In the early days of my engineering experience, we used flat ribbon cable not because it was cheaper but because it was an easy way to maintain balanced transmission lines without resorting to prohibitively expensive coax cables. Anybody ever see an old IBM channel cable with the morphadite connectors? What a nightmare!
Anyway, the ribbon was arranged with alternating signal and ground conductors to maintain the balance of current which reduces crosstalk. Separating the individual wires and then mixing them up will cause problems.
Leave it alone or else use twisted pairs. You ever wonder why twisted pairs are used? Well now you know.
Also as to the use of terminators, anything over 6 inches long needs to be both balanced and terminated. Old LS logic could get away without it for longer runs but newer ALS logic with sub-nanosecond risetimes is noisier than hell and rings like a bitch if not properly terminated.
Guys this isn't just 1's and 0's anymore. It's gigahertz RF theory!
This may be the crux of our disgreement. I don't believe the information has been given voluntarily or that customers have been "amply warned" about it. If that is the case, then no one would be violating this proposed law. But unilaterally selling the information to a third party with no relationship or logical interest in my transaction does not, to me, seem "voluntary". And accurate disclosure of what will happen to information has always been the greatest sticking point -- why do companies fear so having to disclose WHAT and TO WHOM they are giving this information?
My reply: I don't know just how to make this thing look as fancy as you folks so please forgive the lack of breaks, paragraphs and Italics.
I am just as fearful of my privacy being violated as anyone else. Probaby more so because I have seen just how easily computer databases can be misused. Especially when malicious people get hold of them.
I agree that information IS gathered and used WITHOUT adequately informing the person who is giving the personal information. My assertion is that this problem can be worked out between the customers and the companies who are doing the gathering WITHOUT government interference.
Many people seem to think that government is benevolent and that it can solve this problem and save us all from the scourge of data mining. It isn't and it won't. It will only make the problem worse.
As an example of the so-called benevolence of government data-gathering, made oh so easy by forcing us all to have numbers and licenses, is the misuse of the census data to round up Japanese Americans and herding them into concentration camps during WWII. An activity which is and was completely illegal I might add. Where was the protection you seek the government to provide?
The utopian world envisioned by those who think government will protect our privacy is nothing but a fantasy. Government has and will continue to abuse our rights and has nothing but bad intentions for the use of the data. I'll stay with my own methods for protecting my privacy even though I must give up many benifits of "modern society" because I refuse to be a number.
If you want your personal information to remain private, the DON'T GIVE IT OUT. DUH! I'm curious, how did you get a job without telling your emplyer your Social security number and your home address? How do you get medical care without providing billing information to the hospital? How did you get a drivers' license? Obviously, I didn't use the internet to do any of these things. We are talking about internet privacy aren't we? I will leave it to the reader to look at your post for my response to the rest of your reply: I don't use the internet to pay my bills, Having worked in IS for 30 years has given me a respect for what can go wrong with auch online transactions. Bill paying is to important to leave to a machine. I pay and I get a receipt which I can show if necessary. This is usually not possible online. BTW people have been doing this for much longer than computers have existed. You appear to have misconstrued my meaning about people being stupid net-surfers. By and large, they are stupid to think that the information they give out won't be used for other things. Some are just now beginning to become aware of this fact which is good. Knowing this I choose to not give out information when it isn't necessary. Of course, sometimes it IS necessary but I am aware that it will probably be used in ways I hadn't intended. This is a choice I freely make and a risk I freely take. I don't need the government nanny state to "protect" me. In fact, it is the government which requires me to disclose my SSN (the mark of the beast) to get a job. It is the government which requires me to have a license to travel. It is the government which now seeks to fix a problem which the government created in the first place. You stated that I should check my premises. I would invite you to check yours. You seem to be asserting that a crime needing a government solution is being committed by companies which use personal information of their customers which is freely given and which people have been amply warned about. I submit that no crime is happening if I am asked for information when I know it will be used for purposes ohter that the current transaction. If I don't like these terms then I am free to shop elsewhere. And yes I am free to live in a mud hut if I so choose. (Well maybe not because of building codes, alas - another freedom lost.) Yes it is true that government has it's self interest at heart as do corporations. The difference is that governments seek to regulate and rule and always do this with a heavy hand. I would much rather have the option of buying something online, or not than to not have the option at all because government regulation has made it uneconomical. Whan the feds get these databases of online transactions, how long do you suppose it will be before these records are shared with the state governments? How long after that before that knock comes on the door asking for that sales tax you paid for that book you bought from Amazon.com? No. Thanks! I'll take my chances with Amazon.com. Privacy concerns can be worked out by people interacting in a voluntary way. There is no need for the Jack Booted Thugs to force anyone to protect my privacy. I am quite capable of doing it myself. If your concern is for the sheeple who can't protect their privacy then you could mount a campaign to inform them of how to do it but don't think I will react kindly to your asking the government to trample anyone's rights, especially mine.
Not only is regulation not the answer, it is the complete WRONG answer. It never ceases to amaze me that even Libertarians sometimes ask the mailed fist of government to do things which we as individuals can do quite simply for ourselves.
If you want your personal information to remain private, the DON'T GIVE IT OUT. DUH! What these people want is to have the benefits of whatever freebie some net entity is offering in exchange for their name, address, surfing habits etc...
What the hell are you afraid of anyway? A little more spam? Don't give a real email addy then. Afraid of junk mail? then don't give a real snail addy. Is this fradulent? Perhaps, but it is no more fradulent than a company which uses the information submitted by stupid net-surfers. What did you think they wanted the info for? Again, DUH!
Cookies, either disable them or do as I did and put a.bat in my startup folder to delete them every time I restart windows (which is often because of crashes).
If the FTC gets in the act they won't just be nice about it, it will become a federal crime to use any info gathered without the express written permission of the user or some such other mechanism which will only serve to raise the costs of doing business on the net. Along with regulation by the feds comes mandatory recordkeeping. An unintended consequence may very well be that data miners be required to submit all of their databases to the feds for verification of compliance with the law. Anyone thought of the loss of privacy from having your surfing habits perused by a government bureaucrat? A net marketer usually only wants to sell you something, a government bureaucrat usually wants to force something down somebodies throat.
FTC... NOT!
It is much easier to deal with a corporation which has it self interest at heart than it is to deal with a government which is hell bent on "helping."
Not a problem with UPS. Why do I need a credit card. Why is there no method for paying cash? Why can't I even pay in advance? If you don't have, or wish to use a credit card you are effectively shut out of e-commerce.
Slashdot Mirror
In the early days of my engineering experience, we used flat ribbon cable not because it was cheaper but because it was an easy way to maintain balanced transmission lines without resorting to prohibitively expensive coax cables. Anybody ever see an old IBM channel cable with the morphadite connectors? What a nightmare!
Anyway, the ribbon was arranged with alternating signal and ground conductors to maintain the balance of current which reduces crosstalk. Separating the individual wires and then mixing them up will cause problems.
Leave it alone or else use twisted pairs. You ever wonder why twisted pairs are used? Well now you know.
Also as to the use of terminators, anything over 6 inches long needs to be both balanced and terminated. Old LS logic could get away without it for longer runs but newer ALS logic with sub-nanosecond risetimes is noisier than hell and rings like a bitch if not properly terminated.
Guys this isn't just 1's and 0's anymore. It's gigahertz RF theory!
Bottom line: If it works, don't fix it!
Edwin
You said:
This may be the crux of our disgreement. I don't believe the information has been given voluntarily or that customers have been "amply warned" about it. If that is the case, then no one would be violating this proposed law. But unilaterally selling the information to a third party with no relationship or logical interest in my transaction does not, to me, seem "voluntary". And accurate disclosure of what will happen to information has always been the greatest sticking point -- why do companies fear so having to disclose WHAT and TO WHOM they are giving this information?
My reply: I don't know just how to make this thing look as fancy as you folks so please forgive the lack of breaks, paragraphs and Italics.
I am just as fearful of my privacy being violated as anyone else. Probaby more so because I have seen just how easily computer databases can be misused. Especially when malicious people get hold of them.
I agree that information IS gathered and used WITHOUT adequately informing the person who is giving the personal information. My assertion is that this problem can be worked out between the customers and the companies who are doing the gathering WITHOUT government interference.
Many people seem to think that government is benevolent and that it can solve this problem and save us all from the scourge of data mining. It isn't and it won't. It will only make the problem worse.
As an example of the so-called benevolence of government data-gathering, made oh so easy by forcing us all to have numbers and licenses, is the misuse of the census data to round up Japanese Americans and herding them into concentration camps during WWII. An activity which is and was completely illegal I might add. Where was the protection you seek the government to provide?
The utopian world envisioned by those who think government will protect our privacy is nothing but a fantasy. Government has and will continue to abuse our rights and has nothing but bad intentions for the use of the data. I'll stay with my own methods for protecting my privacy even though I must give up many benifits of "modern society" because I refuse to be a number.
Can you say "BAAAAA!"
If you want your personal information to remain private, the DON'T GIVE IT OUT. DUH! I'm curious, how did you get a job without telling your emplyer your Social security number and your home address? How do you get medical care without providing billing information to the hospital? How did you get a drivers' license? Obviously, I didn't use the internet to do any of these things. We are talking about internet privacy aren't we? I will leave it to the reader to look at your post for my response to the rest of your reply: I don't use the internet to pay my bills, Having worked in IS for 30 years has given me a respect for what can go wrong with auch online transactions. Bill paying is to important to leave to a machine. I pay and I get a receipt which I can show if necessary. This is usually not possible online. BTW people have been doing this for much longer than computers have existed. You appear to have misconstrued my meaning about people being stupid net-surfers. By and large, they are stupid to think that the information they give out won't be used for other things. Some are just now beginning to become aware of this fact which is good. Knowing this I choose to not give out information when it isn't necessary. Of course, sometimes it IS necessary but I am aware that it will probably be used in ways I hadn't intended. This is a choice I freely make and a risk I freely take. I don't need the government nanny state to "protect" me. In fact, it is the government which requires me to disclose my SSN (the mark of the beast) to get a job. It is the government which requires me to have a license to travel. It is the government which now seeks to fix a problem which the government created in the first place. You stated that I should check my premises. I would invite you to check yours. You seem to be asserting that a crime needing a government solution is being committed by companies which use personal information of their customers which is freely given and which people have been amply warned about. I submit that no crime is happening if I am asked for information when I know it will be used for purposes ohter that the current transaction. If I don't like these terms then I am free to shop elsewhere. And yes I am free to live in a mud hut if I so choose. (Well maybe not because of building codes, alas - another freedom lost.) Yes it is true that government has it's self interest at heart as do corporations. The difference is that governments seek to regulate and rule and always do this with a heavy hand. I would much rather have the option of buying something online, or not than to not have the option at all because government regulation has made it uneconomical. Whan the feds get these databases of online transactions, how long do you suppose it will be before these records are shared with the state governments? How long after that before that knock comes on the door asking for that sales tax you paid for that book you bought from Amazon.com? No. Thanks! I'll take my chances with Amazon.com. Privacy concerns can be worked out by people interacting in a voluntary way. There is no need for the Jack Booted Thugs to force anyone to protect my privacy. I am quite capable of doing it myself. If your concern is for the sheeple who can't protect their privacy then you could mount a campaign to inform them of how to do it but don't think I will react kindly to your asking the government to trample anyone's rights, especially mine.
Not only is regulation not the answer, it is the complete WRONG answer. It never ceases to amaze me that even Libertarians sometimes ask the mailed fist of government to do things which we as individuals can do quite simply for ourselves.
.bat in my startup folder to delete them every time I restart windows (which is often because of crashes).
If you want your personal information to remain private, the DON'T GIVE IT OUT. DUH! What these people want is to have the benefits of whatever freebie some net entity is offering in exchange for their name, address, surfing habits etc...
What the hell are you afraid of anyway? A little more spam? Don't give a real email addy then. Afraid of junk mail? then don't give a real snail addy. Is this fradulent? Perhaps, but it is no more fradulent than a company which uses the information submitted by stupid net-surfers. What did you think they wanted the info for? Again, DUH!
Cookies, either disable them or do as I did and put a
If the FTC gets in the act they won't just be nice about it, it will become a federal crime to use any info gathered without the express written permission of the user or some such other mechanism which will only serve to raise the costs of doing business on the net. Along with regulation by the feds comes mandatory recordkeeping. An unintended consequence may very well be that data miners be required to submit all of their databases to the feds for verification of compliance with the law. Anyone thought of the loss of privacy from having your surfing habits perused by a government bureaucrat? A net marketer usually only wants to sell you something, a government bureaucrat usually wants to force something down somebodies throat.
FTC... NOT!
It is much easier to deal with a corporation which has it self interest at heart than it is to deal with a government which is hell bent on "helping."
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Not a problem with UPS. Why do I need a credit card. Why is there no method for paying cash? Why can't I even pay in advance? If you don't have, or wish to use a credit card you are effectively shut out of e-commerce.