The point is that it's all about tools, not about the code as an end product.. the business model, or the particular instance of use of that code is what's important.
This is not simply about who writes the open source code.. it's about how it's used.
Open source code will exist for the same reasons it's always existed.. the point is that just having code to do basic stuff , after a while, will no longer even be an issue. It won't be a question of whether or not any basic function can be done freely or not, but how they are put together.
In other words, because of open source, the same basic tools will be available to everyone equally, and it's how they are used that will matter.
This might seem logical, but it's not how things have worked in the past.
Actaully, that never even came up. The choice to use linux as a platform for projects is based on whether or not it can deliver, and how easily the developers involved in the project can work with it, and the cost/benefit ratio of using it.
Complying with the license, in this case, sharing source again, is simply part of the cost of using it, and not that hard in practice to deal with.
So while what you say about linux treating information freely is very true, and quite important from an overall viewpoint, it is not the reason why people, or companies, use it.
I can guarantee that the company I work for didn't decide to use linux just so they could "give back" to the world... they picked it becuase it got the job done.. giving back is part of the cost.
As a long time hardcore technical guy, and let me back that up by saying I'm a unix nut, I've been using linux heavily for 10 years now, solaris before that, and I get right into the guts.. I like assembly, circuit boards, and whatnot. I like a command prompt and I don't like microsoft.... anyway.... as a hardcore technical guy, open source liker, and a recent convert to OS-X... the comment about a gui got me thinking.
I like open source. I like open everything. I don't like being told what to do with my computer. Yet, I LOVE OSX, and I recognize that the one strength MacOS really has is that apple controls the desktop. It's not that you can't skin it,,or change it's behavior.. but, in general, it's built to behave a certain way, and you can go around to macs everywhere, and the machine behave the way you expect them to. The developer knows what the user expects, and doesn't have to account for a dozen different ways to interface with things. More importantly, he has somewhre to start.. look how many windows applications have varied interfaces. To really understand this, in case anyone is doubting it, just sit down with a fresh mac and mac user for a few hours and learn how to install software, work with files, etc... you'll get it.
So.. we want an open source gui. Here's the thing... the only reason the mac has the "world class gui" feel to it is BECAUSE of a certain lack of openness.. we're talking about a benevolent dictator here. Apple developers know what to expect on the desktop, know how the mac user expects it to behave... and that's the main attraction. If you don't want that, you might as well go use linux.
Yes, we can do stuff in linux that OSX can't do. Yes, open is good, no argument here...I'm just tossing out the thought that, when it comes to providing a rock solid user experience, for a general purpose computer... a lack of choice is sometimes what's needed.. to get people thinking and doing the same thing. You can sit someone down and show them windows -vs- mac.. and invariably, the mac people get more done, and are more comfortable with their gui.. and it's not because one is more customizable, or more flexible.. in fact it's the opposite.
Is microsoft guilty of some antitrust stuff? Absolutely. Is that the only reason they are successful? Nope.
The predatory practices they have are LEGAL if you aren't a monopoly. Microsft has done some bad things.. but they aren't on top solely because of some shitty business.
But more and more people every day are figuring it out, and more and more products are coming out every day making it easier and easier to do. As the population curve moves along, and more people grow up, even more people are less afriad to do stuff like this.
Claiming they somehow force mail onto your computer is technically incorrect.. that's my point.
The system itself does not have a mechanism for deciding what to accept or not... so when you say "Gimme all the mail, Mr. Mail server, that you have waiting for me.". That's joe average, and what he sees. if you run a mail server.. fair enough, you don't control what mail you get.. if it's addressed correctly, it gets by. That's the design of the system from the beginning.
Now, I'm no spam advocate. I hate spam. I do what I can to filter it out, without wasting too much of my own time. But I think the solutions to spam need to be technical, not political. The reason spam exists is because the system does not fundamentally distinguish spam from non spam. You set up a mail server to accept mail from anyone, and you get some mail you don't like.. that's life.
Now, as for a DOS attack, I suspect perhaps you haven't been the victim of a DOS attack, or else you had some REALLY SUPER UNDEAD MALICOUS spammers from HELL.. because I run a few mail servers, and deal with spam.. and while spam is annoying, moreso because of the users whining than the spam itself, it's nothing compared to being under a DOS attack.
Yes.. actually I have worked with it extensively... but you seem to have changed the subject.
Whether your display has a higher viewing angle or not, or whether the color depth is good or not isn't really the issue, those are all factors that are independent of resolution. Obviously they are important issues, and obviously more expensive displays tend to be better at all of these, but that's not what we're talking about here: we're talking about resolution, and how it affects things.
So yeah, if you want to pack more stuff on the screen, by all means, you want as much resolution as you can get, within practical limits. My point was only that, given the dimensions of the screen, that extra 12% of missing resolution in this aspect ratio is not going to be a huge difference. Indeed, the factors you mention about color depth & accuracy, and viewing angle will have a much greater effect than a bit more resolution. If the screen wqas 1600 across instead of 1440, do you think it would be that much better?
I'm not sure why a browser taking up half the screen is considered "full size".. but okay.. is there some standard browser size? Or do you mean that you can pack two 800 pixel wide browsers side by side. Of course again this depends how your system renders.. but whatever.
I've worked with uxga for a long time. I eventually found that, at a size of 15", I would rather use that extra resolution to have a better looking screen than to pack more information on it. To each his own. And the whole point of having lots of dots is to use those dots for whatever suits you best...
Setting the dpi to 120dpi on my 15" 1600x1200 laptop screen, in windows XP doesn't just make my stuff half the size. It makes the fonts larger, and easier to read, and better anti aliased than the same fonts at 96dpi, if they are scaled to the same size.
The point is, telling XP that your display is 120dpi doesn't make everything smaller, it lets XP know that the display is 120dpi, so it can adjust fonts and make things readable. So.. having a higher resolution, in other words, more dots per inch to work with, does indeed let the display show things more clearly. Obviously, the OS needs to support scaleable, vectored stuff... and the layout needs to take care of that.. but at least in the windows camp, it kind of does. Don't know about Apple, as I haven't got a super high res screen.. yet.
So before you tell people "It doesn't make anything look sharper" I suggest you compare two 15" screens running windows xp:
the 1024x768 screen, with XP set to 96dpi and the 1600x1200 screen, with XP set to 120dpi.
Then come back and say which one has "crisper" fonts.
What resolution would you like it to be? If we assume you mean it should have "1600x1200" because you didn't notice it has an abnormal aspect ratio (it's 1.6 rather than 1.33)... it's 90% of the dot pitch you think it should have.. which I'd say is darn close, and probably not that noticeable.
If this were a normal 1.33 (4:3) screen, like your TV or computer, with the same dot pitch, it would be 1440 x 1080, which is quite respectable.
It sucks? That's the same aspect ratio and resolution as the 17" Powerbook from apple.. you know, the fancy widescreen one that everyone says is the coolest thing on earth.
This resolution is reasonable, and higher than it looks at first due to the weird aspect ratio.
It would be reasonable to assume that you want them to have 1600x1200 at 17".. but that would be at your typical aspect ratio... so instead of 1600 across, this is 1440.. which is still a long way from 1024. It's a fairly high resolution.
I had a big toshiba.. not quite this big.. but the satellite 5100 series... big enough as far as laptops go. Hardly fit in most laptop bags. Weighted a ton. High res screen, fast, etc.
I wanted it becuase it was powerful, and big, and beat out a lot of desktops I encountered in daily work.. and I could easily take it home, or to work.
And yes, it sucked for trips. Too big for an aircraft tray table, bulky, heavy, and the battery life was less than stellar.
I say past tense, cause my car got stolen, along with my laptop. So... being the eternal optimist, the bright side was I had the perfect excuse to buy a new computer.
So I bought a 12" iBook (which I'm not completely in love with, thank you Apple) and I'm determined NOT to have a huge, bulky laptop again. There is something about being able to use a little laptop for 4 hours straight without realizing you forgot to plug it in that seems... right.
Although, the only reason you got those messages were because you instructed your computer at home to FETCH them from a server somewhere. Nobody forced those messages into your home.
I say this, though.. there is a national do not call list. in the US.. why not a do-not-spam list?
Sure. Then again, DirecTV did put up the satellites, and does provide the programming, and does provide jobs, and does provide a service that you obviously want.
I guess you should be able to get it for free.. if there are no laws governing it (which is fine by me), then you are saying that they have no reason to exist, because their business model would make no sense, everyone would get satellite programming for free.
Yes, you have to stand up and fight bad laws.. but at the same itme, when you KNOW the consequences of what you do, you shouldn't whine like a brat when you get busted.
But that's not the point. What you say is common sense, yes... it's safe to put it in.
But what about htat one time the guy put something in the wrong way? In the wrong place? Too close to a steam pipe where it could catch fire?
I'm not implying it's dangerous. I'm saying there is a case for having some things, especially when we're talking about an assett like your HOUSE, done professionally... because you don't necessarily KNOW everything about doing such an installation, wheras a professional has more experience. I'm sure your logic will fall on deaf ears if by some freak chance the insurance company finds out the fire happened when some wiring you did yourslef got too close to somethign else, or that you nicked a gas line by accident...... they won't be paying for your house.
The credit card info belongs to the CREDIT CARD COMPANY.. not to me. It's a token that, along with other things, validates ME as a customer of the credit card company, who has a line of credit.
If someone uses my number somehow, it's not MY problem, it's between the merchant and the credit card company. YEs, I relize having to replace your card and whatnot is a pain in the ass.. but, again, that's an inconvenience that the credit card companies are more worried about than you or I are, as they will lose customers if those cards are no longer convenient for people.
There is certain information where privacy laws come into effect, laws that I agree should be strengthened.. but things like "Who is that guy?" "what's his name", things you could get from any meatspace storefront, are not there. Your credit purchase are NOT secret.
I agree, hiding it is wrong, and that the policy shoudl be out in the open... but the point is, just because a company has any type of informationa bout anything doesn't mean they are required by law to demand a court order to do anything.
Because... there is a huge industry already out there calling. To suddently make that industry illegal and cost it billions of dollars is.. not a good move, economically speaking.
Simply banning calling anyone without their explicit approval, although it would be fantastic, would be a brutal move. After all.. we're talking about the US, where the dollar rules.
Because: people are going to do it anyway, and NOT pay for it. This way they get to at least know what's going on, at least to some users. They can reach extra users with zero work on their part, other than billiing.
In the end, it's silly of course.. ultimately, people will have neighborhood wireless networks set up, and be sharing resources with each other other than just their internet connection.
They say everything is private. So you give them the info. Then later, they want to change their policy, so they just notify everyone they are going to give away the info unless they are told not to.
The thing is.. My deal with them is ALREADY DONE, and it was under the agreement that the info not be shared. I should not have to do maintenance to keep it that way.. THEY should have to get my express permission to share that information at a later date.. nut just send me a note and make me, again, state I don't want it released.. because we already agreed to that.
I guess it's not marketing.. but it's like how some cable companies would give everyone the new, upgraded package of shows, then expect anyone who didn't want to pay extra once the trial period was up to notify them, or else get billed. I know in BC the courts ruled it an illegal practice. People already agreed to a package.. you can't start changing it. Of course, the cable company caved anyway before the courts were done when a thousand or so people called in to cancel their cable immediately in protest. That gets their attention.
Changing a policy regarding that information should be clearly illegal.
No, he's not neglecting the warrants part. THe point is, if you are a cop, and you come into my house, and ask to see all my files, let's say it was all my EMAILS.
Now, I can tell you to piss off, and come back with a warrant. Certainly. I am also within my rights to say "Sure man, here you go. Want a coffee while you work? What are you looking for, maybe I can help so we can get on with our days"
It's not YOUR info, it's EBAY'S info ABOUT you. Nobody said law enforcement was not allowed to gather information.. they just cannot FORCE people to divulge information.
That's because western union is ONLY in the money transfer business. Not the "Payment processing" business. They will divulge the details of the payments to law enforcement with the proper orders. Why should they do anything else? Just because someone was stupid enough to not realize what western union's business is?
What's next "I paid in cash, and the government hasn't finished it's satellite cash tracking system... it's their fault I can't track down the guy who ripped me off"
I'm sorry there are scams on Ebay.. but at some point you have to take personal responsibility. You woudln't send cash, why would you use western union?
Unless you are claiming western union gave the money to the wrong person.. it's not their problem.
If you want payment protection, use some kind of service that offers it! Like.. I dunno.. CREDIT CARDS. I don't mean credit cards through a third service, like WU or someone.. I mean.. buy from companies that accept VISA. Oh, it's more expensive? GUESS WHY.
Western union dishes out funds in whatever manner the sender tells them to. If it's a small amount, you can just use a password, no identification required. If it's a large amount, a certain level of ID is required. So long as they followed the ID check requirements you asked for, they did their job.
Why a court order? A court order is there to COMPEL someone to divulge information.. not to authorze the cops to KNOW that information. They are free to investigate and ask.. why should they have to get a court order for every single question they want answered? What's wrong with people cooperating?
We aren't talking about having all records automatically handed over to law enforcement.. and given the amount of fraud on ebay, we should be HAPPY it's easy to track down people who are abusing the system.
First, as just a buyer, it's easy to hide any identifying information from ebay.
Second, there is a misconception out there about warrants and their requirement to disclose information.
Anyone is usually free to give out any information they want. If the cops come and ask me if I saw you last week, I can just say "Yeah, I saw Johnny at the Red Dragon Restaurant, he ate pickles, and said he was going to see his mistress afterwards". They do not require a warrant to ASK me, and I dont have to see one to be allowed to talk to them. However.. a court document is the only way they can force me to divulge information, under oath perhaps... or whatever (I'm not getting into specifically which type of document or order is needed.. you get the idea).
The point is, as a business, Joe's Grocery is not required to give information to the police.. but he is also not forbidden from cooperating with the police either. It's his choice. If his customers had a reason to expect better privacy, they might sue him.. but he still has the right to talk.
The problem with your book buying scenario is that we don't want the police monitoring everything... that's completely different than the police walking in and saying "Did Mr. Joe buy a copy of "Shakira: An Autobiography" yesterday morning?". You have no reason to expect some kind of privacy and secrecy when making a transaction like that.
This is, as I said, a totally different issue than whether the police should be monitoring everything and looking for suspicious behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that it's all about tools, not about the code as an end product.. the business model, or the particular instance of use of that code is what's important.
This is not simply about who writes the open source code.. it's about how it's used.
Open source code will exist for the same reasons it's always existed.. the point is that just having code to do basic stuff , after a while, will no longer even be an issue. It won't be a question of whether or not any basic function can be done freely or not, but how they are put together.
In other words, because of open source, the same basic tools will be available to everyone equally, and it's how they are used that will matter.
This might seem logical, but it's not how things have worked in the past.
Actaully, that never even came up. The choice to use linux as a platform for projects is based on whether or not it can deliver, and how easily the developers involved in the project can work with it, and the cost/benefit ratio of using it.
Complying with the license, in this case, sharing source again, is simply part of the cost of using it, and not that hard in practice to deal with.
So while what you say about linux treating information freely is very true, and quite important from an overall viewpoint, it is not the reason why people, or companies, use it.
I can guarantee that the company I work for didn't decide to use linux just so they could "give back" to the world... they picked it becuase it got the job done.. giving back is part of the cost.
regarding an open source gui...
,or change it's behavior.. but, in general, it's built to behave a certain way, and you can go around to macs everywhere, and the machine behave the way you expect them to. The developer knows what the user expects, and doesn't have to account for a dozen different ways to interface with things. More importantly, he has somewhre to start.. look how many windows applications have varied interfaces. To really understand this, in case anyone is doubting it, just sit down with a fresh mac and mac user for a few hours and learn how to install software, work with files, etc... you'll get it.
(agree with everything you said, btw)
As a long time hardcore technical guy, and let me back that up by saying I'm a unix nut, I've been using linux heavily for 10 years now, solaris before that, and I get right into the guts.. I like assembly, circuit boards, and whatnot. I like a command prompt and I don't like microsoft.... anyway....
as a hardcore technical guy, open source liker, and a recent convert to OS-X... the comment about a gui got me thinking.
I like open source. I like open everything. I don't like being told what to do with my computer. Yet, I LOVE OSX, and I recognize that the one strength MacOS really has is that apple controls the desktop. It's not that you can't skin it,
So.. we want an open source gui. Here's the thing... the only reason the mac has the "world class gui" feel to it is BECAUSE of a certain lack of openness.. we're talking about a benevolent dictator here. Apple developers know what to expect on the desktop, know how the mac user expects it to behave... and that's the main attraction. If you don't want that, you might as well go use linux.
Yes, we can do stuff in linux that OSX can't do. Yes, open is good, no argument here...I'm just tossing out the thought that, when it comes to providing a rock solid user experience, for a general purpose computer... a lack of choice is sometimes what's needed.. to get people thinking and doing the same thing.
You can sit someone down and show them windows -vs- mac.. and invariably, the mac people get more done, and are more comfortable with their gui.. and it's not because one is more customizable, or more flexible.. in fact it's the opposite.
Is microsoft guilty of some antitrust stuff? Absolutely.
Is that the only reason they are successful? Nope.
The predatory practices they have are LEGAL if you aren't a monopoly. Microsft has done some bad things.. but they aren't on top solely because of some shitty business.
But more and more people every day are figuring it out, and more and more products are coming out every day making it easier and easier to do. As the population curve moves along, and more people grow up, even more people are less afriad to do stuff like this.
Claiming they somehow force mail onto your computer is technically incorrect.. that's my point.
The system itself does not have a mechanism for deciding what to accept or not... so when you say "Gimme all the mail, Mr. Mail server, that you have waiting for me.". That's joe average, and what he sees.
if you run a mail server.. fair enough, you don't control what mail you get.. if it's addressed correctly, it gets by. That's the design of the system from the beginning.
Now, I'm no spam advocate. I hate spam. I do what I can to filter it out, without wasting too much of my own time. But I think the solutions to spam need to be technical, not political. The reason spam exists is because the system does not fundamentally distinguish spam from non spam. You set up a mail server to accept mail from anyone, and you get some mail you don't like.. that's life.
Now, as for a DOS attack, I suspect perhaps you haven't been the victim of a DOS attack, or else you had some REALLY SUPER UNDEAD MALICOUS spammers from HELL.. because I run a few mail servers, and deal with spam.. and while spam is annoying, moreso because of the users whining than the spam itself, it's nothing compared to being under a DOS attack.
I of course meant I'm NOW completely in love with it. Gah..... the irony.
Yeah well... it makes sense. If I want/need power, I have that on my desk at work, or at home.
Yes.. actually I have worked with it extensively... but you seem to have changed the subject.
.. but okay.. is there some standard browser size? Or do you mean that you can pack two 800 pixel wide browsers side by side. Of course again this depends how your system renders.. but whatever.
Whether your display has a higher viewing angle or not, or whether the color depth is good or not isn't really the issue, those are all factors that are independent of resolution. Obviously they are important issues, and obviously more expensive displays tend to be better at all of these, but that's not what we're talking about here: we're talking about resolution, and how it affects things.
So yeah, if you want to pack more stuff on the screen, by all means, you want as much resolution as you can get, within practical limits. My point was only that, given the dimensions of the screen, that extra 12% of missing resolution in this aspect ratio is not going to be a huge difference. Indeed, the factors you mention about color depth & accuracy, and viewing angle will have a much greater effect than a bit more resolution. If the screen wqas 1600 across instead of 1440, do you think it would be that much better?
I'm not sure why a browser taking up half the screen is considered "full size"
I've worked with uxga for a long time. I eventually found that, at a size of 15", I would rather use that extra resolution to have a better looking screen than to pack more information on it. To each his own.
And the whole point of having lots of dots is to use those dots for whatever suits you best...
Setting the dpi to 120dpi on my 15" 1600x1200 laptop screen, in windows XP doesn't just make my stuff half the size. It makes the fonts larger, and easier to read, and better anti aliased than the same fonts at 96dpi, if they are scaled to the same size.
The point is, telling XP that your display is 120dpi doesn't make everything smaller, it lets XP know that the display is 120dpi, so it can adjust fonts and make things readable.
So.. having a higher resolution, in other words, more dots per inch to work with, does indeed let the display show things more clearly. Obviously, the OS needs to support scaleable, vectored stuff... and the layout needs to take care of that.. but at least in the windows camp, it kind of does. Don't know about Apple, as I haven't got a super high res screen.. yet.
So before you tell people "It doesn't make anything look sharper" I suggest you compare two 15" screens running windows xp:
the 1024x768 screen, with XP set to 96dpi
and the 1600x1200 screen, with XP set to 120dpi.
Then come back and say which one has "crisper" fonts.
What resolution would you like it to be? If we assume you mean it should have "1600x1200" because you didn't notice it has an abnormal aspect ratio (it's 1.6 rather than 1.33)... it's 90% of the dot pitch you think it should have.. which I'd say is darn close, and probably not that noticeable.
If this were a normal 1.33 (4:3) screen, like your TV or computer, with the same dot pitch, it would be 1440 x 1080, which is quite respectable.
It sucks? That's the same aspect ratio and resolution as the 17" Powerbook from apple.. you know, the fancy widescreen one that everyone says is the coolest thing on earth.
This resolution is reasonable, and higher than it looks at first due to the weird aspect ratio.
It would be reasonable to assume that you want them to have 1600x1200 at 17".. but that would be at your typical aspect ratio... so instead of 1600 across, this is 1440.. which is still a long way from 1024. It's a fairly high resolution.
I had a big toshiba.. not quite this big.. but the satellite 5100 series... big enough as far as laptops go. Hardly fit in most laptop bags. Weighted a ton. High res screen, fast, etc.
I wanted it becuase it was powerful, and big, and beat out a lot of desktops I encountered in daily work.. and I could easily take it home, or to work.
And yes, it sucked for trips. Too big for an aircraft tray table, bulky, heavy, and the battery life was less than stellar.
I say past tense, cause my car got stolen, along with my laptop. So... being the eternal optimist, the bright side was I had the perfect excuse to buy a new computer.
So I bought a 12" iBook (which I'm not completely in love with, thank you Apple) and I'm determined NOT to have a huge, bulky laptop again. There is something about being able to use a little laptop for 4 hours straight without realizing you forgot to plug it in that seems... right.
Although, the only reason you got those messages were because you instructed your computer at home to FETCH them from a server somewhere. Nobody forced those messages into your home.
I say this, though.. there is a national do not call list. in the US.. why not a do-not-spam list?
Sure.
Then again, DirecTV did put up the satellites, and does provide the programming, and does provide jobs, and does provide a service that you obviously want.
I guess you should be able to get it for free.. if there are no laws governing it (which is fine by me), then you are saying that they have no reason to exist, because their business model would make no sense, everyone would get satellite programming for free.
Yes, you have to stand up and fight bad laws.. but at the same itme, when you KNOW the consequences of what you do, you shouldn't whine like a brat when you get busted.
But that's not the point. What you say is common sense, yes... it's safe to put it in.
But what about htat one time the guy put something in the wrong way? In the wrong place? Too close to a steam pipe where it could catch fire?
I'm not implying it's dangerous. I'm saying there is a case for having some things, especially when we're talking about an assett like your HOUSE, done professionally... because you don't necessarily KNOW everything about doing such an installation, wheras a professional has more experience. I'm sure your logic will fall on deaf ears if by some freak chance the insurance company finds out the fire happened when some wiring you did yourslef got too close to somethign else, or that you nicked a gas line by accident...... they won't be paying for your house.
The credit card info belongs to the CREDIT CARD COMPANY.. not to me. It's a token that, along with other things, validates ME as a customer of the credit card company, who has a line of credit.
If someone uses my number somehow, it's not MY problem, it's between the merchant and the credit card company.
YEs, I relize having to replace your card and whatnot is a pain in the ass.. but, again, that's an inconvenience that the credit card companies are more worried about than you or I are, as they will lose customers if those cards are no longer convenient for people.
There is certain information where privacy laws come into effect, laws that I agree should be strengthened.. but things like "Who is that guy?" "what's his name", things you could get from any meatspace storefront, are not there. Your credit purchase are NOT secret.
I agree, hiding it is wrong, and that the policy shoudl be out in the open... but the point is, just because a company has any type of informationa bout anything doesn't mean they are required by law to demand a court order to do anything.
Because... there is a huge industry already out there calling. To suddently make that industry illegal and cost it billions of dollars is.. not a good move, economically speaking.
Simply banning calling anyone without their explicit approval, although it would be fantastic, would be a brutal move. After all.. we're talking about the US, where the dollar rules.
Because: people are going to do it anyway, and NOT pay for it. This way they get to at least know what's going on, at least to some users. They can reach extra users with zero work on their part, other than billiing.
In the end, it's silly of course.. ultimately, people will have neighborhood wireless networks set up, and be sharing resources with each other other than just their internet connection.
especially in small countries, is that the government can and do control everything. They can regulate spectrum how they want, and USE how they want.
.. etc....
Some places even say "You can't use 2.4Ghz for internet" or "providing internet in any way is forbidden unless you are the national ISP"
So you might be screwed.
The upside, is you can bribe.
Or whatever you call it in this case..
They say everything is private. So you give them the info. Then later, they want to change their policy, so they just notify everyone they are going to give away the info unless they are told not to.
The thing is.. My deal with them is ALREADY DONE, and it was under the agreement that the info not be shared. I should not have to do maintenance to keep it that way.. THEY should have to get my express permission to share that information at a later date.. nut just send me a note and make me, again, state I don't want it released.. because we already agreed to that.
I guess it's not marketing.. but it's like how some cable companies would give everyone the new, upgraded package of shows, then expect anyone who didn't want to pay extra once the trial period was up to notify them, or else get billed. I know in BC the courts ruled it an illegal practice. People already agreed to a package.. you can't start changing it. Of course, the cable company caved anyway before the courts were done when a thousand or so people called in to cancel their cable immediately in protest. That gets their attention.
Changing a policy regarding that information should be clearly illegal.
They have zero history of patent or lawsuit abuse because they don't need them, because they are the top dog.
Apple, on the other hand, has to protect what it has.
No, he's not neglecting the warrants part. THe point is, if you are a cop, and you come into my house, and ask to see all my files, let's say it was all my EMAILS.
Now, I can tell you to piss off, and come back with a warrant. Certainly.
I am also within my rights to say "Sure man, here you go. Want a coffee while you work? What are you looking for, maybe I can help so we can get on with our days"
It's not YOUR info, it's EBAY'S info ABOUT you. Nobody said law enforcement was not allowed to gather information.. they just cannot FORCE people to divulge information.
That's because western union is ONLY in the money transfer business. Not the "Payment processing" business.
They will divulge the details of the payments to law enforcement with the proper orders. Why should they do anything else? Just because someone was stupid enough to not realize what western union's business is?
What's next "I paid in cash, and the government hasn't finished it's satellite cash tracking system... it's their fault I can't track down the guy who ripped me off"
I'm sorry there are scams on Ebay.. but at some point you have to take personal responsibility. You woudln't send cash, why would you use western union?
Unless you are claiming western union gave the money to the wrong person.. it's not their problem.
If you want payment protection, use some kind of service that offers it! Like.. I dunno.. CREDIT CARDS. I don't mean credit cards through a third service, like WU or someone.. I mean.. buy from companies that accept VISA. Oh, it's more expensive? GUESS WHY.
Western union dishes out funds in whatever manner the sender tells them to. If it's a small amount, you can just use a password, no identification required. If it's a large amount, a certain level of ID is required. So long as they followed the ID check requirements you asked for, they did their job.
Why a court order? A court order is there to COMPEL someone to divulge information.. not to authorze the cops to KNOW that information. They are free to investigate and ask.. why should they have to get a court order for every single question they want answered? What's wrong with people cooperating?
We aren't talking about having all records automatically handed over to law enforcement.. and given the amount of fraud on ebay, we should be HAPPY it's easy to track down people who are abusing the system.
First, as just a buyer, it's easy to hide any identifying information from ebay.
Second, there is a misconception out there about warrants and their requirement to disclose information.
Anyone is usually free to give out any information they want. If the cops come and ask me if I saw you last week, I can just say "Yeah, I saw Johnny at the Red Dragon Restaurant, he ate pickles, and said he was going to see his mistress afterwards". They do not require a warrant to ASK me, and I dont have to see one to be allowed to talk to them.
However.. a court document is the only way they can force me to divulge information, under oath perhaps... or whatever (I'm not getting into specifically which type of document or order is needed.. you get the idea).
The point is, as a business, Joe's Grocery is not required to give information to the police.. but he is also not forbidden from cooperating with the police either. It's his choice. If his customers had a reason to expect better privacy, they might sue him.. but he still has the right to talk.
The problem with your book buying scenario is that we don't want the police monitoring everything... that's completely different than the police walking in and saying "Did Mr. Joe buy a copy of "Shakira: An Autobiography" yesterday morning?". You have no reason to expect some kind of privacy and secrecy when making a transaction like that.
This is, as I said, a totally different issue than whether the police should be monitoring everything and looking for suspicious behavior.