That sounds like the market (the privacy market) at work. Some people take too much risk and get burned; some take not enough, and lose out on certain benefits.
Please note that I am not a market ideologue, I just wanted to comment on how this instance seems to be working out.
There doesn't need to be a guarantee. There only needs to be sufficient basis for trust. Your interlocutors are claiming that, for them, there is sufficient basis for trust. You can make your own decision.
Yes, of course you are right. I am assuming that conservation of energy/mass/whatever will hold more than that the constancy of C will hold. I'm not a physicist, so I'm not trying to claim a special truth, I'm just saying that's my inference.
Basically, I'm saying that because I find perpetual motion to be so absurd (not just perpetual motion, but in this hypothetical situation, free energy) that the underlying assumption (that C is not constant) can't be true. That conclusion relies on the presumption; yes.
Again, don't construe my comment as a statement of surety.
You make a fair point, but assumed in a scientific statement such as the one made by sdpuppy is "...according to everything we know about the universe..."
Sure, everything we know might be wrong, but not so far as we know.
You made a lot of statements that need citation -- any citation of your numerous big claims would be nice. I totally believe that a thing like that could happen, but "a reliable source"? "reputable university"? those don't suffice.
You are yelling as if anyone is opposed to you eschewing cell phones. We don't care. It's perfectly fine not to use cell phones, if it isn't worth it to you.
Diaspora is a common word, known widely by middle schoolers who completed their first history classes, which is cleverly appropriated for a piece of software which has an architecture somewhat described by the word. It's not precisely a diaspora, but it's sort of like a diaspora, in a figurative sense. In my opinion they chose a great name.
It's not clear to me whether you are intentionally misrepresenting the statement because you are a wag, or whether it is because you don't understand the distinction between getting the source code, and getting access to nightly builds. Given the options, I choose to believe you are a wag -- so, good joke there, wag.
You are conflating ridicule for a ridiculous minority with saying anyone who disagrees needs help. Reasonable people can certainly disagree, but more to the point unreasonable people can also disagree. It is those unreasonable people who deserve the ridicule heaped upon them.
I don't care what they call themselves so long as we build the Southern Border Fence on their northern edge. All the better if Mexico builds a Northern Border Fence on their southern edge.
His political center is the center of his country; your political center is the center of, what, the world or something. You obviously aren't talking about the same thing.
criminal charges for who? for what? can copyright infringement ever be prosecuted as a crime? i actually don't know the answer to that so it's an honest question.
Hmm. To subtly improve your metaphor, it would be like if someone stole your wallet, then added money to it, and then you stole the whole thing back. The extra money is the crux.
Word up. Thanks for the reply. Of course, I would be careful giving medicine to children, but now maybe a little more careful with something so common as ibuprofen.
Yes exactly. It's the one where the Supreme Court rules that violations of any amendment are okay as long as they're really, really important. That, again, is called reality. Here in reality, we know that sometimes rules need to be broken.
In the case you cite, though, I don't like the way that rule is broken. I wish it were different, here in reality. There are lots of things I wish were different, here in reality, but I don't pretend that limited exceptions to constitutional provisions amount to (quoting you) "unfettered access to communications". In this case, the operative word is "unfettered". Here in reality, the government has *fettered* access to communications, although sometimes I wish they were slightly more fettered.
Agreed. Thus far, Google has remained above the trust threshold. Nevertheless, you must recognize that Google is in the best position of any company to turn around and become the opposite kind of company. Remain vigilant, but there is no need to see phantoms where there are none.
Yeah, sometimes the market approach works, sometimes it doesn't.
"Don't like air pollution? Stop breathing!" "Don't like lead on your child's toys? Personally test each toy for lead yourself!" "Don't like buying food without ingredients lists? Starve to death!" "Don't like to be monitored by camera every time you go into public? Live your entire life inside your home!" "Don't like loud motorcycles? Cut off your ears!" "Don't like corrupt politicians? Move to another country!" "Don't like paying Social Security taxes? Don't have a job!" "Don't like being denied insurance for a pre-existing condition? Stop being a cripple!" "Don't like having your medical records posted to the internet? Stop going to the doctor!"
Without accusing you of being one, I would like to state my exasperation with the idiocy of unregulated-market extremists. In the case of Google privacy practices, though, perhaps a market solution is better than a regulatory solution -- or perhaps not.
Wait, in fact I'd like to know your opinion about that last one. If the solution to privacy concerns with websites is to stop using the website, would you suggest a similar approach for medical records? Such as, make sure to go to a doctor with an acceptable medical-record policy? Or do you think medical records are above the threshold where legislation becomes reasonable? (I think most people are in the latter group, as am I.)
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like the market (the privacy market) at work. Some people take too much risk and get burned; some take not enough, and lose out on certain benefits.
Please note that I am not a market ideologue, I just wanted to comment on how this instance seems to be working out.
There doesn't need to be a guarantee. There only needs to be sufficient basis for trust. Your interlocutors are claiming that, for them, there is sufficient basis for trust. You can make your own decision.
Yes, of course you are right. I am assuming that conservation of energy/mass/whatever will hold more than that the constancy of C will hold. I'm not a physicist, so I'm not trying to claim a special truth, I'm just saying that's my inference.
Basically, I'm saying that because I find perpetual motion to be so absurd (not just perpetual motion, but in this hypothetical situation, free energy) that the underlying assumption (that C is not constant) can't be true. That conclusion relies on the presumption; yes.
Again, don't construe my comment as a statement of surety.
That is indeed interesting. My inference is that you just explained why C must be constant. You did a physical proof by reduction to the absurd.
You make a fair point, but assumed in a scientific statement such as the one made by sdpuppy is "...according to everything we know about the universe..."
Sure, everything we know might be wrong, but not so far as we know.
Mmm hmm. And your manner of speech is utterly jackass.
You made a lot of statements that need citation -- any citation of your numerous big claims would be nice. I totally believe that a thing like that could happen, but "a reliable source"? "reputable university"? those don't suffice.
You are yelling as if anyone is opposed to you eschewing cell phones. We don't care. It's perfectly fine not to use cell phones, if it isn't worth it to you.
Diaspora is a common word, known widely by middle schoolers who completed their first history classes, which is cleverly appropriated for a piece of software which has an architecture somewhat described by the word. It's not precisely a diaspora, but it's sort of like a diaspora, in a figurative sense. In my opinion they chose a great name.
It's not clear to me whether you are intentionally misrepresenting the statement because you are a wag, or whether it is because you don't understand the distinction between getting the source code, and getting access to nightly builds. Given the options, I choose to believe you are a wag -- so, good joke there, wag.
You are conflating ridicule for a ridiculous minority with saying anyone who disagrees needs help. Reasonable people can certainly disagree, but more to the point unreasonable people can also disagree. It is those unreasonable people who deserve the ridicule heaped upon them.
I don't care what they call themselves so long as we build the Southern Border Fence on their northern edge. All the better if Mexico builds a Northern Border Fence on their southern edge.
His political center is the center of his country; your political center is the center of, what, the world or something. You obviously aren't talking about the same thing.
Yeah but to be fair, most Democrats are to the left of the Democrats.
No, regulation usually makes things better. Sometimes, the regulation is more onerous than the original problem; but not usually.
Awesome... dueling coward trolls. You are both right and both wrong, by the way. You both have true and important, but incomplete points.
criminal charges for who? for what? can copyright infringement ever be prosecuted as a crime? i actually don't know the answer to that so it's an honest question.
Really? Yeah it is very funny to me.
Hmm. To subtly improve your metaphor, it would be like if someone stole your wallet, then added money to it, and then you stole the whole thing back. The extra money is the crux.
at first he thought it might be a UFO but then realized it was definitely from this earth
Dude, that's just what they want you to think!
Sorry, my reptilian alien overlords won't let me comment on that conspiracy.
Word up. Thanks for the reply. Of course, I would be careful giving medicine to children, but now maybe a little more careful with something so common as ibuprofen.
Yes exactly. It's the one where the Supreme Court rules that violations of any amendment are okay as long as they're really, really important. That, again, is called reality. Here in reality, we know that sometimes rules need to be broken.
In the case you cite, though, I don't like the way that rule is broken. I wish it were different, here in reality. There are lots of things I wish were different, here in reality, but I don't pretend that limited exceptions to constitutional provisions amount to (quoting you) "unfettered access to communications". In this case, the operative word is "unfettered". Here in reality, the government has *fettered* access to communications, although sometimes I wish they were slightly more fettered.
Agreed. Thus far, Google has remained above the trust threshold. Nevertheless, you must recognize that Google is in the best position of any company to turn around and become the opposite kind of company. Remain vigilant, but there is no need to see phantoms where there are none.
Yeah, sometimes the market approach works, sometimes it doesn't.
"Don't like air pollution? Stop breathing!"
"Don't like lead on your child's toys? Personally test each toy for lead yourself!"
"Don't like buying food without ingredients lists? Starve to death!"
"Don't like to be monitored by camera every time you go into public? Live your entire life inside your home!"
"Don't like loud motorcycles? Cut off your ears!"
"Don't like corrupt politicians? Move to another country!"
"Don't like paying Social Security taxes? Don't have a job!"
"Don't like being denied insurance for a pre-existing condition? Stop being a cripple!"
"Don't like having your medical records posted to the internet? Stop going to the doctor!"
Without accusing you of being one, I would like to state my exasperation with the idiocy of unregulated-market extremists. In the case of Google privacy practices, though, perhaps a market solution is better than a regulatory solution -- or perhaps not.
Wait, in fact I'd like to know your opinion about that last one. If the solution to privacy concerns with websites is to stop using the website, would you suggest a similar approach for medical records? Such as, make sure to go to a doctor with an acceptable medical-record policy? Or do you think medical records are above the threshold where legislation becomes reasonable? (I think most people are in the latter group, as am I.)