It's interesting for me to see this guy's name come up. I remember reading a fairly derogatory article about him in Scientific American in the 80s, all but calling him a fraud. Sometimes the "fraud" is proven right. Worth remembering.
Before you go giving them some humanitarian award. don't forget it's always the customers that pay the bill.
This is so completely wrong. The customers paid for a drug. They got the drug, and now the money they paid for it isn't theirs. Big bad pharma then took the money that belonged to them and paid for the research.
Your claim only holds water if the customers had a choice (yes, I'll pay $5 for the drug, and $5 to fund future research!) and chose to invest in research. They didn't.
There's a HUUUUUUUGE difference between the state asking for location data on a private citizen, and citizens asking to audit the state. The state exists to do the citizens' will and for the citizens benefit. A state's rights are granted to it BY the citizens, not the other way around.
That said, data should be anonymized if it isn't already. When I vote, my ballot doesn't have any identifying information on it, so releasing records exactly as they were captured wouldn't tell you anything about me at all.
I agree, actually, that neither privacy or public safety is always most important. We're arguing where the line should be drawn.
I'd resist things like this less if they were invariably (or ever) built with reasonable protections for all the innocent people whose data gets hoovered up. You want to check my license plate and make sure it's not listed as stolen, then delete the data? Go ahead. I'd like some truly independent confirmation you're actually deleting it, though.
"This is a public street. You're not expecting privacy on a public street."
This is only partially true. I'm not expecting that no one in the world will see my car. I am expecting that it's rather unlikely that if I park on a random street for a couple hours, anyone I know will see and notice my car and actually realize it's mine.
I very much DO expect the level of privacy that excludes someone frequently taking note of the exact location of my car. If John Q. Public were doing that, I'd be very put off. I might even consider it stalking. In no sane world do we then say, "Well, it's fine if it's the government and they're stalking EVERYONE."
Yes, Mr. Khamis, I do expect that level of privacy, and it's not for you to decide what the public gets to expect. Your job is to do what we want, not the other way around.
as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service
CNN and CBC could have embedded it as a YouTube video or shown the YouTube video, but could not extract it from YouTube and show it outside the service.
I guess I'll have to be the zealous nutter who says that's a crock. My property does not cease being my property because someone who doesn't own it tells a lie.
In your case, your sister should be out a car and money and have a civil and criminal case against the guy who sold her the car, thereby committing fraud against her. The original owner should get his car back, which was his property all along. The thief should go to jail.
I expect with a little more legal effort, your sister's claim to the car would have been nullified. That she gave money to someone who doesn't own it is meaningless.
That's a fair point. I don't know how to deal with that aspect, honestly. As someone who has enjoyed an "extreme sport" (I hate that term...) or two, I definitely sympathize with the desire not to be penalized for actually living, not just riding a rocking chair into the sunset.
There's definitely a line I draw in what information I'm willing to share. How many steps I take when I'm actually carrying my device. Ok. GPS all day every day? No.
Yes, just relax and don't worry about it. Put on your monitoring band and stop giving us such a hard time about it. Don't you want to fit it? Jim over there certainly isn't complaining about *his* "privacy rights." You do want to be considered for promotion right? Because Jim is certainly being a better team player than you about this one.
Way to ignore the fact that I already addressed that. I played the paranoid for a few years and didn't participate. Nobody said a word. Not everything is a conspiracy.
It's not remotely "fat shaming". Healthy people have lower health care costs on average. Everyday people like me and presumably you want to spend less on insurance, which means we need to actually cost less. Programs like this (my employer does it, and I participate) don't stigmatize you in any way if you don't participate. I didn't for the first few years it was in place. No one said a word about it. I finally did because I felt like I was leaving free money on the table.
There's zero stress. You carry a tiny device around, sync it now and again, lose it from time to time, find it again, and there's more money in your paycheck.
Well, in fairness, you have a contract with your customers and don't have one with random Bad Guys in the internet. You can sue your customers, but good luck suing the bad guys. That should not be taken to mean that I believe suing your customers for finding vulnerabilities in software they're running on their systems is a good or even remotely acceptable idea. Just that it's possible.
They offer a payment plan. It used to be $40 for a smartphone and $0 to $300 for the phone on a 2 year contract. Now it's $20/month and $5-30/month for the phone if you get a payment plan. If you want to pay less than you were, just pick a phone that costs $20/month or less.
Depends on how you use your phone. If you don't tend to get the latest and greatest phone, you'll save money. If you tend to keep your phone longer than 2 years, you'll save money. I do both, so this looks like a win for me.
I agree with you, it's really hard to imagine a scenario where it's a good idea, but am I willing to believe there's a large number of people out there ready to make a bad decision? Sure. I also agree with those who are saying a lot of those 37 million may be fake accounts.
Possibly. Care to elaborate? I went to a public university, so that was tax subsidized, but I had to do stuff for the privilege (perform well enough to get in, and stay in once I was there), and after I became part of the pool of higher earners who pay taxes to support it.
Being poor does suck, no doubt. That's why I'm not poor. I saw that there were things I wanted for myself and my family that come with having more money, so I set out to be able to perform sufficiently useful services for other people that would compensate me well enough to have them. Now, I'm not rich by a long shot, but I have the things I need, and a nice life for my family.
I really have no objection with raising the standard of living for everyone, but I'm not sure perpetuating the notion that getting free stuff for being poor is the right way about it. I'd rather see a structured path to prosperity than hand outs for doing nothing at all.
You lost me right there, guys. For $300/mo, you darn well better guarantee some particular minimum level of service. If you can't, or won't, there's zero chance I'm signing up for three years of somewhere between zero and 2Gbps.
Nope. I actually read a whole paper by a law professor about the topic. The subject of the parent post I replied to was "One constitutional amendment", not "a law".
Would my head (metaphorically) explode if an amendment was ruled unconstitutional? Absolutely.
Since you mention it, would my head (metaphorically) explode if a law that was SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION was ruled unconstitutional? Just as absolutely. I'm not sure what would happen if something so clearly illegal was done, though. Interesting times, for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting for me to see this guy's name come up. I remember reading a fairly derogatory article about him in Scientific American in the 80s, all but calling him a fraud. Sometimes the "fraud" is proven right. Worth remembering.
This is so completely wrong. The customers paid for a drug. They got the drug, and now the money they paid for it isn't theirs. Big bad pharma then took the money that belonged to them and paid for the research.
Your claim only holds water if the customers had a choice (yes, I'll pay $5 for the drug, and $5 to fund future research!) and chose to invest in research. They didn't.
There's a HUUUUUUUGE difference between the state asking for location data on a private citizen, and citizens asking to audit the state. The state exists to do the citizens' will and for the citizens benefit. A state's rights are granted to it BY the citizens, not the other way around.
That said, data should be anonymized if it isn't already. When I vote, my ballot doesn't have any identifying information on it, so releasing records exactly as they were captured wouldn't tell you anything about me at all.
Just one good one.
I agree, actually, that neither privacy or public safety is always most important. We're arguing where the line should be drawn.
I'd resist things like this less if they were invariably (or ever) built with reasonable protections for all the innocent people whose data gets hoovered up. You want to check my license plate and make sure it's not listed as stolen, then delete the data? Go ahead. I'd like some truly independent confirmation you're actually deleting it, though.
This field of candidates truly is the worst I've ever seen.
This is only partially true. I'm not expecting that no one in the world will see my car. I am expecting that it's rather unlikely that if I park on a random street for a couple hours, anyone I know will see and notice my car and actually realize it's mine.
I very much DO expect the level of privacy that excludes someone frequently taking note of the exact location of my car. If John Q. Public were doing that, I'd be very put off. I might even consider it stalking. In no sane world do we then say, "Well, it's fine if it's the government and they're stalking EVERYONE."
Yes, Mr. Khamis, I do expect that level of privacy, and it's not for you to decide what the public gets to expect. Your job is to do what we want, not the other way around.
No, you're wrong.
CNN and CBC could have embedded it as a YouTube video or shown the YouTube video, but could not extract it from YouTube and show it outside the service.
I guess I'll have to be the zealous nutter who says that's a crock. My property does not cease being my property because someone who doesn't own it tells a lie.
In your case, your sister should be out a car and money and have a civil and criminal case against the guy who sold her the car, thereby committing fraud against her. The original owner should get his car back, which was his property all along. The thief should go to jail.
I expect with a little more legal effort, your sister's claim to the car would have been nullified. That she gave money to someone who doesn't own it is meaningless.
That's a fair point. I don't know how to deal with that aspect, honestly. As someone who has enjoyed an "extreme sport" (I hate that term...) or two, I definitely sympathize with the desire not to be penalized for actually living, not just riding a rocking chair into the sunset.
There's definitely a line I draw in what information I'm willing to share. How many steps I take when I'm actually carrying my device. Ok. GPS all day every day? No.
Way to ignore the fact that I already addressed that. I played the paranoid for a few years and didn't participate. Nobody said a word. Not everything is a conspiracy.
It's not remotely "fat shaming". Healthy people have lower health care costs on average. Everyday people like me and presumably you want to spend less on insurance, which means we need to actually cost less. Programs like this (my employer does it, and I participate) don't stigmatize you in any way if you don't participate. I didn't for the first few years it was in place. No one said a word about it. I finally did because I felt like I was leaving free money on the table.
There's zero stress. You carry a tiny device around, sync it now and again, lose it from time to time, find it again, and there's more money in your paycheck.
If carrying 2 phones to support national security is too much work, being president really isn't for you.
Well, in fairness, you have a contract with your customers and don't have one with random Bad Guys in the internet. You can sue your customers, but good luck suing the bad guys. That should not be taken to mean that I believe suing your customers for finding vulnerabilities in software they're running on their systems is a good or even remotely acceptable idea. Just that it's possible.
They offer a payment plan. It used to be $40 for a smartphone and $0 to $300 for the phone on a 2 year contract. Now it's $20/month and $5-30/month for the phone if you get a payment plan. If you want to pay less than you were, just pick a phone that costs $20/month or less.
Depends on how you use your phone. If you don't tend to get the latest and greatest phone, you'll save money. If you tend to keep your phone longer than 2 years, you'll save money. I do both, so this looks like a win for me.
Seriously. 40mm isn't a pistol, it's closer to artillery.
And yet affairs do happen.
I agree with you, it's really hard to imagine a scenario where it's a good idea, but am I willing to believe there's a large number of people out there ready to make a bad decision? Sure. I also agree with those who are saying a lot of those 37 million may be fake accounts.
Possibly. Care to elaborate? I went to a public university, so that was tax subsidized, but I had to do stuff for the privilege (perform well enough to get in, and stay in once I was there), and after I became part of the pool of higher earners who pay taxes to support it.
Being poor does suck, no doubt. That's why I'm not poor. I saw that there were things I wanted for myself and my family that come with having more money, so I set out to be able to perform sufficiently useful services for other people that would compensate me well enough to have them. Now, I'm not rich by a long shot, but I have the things I need, and a nice life for my family.
I really have no objection with raising the standard of living for everyone, but I'm not sure perpetuating the notion that getting free stuff for being poor is the right way about it. I'd rather see a structured path to prosperity than hand outs for doing nothing at all.
Any transportation system makes a lot more sense in the place where there are lots more people and lots more stuff to move around.
There's also a much easier and cheaper solution to the few and widely scattered martian settlements problem. Don't put them so far apart.
You lost me right there, guys. For $300/mo, you darn well better guarantee some particular minimum level of service. If you can't, or won't, there's zero chance I'm signing up for three years of somewhere between zero and 2Gbps.
Nope. I actually read a whole paper by a law professor about the topic. The subject of the parent post I replied to was "One constitutional amendment", not "a law".
Would my head (metaphorically) explode if an amendment was ruled unconstitutional? Absolutely.
Since you mention it, would my head (metaphorically) explode if a law that was SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION was ruled unconstitutional? Just as absolutely. I'm not sure what would happen if something so clearly illegal was done, though. Interesting times, for sure.
Suing someone who isn't infringing your trademark is not defending your trademark. It is harassing an innocent person.
Most also say they can chance the agreement at any time. An agreement that one party can change at any time doesn't really mean anything anyway.