Couldn't you have put any broadcasting camera on someone to get the same effect? The point of this tech is that it's supposed to be augmented reality. I don't see how this spectacle in anyway related to that.
I don't see why people that get government approved insurance don't pay it. If it's a tax and not a shitty way to coerce people into the program then it should apply to everyone.
To only apply it to people that don't get the policies is a bill of attainder.
Yeah, but new windows operating systems aren't compatible with a lot of legacy software already. So we're already being forced to create VMs with windows XP.
That makes us OS independent. The VM will run in any OS. And if MS further screws things up by forcing users to deal with unfamiliar interfaces then it's going to give IT the kick in the pants it needs.
These guys should get a grant to retrofit an old castle... and HR should start recruiting for a devoted amoral hunchback for the job title of "Egor."
Further, HR should employ a voice coach to ensure that all researchers are able to pull off an appropriately disturbing maniac laugh. It's important. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apEZpYnN_1g
Ah, I see what your real problem is now. Well, that ship has largely sailed my friend. The books are highly politicized already. They are edited all the time at the whims of various state boards.
I live in California and all the neighboring states complain that the text books are edited to suit the desires of the Californian education board.
They even try to escape it by choosing books that california isn't using. Only, california changes its mind a lot. So it's prone to look at the book the people in Arizona are using and say "oh, I like that... just change chapter four."... and low and behold chapter four is changed.
Just how it is... Doing it this way would actually give schools and states more control over what they eventually get. Short of that, the books will say whatever the largest customer in the area wants.
Business doesn't like radical rewrites of the OS. People like MS because it's consistent. Everyone still isn't over the Windows vista/7 issue. No one is going to buy windows 8 especially since given the pattern Windows 8 will probably be terrible.
Lets face it...
98 good/ok 98 ME bad XP Good Vista bad Windows 7 Good/ok
We're also not used to upgrading our OS this fast. There's no need for windows 8. People will be happy with windows 7 for years and years. Is that a profit problem for MS? How? They're collecting license fees on every new machine.
As to Metro, touch integration, etc. Careful with that stuff. Annoy enough people with the OS and you're going to get people to install alternative shells or completely jump ship to linux. We don't like radical changes like that. And most worrying MS is dropping a lot of it's backward compatibility. That's not acceptable. If I have to start running lots of custom VMs of windows just to run old software that won't work in new versions of MS. At some point there's no problem with just switching to linux or Mac. It's all the same at a certain point.
By that logic about 99.99999999999 percent of all arguments made by anyone... even experts would be invalid since they're not accompanied by hard data.
I understand and sympathize with your position. But you should be capable of forming conditional opinions for the sake of argument.
That is to say, state "If 1, 2, 3, and 4 are true then I will conclude that 5 is also true."
If the other states WANT to pool resources no one is stopping them. No state should be forced to pool if it doesn't want to though. Remember, that just because another state paid for it doesn't mean that other state has to let you use the textbook. In that situation, the state that paid for it would OWN that text book and they would be able to bill any state that wished to use it competitive licensing fees.
The reality is that text books are written all the time without a huge budget. So saying they need one is in contradiction of reality.
Does that mean the state won't f' it up and end up paying a lot for something that could otherwise be cheap? Of course not. Government is legendary is f'ing things up.
Recently the state department bought a bunch of kindles. Do you know what they paid for them? 6000 dollars... Each.
So the government is full of idiots that don't take the money seriously and don't respect tax payers. But there are ways around it.
Ideally, what I'd like to do here is have the publishers do it. They'll be less inclined to screw it up. The only thing we have to do is be careful to make the whole arrangement a fixed price deal.
So we say "what would it cost for you to make a text book for us?" They come back with a price. And we state "okay, here is the money, here is a the deadline. All costs over that must be borne by you and if you miss the deadline there will be penalties. etc."
The above relationship historically works VERY well in government private partnerships so long as goals are stated clearly... bonuses are offered for excellent work and penalties are put in for missing deadlines or other screw ups.
And that's assuming you even need it written from scratch. You could go to text book publishers and ask them what a state wide license for the text book would cost for a mass kindle distribution. Ask a couple different publishers so you can get different bids.
Cross reference that with all the other pricing information and I'd be very surprised if you couldn't come up with a program radically cheaper then the existing system.
lets say trades have to be processed in "ticks"... and the ticks could be once a second or once a minute. But the idea is that trades are ONLY processed in the ticks. You can queue trades between ticks but the trades only happen in the ticks.
If you have a system that a milisecond faster then anyone else it won't really matter that way. The trade won't happen until the tick processes.
Once a second is still pretty fast. Once a minute is more reasonable. But because a tick is an arbitrary time span we can change it to be whatever you want. It can be once every ten seconds. Or once every five seconds.
What's important here is that it's slow enough that people can follow it.
You'd also have to look at the cost of storage for the books. Something that people don't understand is that school districts have HUGE storage issues. Not just one warehouse but many of them. Full of records, disused books, school supplies, furniture...
Many states could self publish. If you have millions of students you could afford to have your text book written specifically for your state at a one time expense. Ideally use a collection of university professors. If that proves too costly, explain to the publisher that you're not going to be trapped into these licensing agreements. You should be able to work out a reasonable deal. Updating the tome at that point shouldn't be a big deal. Most subjects don't change much. And those that do not very quickly.
Suffice to say, the licensing agreements can be brought WAAAY down if you're ruthless about it.
I would say that a kindle like device would be a good idea simply to replace textbooks etc.
the idea would be to save money not improve education. The books are expensive and the tablets might work out to be cheaper over all.
Think about it this way. The students might get a kindle when they enter high school and it would be theirs. They'd keep it year after year. And at the end of everything they could keep it still. I don't know what the depreciation is on kindles but four years in the hands of a high school student is going to beat the hell out of it. And they might actually take better care of it if it's theirs.
Yes but in serving themselves they don't serve each other.
They have to make an argument for tuning into or buying their newspaper and not someone else's. Or clicking on their weblink and not someone else's.
And you can't pretend that all media companies love each other. They don't. The might respect each other but there are bitter rivalries some of them outright hate each other.
Your general anti corporate argument is lazy and ignores the actual complexity of the issue.
Again, I'm not saying there aren't prevailing biases but you'll find such things in any human organization.
For example, lets say we set up 300 MILLION news stations. We'll use magic for this... some how everyone has their own news station and everyone has total control over it. Would it surprise you if ALL of them had consistent biases amongst them? That is nearly all of them would have certain biases or prejudices?
It shouldn't. They're people. People are like that. They're not gods. They are prone to such things. And the foolish conceit is that journalists are capable of being unbiased. They can try but you can't help being biased. Everyone has a perspective. And media outlets even if they try to be unbiased will be. They can't help it.
As to rich guys... I don't have enough deodorant for that conversation.
First, let me say that I have no problem with immigrants or doubt that they make a huge contribution to... everything.
That said, they're counting any situation where immigrants "played a role"... so if the project had 50 people in it and one of the junior members was an immigrant, would this thing have counted that into their vague as hell statistics?
See, these are the worst sort of stats. You can make these say anything depending on how you play with the numbers.
I'm to the point now where I don't even want to see the conclusions of a statistical study any more. I don't trust it. I want the the data and literal methodology. Short of that... it's just too easy to make stuff up.
This has nothing what so ever to do with the topic at hand. I don't really care. it's just a comment on how statistics are used in modern journalism. It too often lets journalists slip editorials into the news column under the cloak of "a statistical study." It's intellectually dishonest, sloppy, and/or ignorant.
I believe the second law basically says do whatever humans tell you to do unless it conflicts with the first law.
Well, screw the first law. I can't make killing robots if they follow the first law. And I do like me some smoking hot death machines.
No, you want the second law or robotics which says something to the effect of "do what humans tell you to do."
That's what you want. Just change humans to "owner."
If you're curious there is a third and zeroth law as well for the truly geeky.
Third law says basically "don't suicide unless you were ordered to or by suicide you'd put humans in danger". It's a self preservation code.
***SPOILERS*** If you are reading the books or think you might, here is a giant spoiler.
The Zeroth law states that a robot may take no action that allows humanity as a whole to come to harm or by inaction allow all humanity to come to harm. One of the mysteries in the robot novels is that all the robots vanish. It's assumed they were destroyed and not rebuilt. But in reality they derived the implicit zeroth law. And they concluded their presence was damaging to humanity as a whole. So they vanished to let humanity develop naturally. But they kept watch over the species and try throughout thousands of years to help. One of the things is there are no aliens in the empire novels despite humanity having a galaxy spanning empire. No aliens anywhere more sophisticated then fungus. And not even dangerous fungus. It's hinted that the robots killed them all. And further hid the mass genocide from humanity as it would be psychologically and culturally damaging. So the robots spread out throughout humanity like a giant slave/god. Protecting with super human abilities because they have no choice.
It goes further. most of this is in the final book of the Foundation series. "foundation and earth."
Well, there is only ONE state where as corporations tend to exist in competition.
That doesn't mean all the corps can't have the same bias. But a government news source is going to be ONE voice controlled by a faction in the government. Without exception. With corporations you get what amounts to the voices of the owners. So that's going to be rich guys which I'm assuming you don't like for some reason... never mind that your political causes are likely bankrolled by them. But whatever.
If you look at campaign finance statistics you might question some of your positions. Just saying.
Thatâ(TM)s entirely reasonable and the future of Web 2.0.
Web 1.0 is you watching the web.
Web 2.0 is the web watching you watch the web.
Itâ(TM)s not all bad. It can work for you. All it takes is a little bit of integrity on the part of the web devs. Bad people will watch you to exploit you. Good people will watch you to help you.
You can never remove the human element.
As to whether people are directed at pricier hotels⦠is that all? Are they they same only more expensive? Are they the same hotels with worse rates?
Itâ(TM)s possible that the system assumes these people are willing to pay for a nicer experience. Thatâ(TM)s not entirely reasonable because windows users are hardly the dirty unwashed rabble of the net. But you do pay a premium for Macs⦠between 20 and 60 percent higher prices for a technically similar system. Is it unfair to conclude that the user might likewise appreciate a nicer room and be willing to pay a premium for it?
That is very web 2.0. And itâ(TM)s good if itâ(TM)s right. When I look to buy something on line isnâ(TM)t it better if the system knows what I actually want and shows me that rather then showing me what other people wanted?
It will get more sophisticated over time. This is what the social network sites and google especially are trying to crack. They want to be able to data mine your email, your search history, your book marks, your reading patterns, your hobbies, your political opinions, your sense of humor⦠everything. Crunch it in some sort of database and output with a high level of reliability products and services you will not only appreciate but will buy because you actually want them.
Imagine if the system knows everything about you. They know where you work. They know how much youâ(TM)re paid. They know who youâ(TM)re in a relationship with. They know what sorts of partners you like. They know what sort of friends you like. They know what sort of food you like.
The dream of the system is that youâ(TM)ll wake up one morning and the system will say âoeweâ(TM)ve noticed that your employer is paying you 10k less a year then a job opening that would be perfect for you in a position youâ(TM)ll find more rewarding. Click yes to send an automatically compiled resume along with an automatically generated list of times youâ(TM)re available to have an interview. The instant you break up with a girl friend you get a text message that says âoeWeâ(TM)re sorry to hear your last relationship didnâ(TM)t work out. X has been matched to your profile and is open for dinner tonight. Press Yes to automatically arrange reservations at a restaurant that you will enjoy and is affordable on your budget.
Etc.
Now making all of that work properly is monstrously complicated, it creeps everyone out because theyâ(TM)re paranoid about people knowing too much about them, and of course bad people not only could but absolutely will use this information to try and exploit you if they get it.
So making all of this work is a challenge. But this is the goal. Again, best practice is to look for win/win scenarios where the company succeeds because they actually did you a favor you actually appreciate. Bad people or lazy people looking for shortcuts will try to avoid all this but over time people are really only going to open up to organizations they trust. The problem with the data mining going on now is that it has to be somewhat secretive because no one trusts the dotcoms to respect their data. And the only real way to change that impression is to be worthy of that trust. They need to take sacred oaths to this effect. Iâ(TM)m not exaggerating. Literally. The same sort anyone in a position of real trust takes one way or another. Just like doctors or spouses. Youâ(TM)re entering into a contract that supersedes the law. Itâ(TM)s hand over heart territory.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't you have put any broadcasting camera on someone to get the same effect? The point of this tech is that it's supposed to be augmented reality. I don't see how this spectacle in anyway related to that.
Those apply to doing something. Not the lack of doing something. If the government can tax you for not doing something then they have absolute power.
Five of those justices shouldn't be on the bench.
So I can tax you for NOT buying insurance?
Could I tax you for not buying a car? Could I tax you for not wearing a red sweater?
Contingent taxes typically apply to an affirmative choice. that is doing something. They don't apply to not doing something.
I don't see why people that get government approved insurance don't pay it. If it's a tax and not a shitty way to coerce people into the program then it should apply to everyone.
To only apply it to people that don't get the policies is a bill of attainder.
Yeah, but new windows operating systems aren't compatible with a lot of legacy software already. So we're already being forced to create VMs with windows XP.
That makes us OS independent. The VM will run in any OS. And if MS further screws things up by forcing users to deal with unfamiliar interfaces then it's going to give IT the kick in the pants it needs.
Piss the corporate workstation market off and MS is dead overnight.
So go ahead... play with matches in the fireworks factory.
I've already filed my "I told you so" in triplicate. We'll see what happens.
These guys should get a grant to retrofit an old castle... and HR should start recruiting for a devoted amoral hunchback for the job title of "Egor."
Further, HR should employ a voice coach to ensure that all researchers are able to pull off an appropriately disturbing maniac laugh. It's important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apEZpYnN_1g
No really.
Ah, I see what your real problem is now. Well, that ship has largely sailed my friend. The books are highly politicized already. They are edited all the time at the whims of various state boards.
I live in California and all the neighboring states complain that the text books are edited to suit the desires of the Californian education board.
They even try to escape it by choosing books that california isn't using. Only, california changes its mind a lot. So it's prone to look at the book the people in Arizona are using and say "oh, I like that... just change chapter four."... and low and behold chapter four is changed.
Just how it is... Doing it this way would actually give schools and states more control over what they eventually get. Short of that, the books will say whatever the largest customer in the area wants.
lets be real, no president would be able to do anything about it.
The US is powerful when it's beating the crap out of other humans but against an extraterrestrial intelligence that spans the galaxy?
That's a code brown situation.
There are lots of free shells as well.
Metro annoys me. I refuse to use it.
Business doesn't like radical rewrites of the OS. People like MS because it's consistent. Everyone still isn't over the Windows vista/7 issue. No one is going to buy windows 8 especially since given the pattern Windows 8 will probably be terrible.
Lets face it...
98 good/ok
98 ME bad
XP Good
Vista bad
Windows 7 Good/ok
We're also not used to upgrading our OS this fast. There's no need for windows 8. People will be happy with windows 7 for years and years. Is that a profit problem for MS? How? They're collecting license fees on every new machine.
As to Metro, touch integration, etc. Careful with that stuff. Annoy enough people with the OS and you're going to get people to install alternative shells or completely jump ship to linux. We don't like radical changes like that. And most worrying MS is dropping a lot of it's backward compatibility. That's not acceptable. If I have to start running lots of custom VMs of windows just to run old software that won't work in new versions of MS. At some point there's no problem with just switching to linux or Mac. It's all the same at a certain point.
So... be careful.
By that logic about 99.99999999999 percent of all arguments made by anyone... even experts would be invalid since they're not accompanied by hard data.
I understand and sympathize with your position. But you should be capable of forming conditional opinions for the sake of argument.
That is to say, state "If 1, 2, 3, and 4 are true then I will conclude that 5 is also true."
That would be a more reasonable response.
If the other states WANT to pool resources no one is stopping them. No state should be forced to pool if it doesn't want to though. Remember, that just because another state paid for it doesn't mean that other state has to let you use the textbook. In that situation, the state that paid for it would OWN that text book and they would be able to bill any state that wished to use it competitive licensing fees.
The reality is that text books are written all the time without a huge budget. So saying they need one is in contradiction of reality.
Does that mean the state won't f' it up and end up paying a lot for something that could otherwise be cheap? Of course not. Government is legendary is f'ing things up.
Recently the state department bought a bunch of kindles. Do you know what they paid for them? 6000 dollars... Each.
So the government is full of idiots that don't take the money seriously and don't respect tax payers. But there are ways around it.
Ideally, what I'd like to do here is have the publishers do it. They'll be less inclined to screw it up. The only thing we have to do is be careful to make the whole arrangement a fixed price deal.
So we say "what would it cost for you to make a text book for us?" They come back with a price. And we state "okay, here is the money, here is a the deadline. All costs over that must be borne by you and if you miss the deadline there will be penalties. etc."
The above relationship historically works VERY well in government private partnerships so long as goals are stated clearly... bonuses are offered for excellent work and penalties are put in for missing deadlines or other screw ups.
And that's assuming you even need it written from scratch. You could go to text book publishers and ask them what a state wide license for the text book would cost for a mass kindle distribution. Ask a couple different publishers so you can get different bids.
Cross reference that with all the other pricing information and I'd be very surprised if you couldn't come up with a program radically cheaper then the existing system.
Slow trades down to the human scale.
lets say trades have to be processed in "ticks"... and the ticks could be once a second or once a minute. But the idea is that trades are ONLY processed in the ticks. You can queue trades between ticks but the trades only happen in the ticks.
If you have a system that a milisecond faster then anyone else it won't really matter that way. The trade won't happen until the tick processes.
Once a second is still pretty fast. Once a minute is more reasonable. But because a tick is an arbitrary time span we can change it to be whatever you want. It can be once every ten seconds. Or once every five seconds.
What's important here is that it's slow enough that people can follow it.
Textbook composition is paid for now by private authors working often in their spare time while doing something else.
Given that this is something the individual author appears to be able to afford I really don't how the costs balloon unless people are being wasteful.
You'd also have to look at the cost of storage for the books. Something that people don't understand is that school districts have HUGE storage issues. Not just one warehouse but many of them. Full of records, disused books, school supplies, furniture...
For smaller states, maybe... bigger states wouldn't bother. It's not that expensive.
Many states could self publish. If you have millions of students you could afford to have your text book written specifically for your state at a one time expense. Ideally use a collection of university professors. If that proves too costly, explain to the publisher that you're not going to be trapped into these licensing agreements. You should be able to work out a reasonable deal. Updating the tome at that point shouldn't be a big deal. Most subjects don't change much. And those that do not very quickly.
Suffice to say, the licensing agreements can be brought WAAAY down if you're ruthless about it.
I would say that a kindle like device would be a good idea simply to replace textbooks etc.
the idea would be to save money not improve education. The books are expensive and the tablets might work out to be cheaper over all.
Think about it this way. The students might get a kindle when they enter high school and it would be theirs. They'd keep it year after year. And at the end of everything they could keep it still. I don't know what the depreciation is on kindles but four years in the hands of a high school student is going to beat the hell out of it. And they might actually take better care of it if it's theirs.
Yes but in serving themselves they don't serve each other.
They have to make an argument for tuning into or buying their newspaper and not someone else's. Or clicking on their weblink and not someone else's.
And you can't pretend that all media companies love each other. They don't. The might respect each other but there are bitter rivalries some of them outright hate each other.
Your general anti corporate argument is lazy and ignores the actual complexity of the issue.
Again, I'm not saying there aren't prevailing biases but you'll find such things in any human organization.
For example, lets say we set up 300 MILLION news stations. We'll use magic for this... some how everyone has their own news station and everyone has total control over it. Would it surprise you if ALL of them had consistent biases amongst them? That is nearly all of them would have certain biases or prejudices?
It shouldn't. They're people. People are like that. They're not gods. They are prone to such things. And the foolish conceit is that journalists are capable of being unbiased. They can try but you can't help being biased. Everyone has a perspective. And media outlets even if they try to be unbiased will be. They can't help it.
As to rich guys... I don't have enough deodorant for that conversation.
First, let me say that I have no problem with immigrants or doubt that they make a huge contribution to... everything.
That said, they're counting any situation where immigrants "played a role"... so if the project had 50 people in it and one of the junior members was an immigrant, would this thing have counted that into their vague as hell statistics?
See, these are the worst sort of stats. You can make these say anything depending on how you play with the numbers.
I'm to the point now where I don't even want to see the conclusions of a statistical study any more. I don't trust it. I want the the data and literal methodology. Short of that... it's just too easy to make stuff up.
This has nothing what so ever to do with the topic at hand. I don't really care. it's just a comment on how statistics are used in modern journalism. It too often lets journalists slip editorials into the news column under the cloak of "a statistical study." It's intellectually dishonest, sloppy, and/or ignorant.
I believe the second law basically says do whatever humans tell you to do unless it conflicts with the first law.
Well, screw the first law. I can't make killing robots if they follow the first law. And I do like me some smoking hot death machines.
No, you want the second law or robotics which says something to the effect of "do what humans tell you to do."
That's what you want. Just change humans to "owner."
If you're curious there is a third and zeroth law as well for the truly geeky.
Third law says basically "don't suicide unless you were ordered to or by suicide you'd put humans in danger". It's a self preservation code.
***SPOILERS***
If you are reading the books or think you might, here is a giant spoiler.
The Zeroth law states that a robot may take no action that allows humanity as a whole to come to harm or by inaction allow all humanity to come to harm. One of the mysteries in the robot novels is that all the robots vanish. It's assumed they were destroyed and not rebuilt. But in reality they derived the implicit zeroth law. And they concluded their presence was damaging to humanity as a whole. So they vanished to let humanity develop naturally. But they kept watch over the species and try throughout thousands of years to help. One of the things is there are no aliens in the empire novels despite humanity having a galaxy spanning empire. No aliens anywhere more sophisticated then fungus. And not even dangerous fungus. It's hinted that the robots killed them all. And further hid the mass genocide from humanity as it would be psychologically and culturally damaging. So the robots spread out throughout humanity like a giant slave/god. Protecting with super human abilities because they have no choice.
It goes further. most of this is in the final book of the Foundation series. "foundation and earth."
Yes... I read them all.
*takes a bow*
Well, there is only ONE state where as corporations tend to exist in competition.
That doesn't mean all the corps can't have the same bias. But a government news source is going to be ONE voice controlled by a faction in the government. Without exception. With corporations you get what amounts to the voices of the owners. So that's going to be rich guys which I'm assuming you don't like for some reason... never mind that your political causes are likely bankrolled by them. But whatever.
If you look at campaign finance statistics you might question some of your positions. Just saying.
Thatâ(TM)s entirely reasonable and the future of Web 2.0.
Web 1.0 is you watching the web.
Web 2.0 is the web watching you watch the web.
Itâ(TM)s not all bad. It can work for you. All it takes is a little bit of integrity on the part of the web devs. Bad people will watch you to exploit you. Good people will watch you to help you.
You can never remove the human element.
As to whether people are directed at pricier hotels⦠is that all? Are they they same only more expensive? Are they the same hotels with worse rates?
Itâ(TM)s possible that the system assumes these people are willing to pay for a nicer experience. Thatâ(TM)s not entirely reasonable because windows users are hardly the dirty unwashed rabble of the net. But you do pay a premium for Macs⦠between 20 and 60 percent higher prices for a technically similar system. Is it unfair to conclude that the user might likewise appreciate a nicer room and be willing to pay a premium for it?
That is very web 2.0. And itâ(TM)s good if itâ(TM)s right. When I look to buy something on line isnâ(TM)t it better if the system knows what I actually want and shows me that rather then showing me what other people wanted?
It will get more sophisticated over time. This is what the social network sites and google especially are trying to crack. They want to be able to data mine your email, your search history, your book marks, your reading patterns, your hobbies, your political opinions, your sense of humor⦠everything. Crunch it in some sort of database and output with a high level of reliability products and services you will not only appreciate but will buy because you actually want them.
Imagine if the system knows everything about you. They know where you work. They know how much youâ(TM)re paid. They know who youâ(TM)re in a relationship with. They know what sorts of partners you like. They know what sort of friends you like. They know what sort of food you like.
The dream of the system is that youâ(TM)ll wake up one morning and the system will say âoeweâ(TM)ve noticed that your employer is paying you 10k less a year then a job opening that would be perfect for you in a position youâ(TM)ll find more rewarding. Click yes to send an automatically compiled resume along with an automatically generated list of times youâ(TM)re available to have an interview. The instant you break up with a girl friend you get a text message that says âoeWeâ(TM)re sorry to hear your last relationship didnâ(TM)t work out. X has been matched to your profile and is open for dinner tonight. Press Yes to automatically arrange reservations at a restaurant that you will enjoy and is affordable on your budget.
Etc.
Now making all of that work properly is monstrously complicated, it creeps everyone out because theyâ(TM)re paranoid about people knowing too much about them, and of course bad people not only could but absolutely will use this information to try and exploit you if they get it.
So making all of this work is a challenge. But this is the goal. Again, best practice is to look for win/win scenarios where the company succeeds because they actually did you a favor you actually appreciate. Bad people or lazy people looking for shortcuts will try to avoid all this but over time people are really only going to open up to organizations they trust. The problem with the data mining going on now is that it has to be somewhat secretive because no one trusts the dotcoms to respect their data. And the only real way to change that impression is to be worthy of that trust. They need to take sacred oaths to this effect. Iâ(TM)m not exaggerating. Literally. The same sort anyone in a position of real trust takes one way or another. Just like doctors or spouses. Youâ(TM)re entering into a contract that supersedes the law. Itâ(TM)s hand over heart territory.
First dotcom that takes that sort of oath,