This is merely a protocol to talk about privacy. It does nothing whatsoever to enhance privacy in any way.
Is it too much to ask for the priciples of Transparency (I get to see any information that is collected about me) and Fairness (my permission is required for any other use of my information) to be implemented here in the US? Most likely. The big commercial interests would rather have all our information served to them on a silver platter so we can be more easily and accurately targetted for consumption. We would probably be outraged if we knew just how much the marketers know about us. Then we might not buy their products! Can't have that can we?
This is like the WTO telling the U.S. its environmental laws have to go in the name of good trade.
'Scuse me? Seems like you've got that one bass-ackwards. Check out the ongoing debate between the US and the EU over genetically modified foods, or Coca-Cola's actions at the upcoming Olympic Games in Sydney.
The main function of this "privacy protocol" is to streamline the gathering of personal information, and to make it as "painless" as possible for the user.
...it provides a way for users to exchange their data with web sites without having to key it in. P3P includes data elements for a large number of user data elements (name, address, phone number, gender, date of birth).
Our privacy is supposed to be "enhanced" by a protocol which standardizes all these aspects of personal information, and facilitates their transfer, possibly without the user initiating even noticing the transfer, to any web site that happens to implement the protocol. The name for this protocol sounds like it comes straight out of 1984.
"C# is Java by another name," said Steve Mills, general manager of IBM's software division.
If Microsoft can't make their own flavor of Java, and call it Java, then they'll just do the same thing, and call it something else ("C#"). This is a very typical strategy from M$: mirror an existing technology, add enough "features" that it's not compatible, then use their market clout to shove it down everyone's throat.
You're taking Kurisuto's analogy too far. He's merely illustrating how two ideological positions can be in conflict with regards to a single issue. If his analogy involves a situation that is a bit more extreme, then it doesn't invalidate the correspondence. The point is that he considers the parody at peta.org to be morally offensive to him. Not every single detail of his analogy needs to match in order for it to be valid. Is it an exaggeration? Yes. Is it invalid because of that? No.
Is it hypocrisy? Perhaps in a morally ideal sense. But consider, their litigation was still under consideration. If it was determined that there was no protection for trademark holders, i.e. they lost their suit, then there would be nothing wrong with their actions toward Ringling Brothers. I see this as an example of PETA not liking the rules, but playing by them while they attempt to get them changed. The only sane course of action IMO.
Some bacteria are autotrophic (produce their own food) without sunlight even. They live in ocean vents and get their energy from breaking down chemicals in their hot, acidic, sulfuric environment. Such a bug could certainly be transplanted to a similar habitat. Granted it's not really hot or sulfuric in the particular area referenced in the article, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine these kinds of bacteria living further down.
It's quite clear that the individual has ceased to be the "unit of society". Now it is the institution. Laws are enacted (by and large) by the government for the benefit of corporations, both of which are institutions. The ACLU is an example of an institution that has as its goal the advancement of individuals' interests. For those who feel oppressed by the pandering of government to large institutions, the formation of institutions to combat this, such as the ACLU, seems to be the best answer.
Face it, we're not the organism anymore; we're cells.
The problem is one of perception. What kind of software comes in a bare jewel case today? Shareware and budget software. What's need is for one or a few established publishers of quality software to make the commitment to conserve resources by going to the jewel case format. The screenshots and promotional text that normally occupy the front, back, and inside flaps of conventional sofware boxes could be replaced by a separate display, and a section could be added about how wonderful and envioronmentally responsible the publisher is.
Once an established publisher has shown that quality products can come in a jewel box, perception can begin to shift so that the format doesn't carry the stigma of low quality that it does today. Not to mention, the publisher or retailer can save some money on shipping and storage, providing further incentive to publishers adopt the jewel case packaging format.
If the characteristics of diverse hardware implementations could be codified in a standard way, then we could create "drivers" for each different architecture, that would enable compilers to optimize their code for that particular product. Granted this is way more complicated than say, a sound card driver, since optimizing code is way more complicated than playing a.wav file, but I don't feel that it's out of the realm of possibility. Once the task of fitting the code precisely to the native implementation has been moved to the one-time compile phase instead of the every-time runtime phase, we could realize significant performance gains, not to mention (if the specification is abstract enough) a bit of freedom from backward compatibility problems.
The essence of this particular problem lies not in what Big Brother knows about you, but what he thinks he knows about you. When the databases get so large and comprehensive that decisions such as making an arrest, hiring an employee, or approving a loan are made solely on the basis of this information, without human intervention, then we see abuses like those described in this article and the comments regarding it. In this situation, it is misinformation combined with policies mandating reliance on the information, that spell trouble for the individual.
Excite is not charging users here, but rather the *content providers*. A provider can pay Excite a fee, and in exchange, Excite will route their traffic so that users visiting that site will have faster access. Of course this is the same as saying users will have slower access to sites that do not pay this fee to Excite.
Now think about where this is going. If this business model became the norm for ISPs, then only corporations willing and able to drop the big bucks will be able to pay these fees. For the rest of us, visitors to our sites will encounter delays imposed by the ISPs. It is inevitable that the corporations will attempt to erode what equality is left in the Internet. This is one of the most insidious methods I've heard of so far.
The good news is that (for now) any ISP can choose not to implement this business model, and I'm sure that a certain nonzero number of people in the online community would prefer such an ISP.
Slashdot Mirror
So they can collect waaaay more than the $70 that they would get if they were to kick it back into freespace and wait for someone else to register it.
This is merely a protocol to talk about privacy. It does nothing whatsoever to enhance privacy in any way.
Is it too much to ask for the priciples of Transparency (I get to see any information that is collected about me) and Fairness (my permission is required for any other use of my information) to be implemented here in the US? Most likely. The big commercial interests would rather have all our information served to them on a silver platter so we can be more easily and accurately targetted for consumption. We would probably be outraged if we knew just how much the marketers know about us. Then we might not buy their products! Can't have that can we?
...you only get to sell it once. Then the marketers sell it to each other.
This is like the WTO telling the U.S. its environmental laws have to go in the name of good trade.
'Scuse me? Seems like you've got that one bass-ackwards. Check out the ongoing debate between the US and the EU over genetically modified foods, or Coca-Cola's actions at the upcoming Olympic Games in Sydney.
The main function of this "privacy protocol" is to streamline the gathering of personal information, and to make it as "painless" as possible for the user.
Our privacy is supposed to be "enhanced" by a protocol which standardizes all these aspects of personal information, and facilitates their transfer, possibly without the user initiating even noticing the transfer, to any web site that happens to implement the protocol. The name for this protocol sounds like it comes straight out of 1984.
...none of the other vendors has the clout to do it M$-style, or their own dominant OS to lock it into.
As for the Ob. Recursive Acronym, I propose BINJ, unless you're a fan of Vernor Vinge, in which case you might prever RINJ, SINJ, or (esp) KINJ.
"C# is Java by another name," said Steve Mills, general manager of IBM's software division.
If Microsoft can't make their own flavor of Java, and call it Java, then they'll just do the same thing, and call it something else ("C#"). This is a very typical strategy from M$: mirror an existing technology, add enough "features" that it's not compatible, then use their market clout to shove it down everyone's throat.
You're taking Kurisuto's analogy too far. He's merely illustrating how two ideological positions can be in conflict with regards to a single issue. If his analogy involves a situation that is a bit more extreme, then it doesn't invalidate the correspondence. The point is that he considers the parody at peta.org to be morally offensive to him. Not every single detail of his analogy needs to match in order for it to be valid. Is it an exaggeration? Yes. Is it invalid because of that? No.
Is it hypocrisy? Perhaps in a morally ideal sense. But consider, their litigation was still under consideration. If it was determined that there was no protection for trademark holders, i.e. they lost their suit, then there would be nothing wrong with their actions toward Ringling Brothers. I see this as an example of PETA not liking the rules, but playing by them while they attempt to get them changed. The only sane course of action IMO.
Some bacteria are autotrophic (produce their own food) without sunlight even. They live in ocean vents and get their energy from breaking down chemicals in their hot, acidic, sulfuric environment. Such a bug could certainly be transplanted to a similar habitat. Granted it's not really hot or sulfuric in the particular area referenced in the article, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine these kinds of bacteria living further down.
It's quite clear that the individual has ceased to be the "unit of society". Now it is the institution. Laws are enacted (by and large) by the government for the benefit of corporations, both of which are institutions. The ACLU is an example of an institution that has as its goal the advancement of individuals' interests. For those who feel oppressed by the pandering of government to large institutions, the formation of institutions to combat this, such as the ACLU, seems to be the best answer.
Face it, we're not the organism anymore; we're cells.
Scientific American had a great article on magnetic storage, its limitations, and what technologies are on the horizon to supplement or replace it.
The problem is one of perception. What kind of software comes in a bare jewel case today? Shareware and budget software. What's need is for one or a few established publishers of quality software to make the commitment to conserve resources by going to the jewel case format. The screenshots and promotional text that normally occupy the front, back, and inside flaps of conventional sofware boxes could be replaced by a separate display, and a section could be added about how wonderful and envioronmentally responsible the publisher is.
Once an established publisher has shown that quality products can come in a jewel box, perception can begin to shift so that the format doesn't carry the stigma of low quality that it does today. Not to mention, the publisher or retailer can save some money on shipping and storage, providing further incentive to publishers adopt the jewel case packaging format.
I guess you have to add it to its own list. But then you must remove it, since you just maintained it.
If the characteristics of diverse hardware implementations could be codified in a standard way, then we could create "drivers" for each different architecture, that would enable compilers to optimize their code for that particular product. Granted this is way more complicated than say, a sound card driver, since optimizing code is way more complicated than playing a
The essence of this particular problem lies not in what Big Brother knows about you, but what he thinks he knows about you. When the databases get so large and comprehensive that decisions such as making an arrest, hiring an employee, or approving a loan are made solely on the basis of this information, without human intervention, then we see abuses like those described in this article and the comments regarding it. In this situation, it is misinformation combined with policies mandating reliance on the information, that spell trouble for the individual.
Excite is not charging users here, but rather the *content providers*. A provider can pay Excite a fee, and in exchange, Excite will route their traffic so that users visiting that site will have faster access. Of course this is the same as saying users will have slower access to sites that do not pay this fee to Excite.
Now think about where this is going. If this business model became the norm for ISPs, then only corporations willing and able to drop the big bucks will be able to pay these fees. For the rest of us, visitors to our sites will encounter delays imposed by the ISPs. It is inevitable that the corporations will attempt to erode what equality is left in the Internet. This is one of the most insidious methods I've heard of so far.
The good news is that (for now) any ISP can choose not to implement this business model, and I'm sure that a certain nonzero number of people in the online community would prefer such an ISP.