Sorry, but this "insightful" post is absurdly wrong. Read up on your Marx.
If all consumers had the information to make rational decisions, the profit margin of commodity retailers such as Best Buy would rapidly approach zero. The entire goal of any respectable marketing department is to avoid this trap. That's also why corporations pay "our" government to guarantee the profitability of their business models with the DMCA and its kin.
A few years ago I did academic research funded by FusionLighting to improve their product. Without violating any confidentiality agreements, here's a quick explanation of the technology
The source of light is a gas plasma induced by pulsed microwave radiation. Fluorescent and neon bulbs also use a gas plasma, but they have two electrodes running at 60 Hz. Sodium-vapor and Mercury-vapor arc lamps use plasmas, but also with exposed electrodes.
These bulbs have no electrodes (so they last _much_ longer) and run at microwave frequencies (2.4 Ghz). Why did they choose this freqency? Just to ruin your wireless connection? No. They needed high power magnetrons (things that generate microwaves) but didn't want to pay military prices. Well there's already a large competitive market for high power magnetrons, it's called the microwave oven.
The FusionLighting light bulb I worked on was a bit larger than a golf ball and filled with a secret sauce of gases and other stuff. When lit, it was VERY BRIGHT (you absolutely couldn't look right at it) and provided a spectrum of light much closer to sunlight than fluorencent and even incandescent bulbs.
The light bulb is mounted inside a metal screen box which is the microwave cavity. Light can get out of the metal screen but almost all of the RF stays inside. Actually, once the bulb is on, almost all the energy goes into the bulb (that's why it's so efficient). Apparently, enough leaks out to disturb Wi-Fi etc.
The downsides of this technology (other than ruining your internet connection) were: [note: it may have evolved since I worked on it a few years ago]
(1) The bulb plus magnetron was pretty big, very bright, and somewhat noisy. Typical applications were warehouses and gymnasiums, not your home. Example: the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum replaced 88 soldium-vapor arc lamps with a handful of the fusion lighting bulbs. And they were THROWING HALF OF THE LIGHT AWAY by using diffuser tubes that spread it out and kept your kids from going blind when they looked up.
(2) The bulbs took a few moments to warm up when turned on. During that time, the light was a dim blue-violet color.
(3) Like sodium-vapor lamps, you couldn't turn them back on as soon as you turned then off. They had to cool down.
(2) + (3) = No fun if you forget the keys and then run back in to find them in the dark.
I was working on (2) and (3), as well as improving the efficiency, which would lead to a smaller size. We made some progress on all counts.
It is clear that Netscape is no longer in the browser development business. They are an advertising arm of AOL. Makes sense, as their browser is free. I have switched to Microsoft for some time now, despite their horrid Bookmark system. Indeed, I am about to switch into Outlook Express because Netscape Messenger is not extensible enough to open MSIE to view links.
I hope Mozilla makes a better browser but I'm not holding my breath, they are surely out gunned.
-------
Dr. Hodad
Black's Beach Tanning Supply
La Jolla, California
Speare makes an excellent point, and the implementation may not be as difficult as it appears. Indeed, it may already be there in FreeNet 0.3!
First the point. Why not let the nodes "vote" on what content to serve? This is not the same as having the government or a monopoly (USPS) decide what can be carried. With a large network, there will always be some way to find and distribute "bad" (unpopular) content. It will just be more difficult to do so.
The current situation vis-a-vis real warez and kiddie porn is a simple example. Anyone who thinks its just as easy to download these things today as it is to buy a book online is either testifying at a Senate hearing or smoking crack rock.
Moving on to implementation. Some of the FreeNet routing "magic" includes choosing where to store data based on proximity to its users. Presumably, if you use a site all the time, a lot of it's data will simply be stored on your local node (your hard drive). Therefore, if you don't read bad content, it is unlikely to be stored near your machine.
This argument applies if your neighboring users are also servers. If that assumption holds then content you avoid but your neighbors don't is likely to be stored on their machines, not yours. This leads me to the conclusion that "network content approval" can be achieved in an anonymous, equitable, and emergent fashion by requiring that every user must be a server. For all I know about FreeNet (not much), this feature/bug is already built-in.
Of course, such a system is not perfect. If you run a large server and your naughty neighbor runs a small pc, you are likely to store much of her "offensive" content. But hey, you probably already do.
-------
Dr. Hodad
Black's Beach Tanning Supply
La Jolla, California
While I shouldn't be surprised, it is distressing to see that most of the 4-5 rated posters clearly didn't read the FTC agreement. Ah . . . where to begin?
Morgaine complains . .. If customer data is now deemed to have a direct and independent monetary value rather than merely in association with a product, maybe the coporations that are gathering that data from us ought to be paying for it -- ie. paying us.
The FTC agreement makes it clear that customer data cannot be sold independently. Rather, it must be sold with the entire company, and then only to an entity that will be continuing the business. If this is a Bad Thing under bankruptcy, then we must also conclude that a healthy company that changes ownership (or for that matter issues stock) must throw away all it's customer data before the sale.
jesterzog adds . . . The problem I have is that Toysmart [is] selling what they shouldn't technically own. As a customer I would never have said that they can give my details to anyone else without my direct consent
But that's exactly what did when you cashed in that $50 internet coupon
They had restricted use of [my personal info] for inside purposes only
Yes, but a change in ownership (of the entire company, which is what the FTC agreement requires) shouldn't mean they can't keep using that info for "inside purposes only".
Can a company being liquidated sell it's employees home computers because they once did some company-related work on them?
No, but it can demand a copy of they're work-related files and sell those.
The bottom line is, the FTC agreement makes perfect sense. While it is foolish to give away your valuable personal info for free, it is disingenuous to recieve compensation in exchange for your info and/or money and then insist that your privacy should be inviolate. (Compensation can take the form of cash, rebates, free shipping, or the ability to read the NYT online.) So do as your mother told you and read the fine print.
------- Dr. Hodad Black's Beach Tanning Supply La Jolla, California
Slashdot Mirror
If all consumers had the information to make rational decisions, the profit margin of commodity retailers such as Best Buy would rapidly approach zero. The entire goal of any respectable marketing department is to avoid this trap. That's also why corporations pay "our" government to guarantee the profitability of their business models with the DMCA and its kin.
A few years ago I did academic research funded by FusionLighting to improve their product. Without violating any confidentiality agreements, here's a quick explanation of the technology
The source of light is a gas plasma induced by pulsed microwave radiation. Fluorescent and neon bulbs also use a gas plasma, but they have two electrodes running at 60 Hz. Sodium-vapor and Mercury-vapor arc lamps use plasmas, but also with exposed electrodes.
These bulbs have no electrodes (so they last _much_ longer) and run at microwave frequencies (2.4 Ghz). Why did they choose this freqency? Just to ruin your wireless connection? No. They needed high power magnetrons (things that generate microwaves) but didn't want to pay military prices. Well there's already a large competitive market for high power magnetrons, it's called the microwave oven.
The FusionLighting light bulb I worked on was a bit larger than a golf ball and filled with a secret sauce of gases and other stuff. When lit, it was VERY BRIGHT (you absolutely couldn't look right at it) and provided a spectrum of light much closer to sunlight than fluorencent and even incandescent bulbs.
The light bulb is mounted inside a metal screen box which is the microwave cavity. Light can get out of the metal screen but almost all of the RF stays inside. Actually, once the bulb is on, almost all the energy goes into the bulb (that's why it's so efficient). Apparently, enough leaks out to disturb Wi-Fi etc.
The downsides of this technology (other than ruining your internet connection) were: [note: it may have evolved since I worked on it a few years ago]
(1) The bulb plus magnetron was pretty big, very bright, and somewhat noisy. Typical applications were warehouses and gymnasiums, not your home. Example: the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum replaced 88 soldium-vapor arc lamps with a handful of the fusion lighting bulbs. And they were THROWING HALF OF THE LIGHT AWAY by using diffuser tubes that spread it out and kept your kids from going blind when they looked up.
(2) The bulbs took a few moments to warm up when turned on. During that time, the light was a dim blue-violet color.
(3) Like sodium-vapor lamps, you couldn't turn them back on as soon as you turned then off. They had to cool down.
(2) + (3) = No fun if you forget the keys and then run back in to find them in the dark.
I was working on (2) and (3), as well as improving the efficiency, which would lead to a smaller size. We made some progress on all counts.
It is clear that Netscape is no longer in the browser development business. They are an advertising arm of AOL. Makes sense, as their browser is free. I have switched to Microsoft for some time now, despite their horrid Bookmark system. Indeed, I am about to switch into Outlook Express because Netscape Messenger is not extensible enough to open MSIE to view links. I hope Mozilla makes a better browser but I'm not holding my breath, they are surely out gunned.
-------
Dr. Hodad
Black's Beach Tanning Supply
La Jolla, California
Speare makes an excellent point, and the implementation may not be as difficult as it appears. Indeed, it may already be there in FreeNet 0.3!
First the point. Why not let the nodes "vote" on what content to serve? This is not the same as having the government or a monopoly (USPS) decide what can be carried. With a large network, there will always be some way to find and distribute "bad" (unpopular) content. It will just be more difficult to do so.
The current situation vis-a-vis real warez and kiddie porn is a simple example. Anyone who thinks its just as easy to download these things today as it is to buy a book online is either testifying at a Senate hearing or smoking crack rock.
Moving on to implementation. Some of the FreeNet routing "magic" includes choosing where to store data based on proximity to its users. Presumably, if you use a site all the time, a lot of it's data will simply be stored on your local node (your hard drive). Therefore, if you don't read bad content, it is unlikely to be stored near your machine.
This argument applies if your neighboring users are also servers. If that assumption holds then content you avoid but your neighbors don't is likely to be stored on their machines, not yours. This leads me to the conclusion that "network content approval" can be achieved in an anonymous, equitable, and emergent fashion by requiring that every user must be a server. For all I know about FreeNet (not much), this feature/bug is already built-in.
Of course, such a system is not perfect. If you run a large server and your naughty neighbor runs a small pc, you are likely to store much of her "offensive" content. But hey, you probably already do.
-------
Dr. Hodad
Black's Beach Tanning Supply
La Jolla, California
While I shouldn't be surprised, it is distressing to see that most of the 4-5 rated posters clearly didn't read the FTC agreement. Ah . . . where to begin?
.
Morgaine complains . .
If customer data is now deemed to have a direct and independent monetary value rather than merely in association with a product, maybe the coporations that are gathering that data from us ought to be paying for it -- ie. paying us.
The FTC agreement makes it clear that customer data cannot be sold independently. Rather, it must be sold with the entire company, and then only to an entity that will be continuing the business. If this is a Bad Thing under bankruptcy, then we must also conclude that a healthy company that changes ownership (or for that matter issues stock) must throw away all it's customer data before the sale.
jesterzog adds . . .
The problem I have is that Toysmart [is] selling what they shouldn't technically own. As a customer I would never have said that they can give my details to anyone else without my direct consent
But that's exactly what did when you cashed in that $50 internet coupon
They had restricted use of [my personal info] for inside purposes only
Yes, but a change in ownership (of the entire company, which is what the FTC agreement requires) shouldn't mean they can't keep using that info for "inside purposes only".
Can a company being liquidated sell it's employees home computers because they once did some company-related work on them?
No, but it can demand a copy of they're work-related files and sell those.
The bottom line is, the FTC agreement makes perfect sense. While it is foolish to give away your valuable personal info for free, it is disingenuous to recieve compensation in exchange for your info and/or money and then insist that your privacy should be inviolate. (Compensation can take the form of cash, rebates, free shipping, or the ability to read the NYT online.) So do as your mother told you and read the fine print.
-------
Dr. Hodad
Black's Beach Tanning Supply
La Jolla, California