hundred million years or so if we just stop fucking up so badly.
Yes, let's just trash our home and then move out. Maybe leave an overturned car and some dead appliances stuffed with garbage in the yard, and abandon a few mangy dogs under the porch, too. If that's all the better humanity can do, then I hope we go extinct right here where we are.
I'm not promoting or implying that I would take part in any rebellious acts when I point out that there are historical precedents that those in power would do well to consider. They are vastly outnumbered and as a result of this their power is not absolute.
TFA says "It had two components. The first lets companies with personal information on consumers, like encrypted email addresses, upload those into Google’s system and synchronize ad buys with offline sales. The second injects card data.
It works like this: a person searches for 'red lipstick' on Google, clicks on an ad, surfs the web but doesn’t buy anything. Later, she walks into a store and buys red lipstick with her Mastercard. The advertiser who ran the ad is fed a report from Google, listing the sale along with other transactions in a column that reads 'Offline Revenue'..."
This tells us that Googod must know the identity of the hapless consumer and the specific product purchased. Or that I've wine too much drunk this evening...
It's getting more difficult to self-host these days. Many email services appear to be hostile to email that doesn't come from a massive email provider.
I've not had that problem, perhaps because I employ SPF and DKIM, and HELO using the name given by the DNS PTR record.
Is it a wrong perspective, or just a different facet? Of course all mail should be encrypted, but I've never had any luck convincing any significant number of correspondents to do so. I, personally, do not trust any encryption to keep my garbage permanently safe. I see it as the means by which I try to keep my data safe for long enough that it's no longer of value when it's discovered.
The problem I see in the use of the monopolistic providers' services is that it makes surveillance even easier than it already is. We don't have any choice in the matter when it's a state actor, but we do when it's a corporation whose services we can choose or not. Whether my garbage is encrypted or not, the longer I can deny access to $BAD_GUY the longer my garbage stays safe. If it takes $BAD_GUY a week to decrypt my garbage but I keep it out of his hands for a few years, I get a few years and a week. If I instead hand it over to $BAD_GUY because I'm too trusting, I get only a week. If $BAD_GUY can never get it, then the encryption, though prudent, is superfluous. (No, I don't believe there's a reliable way to ensure that $BAD_GUY can never get my garbage.)
In my own experience, you are correct. In my own work, this is true.
From the perspective of one shuttling a file from this place to that without any concern about its content, buckets of bytes are buckets of bytes. The files system says "I prefer moving blocks of 4096", I say okay, gimme 4096 of 'em this time and I'll keep asking until EOF.
OTOH, from the perspective of one parsing those files for meaning, the situation becomes far more complex and our suspicion of their motives should increase.
Perhaps more importantly, is there some way I can poison the data first (including the email, but presumably other personal data, too)?
Unless you want to spew feces at your correspondents, there's no easy means I can see to fuckerize their data. Even at that, there are surely ostensibly smart people anticipating it anyway. The naive and perhaps effective approach for them is to discount data obtained from those who've radically changed their habits shortly after the article was published. Since most of their users are in the IDGAF column this would be sufficient for most purposes. The hot ticket is just to bolt and accept that what's already known is already known.
The broader problem is the general public's willingness to equate no-or-few-dollars-surrendered to some-greater-efficiency. There's no way to prove that Googod and/or others aren't conducting industrial espionage and/or hostile mass surveillance, and given that they're offering a no-dollar-cost solution in a commercial market there's no reason to assume that they're not doing so. People like to think that they'll be lost in the noise, most of them completely unaware of the means by which they can be discriminated. So it goes.
Professional paranoia is one of my marketable skills, so take from this what you will.
Huh? I'd thought that by now anyone desiring an informed opinion about cannabis would have it. Cannabis is about as benign a plant as you'll find. The LD50 is about 1500 pounds consumed within 15 minutes.
Unlike ethanol, cannabis does not deny the user awareness of his degree of impairment, thus, driving while stoned is an irresponsible act more akin to driving while fatigued than like driving while drunk.
The county government to which I pay my property taxes is a market force, too, and that's why I've got Gigabit fiber on our municipal broadband network for $75/month.
People cling to these articles out of nothing but confirmation bias for their continued gluttony. Its not hormones, insulin, genetics, PCOS, or medications. Just gluttony.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no, scientific evidence isn't going to change any significant number of minds. I've got a circadian rhythm disorder that doesn't respond to treatment, and though the disorder/syndrome is considered a disability (in the US) there aren't many who'll employ a programmer who arises at noon each day because he must.
Which is odd, because DSPD/DSPS is more common among those of higher IQ. So it goes.
FWIW, the older I get, the more accepting/tolerant/liberal I get.
... and said "No shit, that's what electronic mail is for."
Having RTFA, it seems to be about Slack, et al. trying to make a dent in email's ubiquity, which I just can't see happening. In my own experience, I have (at present) one client contact who insists upon using Hangouts rather than email, and while I like the guy a lot and appreciate the hell out of the business, it's a massive pain in the ass. In those sorts of tools it takes an inordinately long time to find things that we discussed more than a short time ago; in email, I can find the information that I seek very quickly with the handy-dandy search tool that I prefer.
Also important to me is the ability to schedule my communication when it's convenient for me. Interruptions are costly, so I prefer to process my email when I'm task switching at my own convenience. Write some code for this client/this purpose, process some email, move on to the next client or purpose, lather/rinse/repeat. Works fine. What doesn't work is real-time chat clients dinging at me when I'm focused on my work.
I hadn't intended to imply "let them learn the hard way". I'm just amazed that no one ever told them what most who live in capitalist culture are told as children: "When something sounds too good to be true it probably is" and "Just because all of your friends are jumping off of a bridge doesn't mean that you should jump off of a bridge." Neither concept requires a degree in economics.
Slashdot Mirror
If the climate doesn't get its act together soon, we may have to just take it upon ourselves and launch all of the nukes.
We can give them that opportunity right here on Earth. We're good here for another six hundred million years or so if we just stop fucking up so badly.
We don't really deserve to spread our seed throughout the galaxy.
Yes, this. If we're going to treat our only home like a tumbledown trailer in a muddy holler, then we deserve to be stuck in it.
Yes, let's just trash our home and then move out. Maybe leave an overturned car and some dead appliances stuffed with garbage in the yard, and abandon a few mangy dogs under the porch, too. If that's all the better humanity can do, then I hope we go extinct right here where we are.
I have a Googod Voice number in an area code where I know no one. All calls from that area code are junk.
I'm not promoting or implying that I would take part in any rebellious acts when I point out that there are historical precedents that those in power would do well to consider. They are vastly outnumbered and as a result of this their power is not absolute.
TFA says "It had two components. The first lets companies with personal information on consumers, like encrypted email addresses, upload those into Google’s system and synchronize ad buys with offline sales. The second injects card data.
It works like this: a person searches for 'red lipstick' on Google, clicks on an ad, surfs the web but doesn’t buy anything. Later, she walks into a store and buys red lipstick with her Mastercard. The advertiser who ran the ad is fed a report from Google, listing the sale along with other transactions in a column that reads 'Offline Revenue'..."
This tells us that Googod must know the identity of the hapless consumer and the specific product purchased. Or that I've wine too much drunk this evening...
Here it is: TrackMeNot.
Bonus points if you can name the film in which the preceding words were uttered.
Porklips Now.
It's getting more difficult to self-host these days. Many email services appear to be hostile to email that doesn't come from a massive email provider.
I've not had that problem, perhaps because I employ SPF and DKIM, and HELO using the name given by the DNS PTR record.
Is it a wrong perspective, or just a different facet? Of course all mail should be encrypted, but I've never had any luck convincing any significant number of correspondents to do so. I, personally, do not trust any encryption to keep my garbage permanently safe. I see it as the means by which I try to keep my data safe for long enough that it's no longer of value when it's discovered.
The problem I see in the use of the monopolistic providers' services is that it makes surveillance even easier than it already is. We don't have any choice in the matter when it's a state actor, but we do when it's a corporation whose services we can choose or not. Whether my garbage is encrypted or not, the longer I can deny access to $BAD_GUY the longer my garbage stays safe. If it takes $BAD_GUY a week to decrypt my garbage but I keep it out of his hands for a few years, I get a few years and a week. If I instead hand it over to $BAD_GUY because I'm too trusting, I get only a week. If $BAD_GUY can never get it, then the encryption, though prudent, is superfluous. (No, I don't believe there's a reliable way to ensure that $BAD_GUY can never get my garbage.)
If you correspond with users of ESP's it doesn't much matter what you use on your end of it. Therein lies the rub.
I recommend encrypted email, for all things, all the time. Your mail might still be scanned, but at least they'll have to work for it.
No, this isn't a workable solution in a world of people who don't give a fuck. But it's what I recommend.
In my own experience, you are correct. In my own work, this is true.
From the perspective of one shuttling a file from this place to that without any concern about its content, buckets of bytes are buckets of bytes. The files system says "I prefer moving blocks of 4096", I say okay, gimme 4096 of 'em this time and I'll keep asking until EOF.
OTOH, from the perspective of one parsing those files for meaning, the situation becomes far more complex and our suspicion of their motives should increase.
Violating my policy of not responding to AC's:
Perhaps more importantly, is there some way I can poison the data first (including the email, but presumably other personal data, too)?
Unless you want to spew feces at your correspondents, there's no easy means I can see to fuckerize their data. Even at that, there are surely ostensibly smart people anticipating it anyway. The naive and perhaps effective approach for them is to discount data obtained from those who've radically changed their habits shortly after the article was published. Since most of their users are in the IDGAF column this would be sufficient for most purposes. The hot ticket is just to bolt and accept that what's already known is already known.
The broader problem is the general public's willingness to equate no-or-few-dollars-surrendered to some-greater-efficiency. There's no way to prove that Googod and/or others aren't conducting industrial espionage and/or hostile mass surveillance, and given that they're offering a no-dollar-cost solution in a commercial market there's no reason to assume that they're not doing so. People like to think that they'll be lost in the noise, most of them completely unaware of the means by which they can be discriminated. So it goes.
Professional paranoia is one of my marketable skills, so take from this what you will.
Together, they constitute the only major U.S. email provider that [admits that it] scans user inboxes for marketing purposes.
Personal assertion stated as if fact.
Huh? I'd thought that by now anyone desiring an informed opinion about cannabis would have it. Cannabis is about as benign a plant as you'll find. The LD50 is about 1500 pounds consumed within 15 minutes.
Unlike ethanol, cannabis does not deny the user awareness of his degree of impairment, thus, driving while stoned is an irresponsible act more akin to driving while fatigued than like driving while drunk.
energy savings != monetary savings
It does if you're a taxpayer. Responding to forest fires, floods, disease outbreaks, et cetera costs money.
Correlation != causation.
That's not cannabis killing you, that's irresponsibility.
And that's all there is to it.
The county government to which I pay my property taxes is a market force, too, and that's why I've got Gigabit fiber on our municipal broadband network for $75/month.
People cling to these articles out of nothing but confirmation bias for their continued gluttony. Its not hormones, insulin, genetics, PCOS, or medications. Just gluttony.
So hypothyroid doesn't exist. Cool.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no, scientific evidence isn't going to change any significant number of minds. I've got a circadian rhythm disorder that doesn't respond to treatment, and though the disorder/syndrome is considered a disability (in the US) there aren't many who'll employ a programmer who arises at noon each day because he must.
Which is odd, because DSPD/DSPS is more common among those of higher IQ. So it goes.
FWIW, the older I get, the more accepting/tolerant/liberal I get.
... and said "No shit, that's what electronic mail is for."
Having RTFA, it seems to be about Slack, et al. trying to make a dent in email's ubiquity, which I just can't see happening. In my own experience, I have (at present) one client contact who insists upon using Hangouts rather than email, and while I like the guy a lot and appreciate the hell out of the business, it's a massive pain in the ass. In those sorts of tools it takes an inordinately long time to find things that we discussed more than a short time ago; in email, I can find the information that I seek very quickly with the handy-dandy search tool that I prefer.
Also important to me is the ability to schedule my communication when it's convenient for me. Interruptions are costly, so I prefer to process my email when I'm task switching at my own convenience. Write some code for this client/this purpose, process some email, move on to the next client or purpose, lather/rinse/repeat. Works fine. What doesn't work is real-time chat clients dinging at me when I'm focused on my work.
I hadn't intended to imply "let them learn the hard way". I'm just amazed that no one ever told them what most who live in capitalist culture are told as children: "When something sounds too good to be true it probably is" and "Just because all of your friends are jumping off of a bridge doesn't mean that you should jump off of a bridge." Neither concept requires a degree in economics.
Yes, I am. Stock markets also "experience corrections." Every three to seven years, on average.