As someone that does dispatch for security, rich(or even decently well off) people like to keep an eye on their stuff and can afford to do so. Also, the police will also often charge for repeated false dispatches. A lot of the ones I deal with will check the cameras when we call on an alarm. The newer ones get the notification when we do and are checking them before we even get them on the phone.
Wouldn't shock me if one exists, but I definitely wouldn't be able to name anyone. But, that doesn't negate any of it. The only new "idea" is the specific arrangement of the individual ideas. It's like saying the iPhone was some revolutionary new phone idea. They took all the ideas that currently existed and combined them into one phone. They didn't do anything new or exciting. They just packaged it all into one place.
Take anything PR says with a grain of salt, but they do state why. It's for quality control, spam prevention, and to facilitate money-back requests. As this is an advertising service provided by Google, those all seem reasonable. The recording message also mentions it's for research.
Except, that isn't whats happening here. The businesses are signing up for the service. As such, Google is providing the service for the business at their request. Whether the business fully understands what they've signed up for is a different issue, and not one I would want to blame on Google or the business as I don't know the details.
To each their own on not wanting Google to record the call. However, as Google is vetting the companies it isn't crazy for them to want some QC when it comes to the calls. I'm sure there is more going on with it than only QC, and again I'm not saying people should like it. I'm just pointing out the whole setup isn't just some crazy new idea.
Whether you pay Google directly or not doesn't change whether Google makes money off you indirectly. And, I'm not talking about any info they have on you being sold. If any business you purchase from advertises(or advertised) through Google, your money went towards that. My point isn't that you're funding Google, but that they're not really making their money off of you paying them directly.
This isn't anything new or unique, except for the part where it says they're vetted by Google. It's no different than any other local exchange number routing to a business and that business announcing they'll record the calls. Anti-recorded calls and anti-Google arguments have their place, but there nothing special here.
Again, to be clear for people, I'm advocating people inform themselves and make decisions from that. I'm not trying to tell you which side to pick or who is right/wrong. I just wanted to bring in some additional information from the other side as a starting point for that.
Why did Unity sign a partnership with a company that was supposedly violating the ToS?
It didn't. TFS left out the part where Unity changed their ToS in order to create the situation.
From Unity's response, they were in discussions with Improbable 2 years ago. Improbable went ahead with their plans without coming to an agreement with Unity. Unity has been trying to get them to reach an agreement, or stop, for the last year. Unity also says the recent change to the terms was only to provide clarification.
The license gives licensed developer free reign to host their own multiplayer servers, or use a cloud solution to instance their hosted servers. Improbable isn't a game developer in this context. Improbable is selling Unity game hosting, and not just the server for the developer to then host themselves. Unity's terms require you to be a platform partner to do this. They need to be a partner because they're specifically selling Unity hosting.
TFS was very one-sided and doesn't really cover anything but Improbable's side. I'm not saying you should definitely side with Unity, but if you haven't already read their side of things I recommend you do.
The short of it is that Unity's terms state Improbable needed to be an approved Unity platform partner to host servers for games developed by someone else. The EULA basically only allows for you to host your own servers, or your own instanced servers from a cloud provider, unless you're a platform partner. After a year of failed negotiations with Improbable, they cut them off.
The reality is that things are moving forward now, as they were during NN, and as they were before NN. You want concrete evidence that there is a downside to the repeal of NN, but you provide no concrete evidence of there being a downside to maintaining NN. We already have factual evidence of some of the activities that were starting to happen before NN went into place. While it's speculative that those activities will continue after it's been repealed, it is fair to assume it's likely to happen. As to your claim that things are improving now as they were before NN kicked in, you're probably right. However, that overlooks the fact that those improvements were most likely planned before the repeal. NN, in either direction, likely has little to do with improvements. The only "evidence" I can provide is in relation to the rural ISP I work for. There are three major causes for speed improvements for our customers.
First, streaming use is picking up across the board. It even seems to be growing among the elderly. Customer's need/want service capable of supporting it.
Second, there is a minimum speed requirement to take part in the Connect America Fund. While we already had our minimum speed package meeting the requirements, we had plenty of grandfathered users on old packages we had to push to upgrade.
Third, we're a telephone comapany. There is only so much we can do with DSL. Infrastructure isn't cheap to upgrade, and can't be done over night. We've been building fiber out, for well over a year, to anywhere it's remotely feasible.
Finally, for what it's worth I live outside our service area. I'm stuck with Comcast. I'm not complaining about the speeds, as they offer packages up to 2Gbps in my area. I personally have no issues, but I have three co-workers that live nearby as well. They all complain about the throttling from Comcast, which I'm aware is due to network usage in their neighborhoods and not Comcast throttling arbitrarily. But, because of how their boost works, that throttling only affects real world internet performance and not speed tests. This means speedtest results are going to be misleading compared to average bandwidth for any time/area where Comcast sees high usage.
Patronage is a very real thing. It's not a direct comparison to a 9-5 job, but the simplification of it is that their kids' job to be artists. It just so happens that it's their parents providing the patronage.
This doesn't mean that it cannot be bad for the kids, just that it's definitely not as bad as you imply. As long as the kids are actively working at being artists, and have the talent ascribed to them, then it may very well be in their best interest to support them.
That isn't my takeaway here. They mention they tested them against food and non-food items. They only really mention their reaction to food items. You could infer that means their reactions to the non-food items was relatively normal between the groups. It seems like one of the physiological responses to lack of sleep is to eat. We already have studies showing the effects of sleep deprivation on the metabolism. We've also had some studies on shopping while hungry and what we're more likely to target. This really just seems to be more of the same findings.
To be perfectly fair, you already said you aren't setting up a filtration system at your house and instead opt for bottled water. Unless you're renting, that is on you. The way it was worded implies you have the option to, and just don't. A water filtration system, while not cheap, is not prohibitively expensive. Plus, it would pay for itself in a relatively short amount of time.
Now, I'm not trying to single you out for your choice. While bottled water specifically isn't my thing, I have my own wasteful vices. I only have issue with what you classify as a reasoned excuse for drinking bottled water.
And how is someone supposed to necessarily tell, for every single possible purchase, whether someone merely opened the box? There are plenty of products where that can be quite difficult to tell. Take it a step further, you get into counterfeit returns or damaged w/o being visible. It is always in your best interest to at least voice your concern in situations like that. That way, it's at least on record.
I don't assume you have a problem with it. I just know most people have a problem with it. At least when it specifically comes to the drinking age, 86%(if I recall the number correctly) agree with it.
Correlation does not equal causation. Three of the major causes for our lower life expectancy: drug poisoning(alcohol included) , gun related injuries, and auto accidents. Accidents were greatly reduced when the drinking age was raised to 21. This was a near immediate change, so not predominately due to outside factors. So, that is a improvement to our expectancy in this case. That leaves drugs and gun related injuries. I don't know how many people turn to drugs due to stress caused/increased by all the laws placed upon them. But, one thing I am aware of is that addiction is one of the potential developmental factors negatively impacted by teenage drinking. That means allowing teens to drink increases their risk of addiction at a physical level. I don't want to imply causation. I'm just pointing out that they're going be at greater risk of addiction, putting them at greater risk of OD. I'm not comfortable talking gun related injuries, as I just don't have enough information to really be making any kind of argument either way on it. Finally, I will say that on top of the three largest factors, we also have a higher rate of smoking related deaths and a higher rate of death among infants.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that I'm sure technically speaking some people are negatively impacted by the current drinking age. I understand your argument is that the act of restricting in general is the issue, and that this is only one instance. That being said, I still think your argument doesn't pass muster. The very real and quantifiable benefits of the current drinking age outweigh any perceived potential benefits of reducing it.
At least I'm not the one that has to deride someone to feel better about myself. For those that might feel I did target him, I specifically targeted the idea and not the person. Smart people aren't smart 100% of the time. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and only said the idea was idiocy, which apparently I shouldn't have.
As to the actual issue, it isn't a matter of controlling people. I already covered a number of the reasons for why it should remain in place, that have nothing to do with trying to control people. You have provided nothing except an insult and your reasoning of "you can't tell me what I can't do."
Honestly, it's idiocy to want to let teens drink. It is better for them, developmentally, to not be drinking at that age. That doesn't even cover the fact that their age bracket is more prone to binge drinking and taking unnecessary risks even without alcohol. While the law may not be perfect, we have a much lower drinking and binge drinking rate among teens in the US vs Europe. The law also has greatly reduced the number of drinking related hospital visits and traffic accidents for that bracket.
I don't think the average user knows how much, but I also think the average user doesn't care enough to go find out. However, I don't believe that is any fault on Google's part. Without getting into whether Google should collect as much as it does, what it collects and where to find it is available as long as the user actually pays attention and/or cares to find it. They're not hiding it.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone that does dispatch for security, rich(or even decently well off) people like to keep an eye on their stuff and can afford to do so. Also, the police will also often charge for repeated false dispatches. A lot of the ones I deal with will check the cameras when we call on an alarm. The newer ones get the notification when we do and are checking them before we even get them on the phone.
I don't know whether to love you or hate you for that... probably both.
Pretty much.
Well, according to what that particular business owner said.... it brought in a lot more business.... So.....
Wouldn't shock me if one exists, but I definitely wouldn't be able to name anyone. But, that doesn't negate any of it. The only new "idea" is the specific arrangement of the individual ideas. It's like saying the iPhone was some revolutionary new phone idea. They took all the ideas that currently existed and combined them into one phone. They didn't do anything new or exciting. They just packaged it all into one place.
Take anything PR says with a grain of salt, but they do state why. It's for quality control, spam prevention, and to facilitate money-back requests. As this is an advertising service provided by Google, those all seem reasonable. The recording message also mentions it's for research.
Except, that isn't whats happening here. The businesses are signing up for the service. As such, Google is providing the service for the business at their request. Whether the business fully understands what they've signed up for is a different issue, and not one I would want to blame on Google or the business as I don't know the details.
To each their own on not wanting Google to record the call. However, as Google is vetting the companies it isn't crazy for them to want some QC when it comes to the calls. I'm sure there is more going on with it than only QC, and again I'm not saying people should like it. I'm just pointing out the whole setup isn't just some crazy new idea.
Whether you pay Google directly or not doesn't change whether Google makes money off you indirectly. And, I'm not talking about any info they have on you being sold. If any business you purchase from advertises(or advertised) through Google, your money went towards that. My point isn't that you're funding Google, but that they're not really making their money off of you paying them directly.
This isn't anything new or unique, except for the part where it says they're vetted by Google. It's no different than any other local exchange number routing to a business and that business announcing they'll record the calls. Anti-recorded calls and anti-Google arguments have their place, but there nothing special here.
Why did Unity sign a partnership with a company that was supposedly violating the ToS? It didn't. TFS left out the part where Unity changed their ToS in order to create the situation.
From Unity's response, they were in discussions with Improbable 2 years ago. Improbable went ahead with their plans without coming to an agreement with Unity. Unity has been trying to get them to reach an agreement, or stop, for the last year. Unity also says the recent change to the terms was only to provide clarification.
I don't know all the details, but Unity said they've been working with them for a year to resolve it.
The license gives licensed developer free reign to host their own multiplayer servers, or use a cloud solution to instance their hosted servers. Improbable isn't a game developer in this context. Improbable is selling Unity game hosting, and not just the server for the developer to then host themselves. Unity's terms require you to be a platform partner to do this. They need to be a partner because they're specifically selling Unity hosting.
TFS was very one-sided and doesn't really cover anything but Improbable's side. I'm not saying you should definitely side with Unity, but if you haven't already read their side of things I recommend you do.
The short of it is that Unity's terms state Improbable needed to be an approved Unity platform partner to host servers for games developed by someone else. The EULA basically only allows for you to host your own servers, or your own instanced servers from a cloud provider, unless you're a platform partner. After a year of failed negotiations with Improbable, they cut them off.
The reality is that things are moving forward now, as they were during NN, and as they were before NN. You want concrete evidence that there is a downside to the repeal of NN, but you provide no concrete evidence of there being a downside to maintaining NN. We already have factual evidence of some of the activities that were starting to happen before NN went into place. While it's speculative that those activities will continue after it's been repealed, it is fair to assume it's likely to happen. As to your claim that things are improving now as they were before NN kicked in, you're probably right. However, that overlooks the fact that those improvements were most likely planned before the repeal. NN, in either direction, likely has little to do with improvements. The only "evidence" I can provide is in relation to the rural ISP I work for. There are three major causes for speed improvements for our customers.
First, streaming use is picking up across the board. It even seems to be growing among the elderly. Customer's need/want service capable of supporting it.
Second, there is a minimum speed requirement to take part in the Connect America Fund. While we already had our minimum speed package meeting the requirements, we had plenty of grandfathered users on old packages we had to push to upgrade.
Third, we're a telephone comapany. There is only so much we can do with DSL. Infrastructure isn't cheap to upgrade, and can't be done over night. We've been building fiber out, for well over a year, to anywhere it's remotely feasible.
Finally, for what it's worth I live outside our service area. I'm stuck with Comcast. I'm not complaining about the speeds, as they offer packages up to 2Gbps in my area. I personally have no issues, but I have three co-workers that live nearby as well. They all complain about the throttling from Comcast, which I'm aware is due to network usage in their neighborhoods and not Comcast throttling arbitrarily. But, because of how their boost works, that throttling only affects real world internet performance and not speed tests. This means speedtest results are going to be misleading compared to average bandwidth for any time/area where Comcast sees high usage.
Patronage is a very real thing. It's not a direct comparison to a 9-5 job, but the simplification of it is that their kids' job to be artists. It just so happens that it's their parents providing the patronage.
This doesn't mean that it cannot be bad for the kids, just that it's definitely not as bad as you imply. As long as the kids are actively working at being artists, and have the talent ascribed to them, then it may very well be in their best interest to support them.
That isn't my takeaway here. They mention they tested them against food and non-food items. They only really mention their reaction to food items. You could infer that means their reactions to the non-food items was relatively normal between the groups. It seems like one of the physiological responses to lack of sleep is to eat. We already have studies showing the effects of sleep deprivation on the metabolism. We've also had some studies on shopping while hungry and what we're more likely to target. This really just seems to be more of the same findings.
To be perfectly fair, you already said you aren't setting up a filtration system at your house and instead opt for bottled water. Unless you're renting, that is on you. The way it was worded implies you have the option to, and just don't. A water filtration system, while not cheap, is not prohibitively expensive. Plus, it would pay for itself in a relatively short amount of time.
Now, I'm not trying to single you out for your choice. While bottled water specifically isn't my thing, I have my own wasteful vices. I only have issue with what you classify as a reasoned excuse for drinking bottled water.
And how is someone supposed to necessarily tell, for every single possible purchase, whether someone merely opened the box? There are plenty of products where that can be quite difficult to tell. Take it a step further, you get into counterfeit returns or damaged w/o being visible. It is always in your best interest to at least voice your concern in situations like that. That way, it's at least on record.
I don't assume you have a problem with it. I just know most people have a problem with it. At least when it specifically comes to the drinking age, 86%(if I recall the number correctly) agree with it.
Correlation does not equal causation. Three of the major causes for our lower life expectancy: drug poisoning(alcohol included) , gun related injuries, and auto accidents. Accidents were greatly reduced when the drinking age was raised to 21. This was a near immediate change, so not predominately due to outside factors. So, that is a improvement to our expectancy in this case. That leaves drugs and gun related injuries. I don't know how many people turn to drugs due to stress caused/increased by all the laws placed upon them. But, one thing I am aware of is that addiction is one of the potential developmental factors negatively impacted by teenage drinking. That means allowing teens to drink increases their risk of addiction at a physical level. I don't want to imply causation. I'm just pointing out that they're going be at greater risk of addiction, putting them at greater risk of OD. I'm not comfortable talking gun related injuries, as I just don't have enough information to really be making any kind of argument either way on it. Finally, I will say that on top of the three largest factors, we also have a higher rate of smoking related deaths and a higher rate of death among infants.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that I'm sure technically speaking some people are negatively impacted by the current drinking age. I understand your argument is that the act of restricting in general is the issue, and that this is only one instance. That being said, I still think your argument doesn't pass muster. The very real and quantifiable benefits of the current drinking age outweigh any perceived potential benefits of reducing it.
If you have a legitimate argument to make, by all means... go ahead. Otherwise, stop making yourself look like an idiot.
At least I'm not the one that has to deride someone to feel better about myself. For those that might feel I did target him, I specifically targeted the idea and not the person. Smart people aren't smart 100% of the time. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and only said the idea was idiocy, which apparently I shouldn't have.
As to the actual issue, it isn't a matter of controlling people. I already covered a number of the reasons for why it should remain in place, that have nothing to do with trying to control people. You have provided nothing except an insult and your reasoning of "you can't tell me what I can't do."
Honestly, it's idiocy to want to let teens drink. It is better for them, developmentally, to not be drinking at that age. That doesn't even cover the fact that their age bracket is more prone to binge drinking and taking unnecessary risks even without alcohol. While the law may not be perfect, we have a much lower drinking and binge drinking rate among teens in the US vs Europe. The law also has greatly reduced the number of drinking related hospital visits and traffic accidents for that bracket.
I don't think the average user knows how much, but I also think the average user doesn't care enough to go find out. However, I don't believe that is any fault on Google's part. Without getting into whether Google should collect as much as it does, what it collects and where to find it is available as long as the user actually pays attention and/or cares to find it. They're not hiding it.