This has zip, 0, nada, to do with the constitution, but you don't get that, because you are on a witch hunt, looking for a witch to burn.
Go read the mobile device privacy policy / TOS. It's spelled out in black and white. I know this to be a fact for Verizons network, which ironically, apparently, doesn't use CarrierIQ. When you sign up for phone service, you agree to be logged, and you agree to allow {carrier} to give the data to 3rd parties. You have agreed to this. It's no more a violation of the constitution as taking a test and handing it to the teacher, at which point, the teacher can do whatever they want with it. You wouldn't call that a warrantless wiretap would you ?
When you are done with the witch hunt, the cries of constitutional violations, etc, and you actually start to focus on how to solve the problem, you will realize nothing short of legislation requiring carriers to allow you to opt out will fix this.
In the meantime, have fun getting angry and burning witches. Anything short of demanding our government representatives fix this via legislation that allows you to opt out will just be wasted emotion, time, and energy.
This is the exact same mechanism by which the FBI ( and other law enforcement agencies ) have been obtaining peoples credit card statements for decades. Nobody is making a stink about it, claiming constitutional violations, etc. I'm pretty sure people realize, if you don't want to leave a trail, don't use a credit card.
Where in the TOS does it say we voluntarily hand the FBI all our records? Allowing the carrier to monitor us is not the same as allowing the federal government to monitor us.
You can check Verizons website for an example. Its in their "privacy policy" and it spells out clearly that you are being monitored and have 0 expectation of privacy. I assume other carriers have the same legal boilerplate, but have not personally investigated all the carriers to claim it as fact.
As soon as you allow the carrier to log device data, via the TOS, that log data becomes property of the carrier, and they can sell it to whomever they want, which is also stated in their TOS, in wording similar to "data may be provided to 3rd parties."
That is the mechanism by which this current, legal but controversial, practice is occurring.
There is no evidence of any warrantless wiretapping occouring. Let me explain.
Customer wants a phone, customer signs TOS agreeing to be monitored. Carrier does monitoring of customer, which customer agreed to. FBI wants data for an investigation. FBI pays carrier to get records of customer, which customer agreed to allow to be collected and logged. This is not a "warrantless wiretap" just as walking into an FBI office and handing them copies of all your records voluntarily is not a warrantless wiretap.
I completely get that the outcome of the process, is essentially the same as allowing the FBI to have wiretaps, but only on those who agree to it voluntarily, by way of the carrier TOS. Much like it's a given that Googles log data will be sold to the FBI, and Google clearly spells it out in their TOS.
The meat of this entire issue, is that, there is currently no way to get a phone in the US, from a carrier, and opt-out of the data collection process, such that one does not voluntarily leave a trail of everything they do. Being able to opt-out, would require law enforcement to get a judge approved wiretap to collect current and future information, as no log will have existed ( in the being able to opt out scenario ).
I understand. People are upset over the fact that CarrierIQ is being used to collect data. But everyone upset over it, agreed to it, via the TOS they signed with the carrier. So why do any of the details of the collection process matter ?
I wrote a post about how carrier privacy legislation will be required to fix this, since economic incentive and standard practice and legal precedent at the moment says it's all business as usual.
Which is why I say... does it matter *how* the data is being collected, or the fact that the data is being collected ( which is a given at this point ). I think what people really want, is a means to opt out of the data being collected. [law enforcement will be an obvious, unavoidable exception, given the reality of life on earth]
whether the FBI used Carrier IQ's software to in its own investigations, whether it is currently investigating Carrier IQ, or whether it is some combination of both - not unlikely given the recent uproar over the practice coupled with the U.S. intelligence communities reliance on third-party vendors.
Does it really matter ? If they want CarrierIQ data for a customer, they can just get it from the carrier, and pay the carrier to collect it [for active investigations approved by a judge].
Well, if I didn't comprehend that the customers of the fast food joint, weren't purchasing the food and eating it voluntarily, I could accuse the kid working behind the counter of being a mass murderer by way of providing poison that kills people.
But I happen to understand the benefits traders provide to society with their activity, as well as the benefits the kid at the burger joint provides to society by his activity, which is exactly why both securities trading and burger slinging are legal occupations.
You do know that lotteries (and in fact and game that includes a progressive jackpot) can be wagered with positive expectation, right?
Yes. I am aware of a few instances where groups have gamed the lottery by purchasing enough combinations of numbers to guarantee a win. After which point, the various state entities operating the lotteries either passed regulation making it illegal to do so, or have changed the mathematics of the game to prevent it.
My comment about lotteries and math, wasn't intended to be taken as seriously as it has been. I attached a wink;) to the end, in the hopes that people would interpret it as the tounge-in-cheek funny-ha-ha it was intended to be, but alas, this is slashdot, where serious is ridiculous and funny is serious.
That said, buying 1 ticket with a 1 in 20 million chance of a positive outcome, is gambling.
Planning and executing the logistics required to purchase 5 of 20 million tickets to guarantee a positive outcome, is investing and executing a business strategy like any other.
Disclaimer... above numbers are purely hypothetical and plucked from thin air for the sole purpose of illustration. Any resemblance to an actual numbers used to execute a successful business strategy or wager on a game of chance is purely coincidental. Actual numbers have been changed to protect the innocent.
computers have I/O ports through which they can observe their environment
A human attached a sensor, also built by humans, to the i/o port. The data is fed to the computer by a human, as opposed to, the computer growing an i/o port and a sensor on its own. The data is being "input" by humans.
But at a low level, it could still be a von Neumann machine on an i386 platform.
Therefore, everything it does is a mathematical simulation, regardless of humans ability to comprehend the formula.
So, pumping money into a [commodities|housing|internet|gold] bubble really is considered investing then? I guess this explains a lot (and yes, this is a slam on the sheeple not the parent).
This depends solely on the strategy you employ when investing in securities. If you sell the farm to buy shares in ABC co. because the neighbor, the guy at work, Bob the stock broker, etc said it was "a really hot stock, a can't miss oppourtunity." well, then I'd say you're an idiot, you are gambling, and it's probably going to bite you because you don't know how the market works. [This is especially true of the housing bubble. I was working construction at the time, and people were having brand new houses built for them, using no-doc loans, and putting them up for sale without ever moving in, in an attempt to earn 6% or so. Crazy. Houses are long term investments, not slot machines.]
That said, if you do some basic analysis, and all factors indicate the market is growing, and you buy into it, and you use stop-loss orders to limit your risk, and you sell when all analysis says the run up is over, then you are investing, because you are doing the work required to shift the otherwise close to 50/50 odds in your favor to the point where you gain a mathematical advantage.
My simplified model only addressed how the company generated wealth by going public via an IPO. There is a larger picture at play, whereby the use of the companies products can also generate wealth which I did not address.
You are still investing in the company, by 2 primary mechanisms. The original IPO generates cash for the company, in exchange for an ownership interest in the company. So the company is trading equity for cash, so that it may grow faster than it could by simply re-investing revenues. The second primary mechanism, is the growth in value of the shares retained by the company. The IPO doesn't release 100% of the companies equity. The increase/decrease in value of the portion of the shares traded publicly, gets reflected on the companies on balance sheet for the shares they retained.
As with any valuation of an object, be it a screwdriver, a car, or shares of stock, the value is always perceptually related. Standard accounting practices use market value, which could be considered "the perception after polling the entire market and averaging it." A used car might be worth only $500 to you, because you don't need it, your car is better, you don't want to fix it, etc. But that same used car could be worth $10,000 to say, a criminal who has recently escaped from prison and needs a means to get away from the police. So as always, beauty ( and in this case value ) is in the eye of the beholder.
As for the "investing in stocks that don't pay anything"... these are generally referred to as "growth stocks." Google is a perfect recent example of a company that was in the red, financially, because their expenses were greater than revenues, but their revenues were growing at such an exponential rate, the market didn't care. The internet was exploding in user numbers, and Google was positioned as the market leader in search. These factors get considered and are a component of the share price.
So it's complicated, but it's not a complete scam as some believe, except perhaps in the handful of cases like Enron, where the books were cooked so badly, the wealth evaporated overnight, instead of a gradual decline in the companies performance or a buy out.
Your summary accurately describes the definition of gambling as opposed to investing.
Gambling is placing money at risk with an expectation of loss.
Investing is placing money at risk with an expectation of gain.
I hope I'm not the only one who finds it odd that the state lotteries they sold the public by claiming "The funds will benefit education" would put themselves out of business if people were actually learning math.;)
Slashdot Mirror
This has zip, 0, nada, to do with the constitution, but you don't get that, because you are on a witch hunt, looking for a witch to burn.
Go read the mobile device privacy policy / TOS. It's spelled out in black and white. I know this to be a fact for Verizons network, which ironically, apparently, doesn't use CarrierIQ. When you sign up for phone service, you agree to be logged, and you agree to allow {carrier} to give the data to 3rd parties. You have agreed to this. It's no more a violation of the constitution as taking a test and handing it to the teacher, at which point, the teacher can do whatever they want with it. You wouldn't call that a warrantless wiretap would you ?
When you are done with the witch hunt, the cries of constitutional violations, etc, and you actually start to focus on how to solve the problem, you will realize nothing short of legislation requiring carriers to allow you to opt out will fix this.
In the meantime, have fun getting angry and burning witches. Anything short of demanding our government representatives fix this via legislation that allows you to opt out will just be wasted emotion, time, and energy.
as an afterthought ...
This is the exact same mechanism by which the FBI ( and other law enforcement agencies ) have been obtaining peoples credit card statements for decades. Nobody is making a stink about it, claiming constitutional violations, etc. I'm pretty sure people realize, if you don't want to leave a trail, don't use a credit card.
Where in the TOS does it say we voluntarily hand the FBI all our records? Allowing the carrier to monitor us is not the same as allowing the federal government to monitor us.
You can check Verizons website for an example. Its in their "privacy policy" and it spells out clearly that you are being monitored and have 0 expectation of privacy. I assume other carriers have the same legal boilerplate, but have not personally investigated all the carriers to claim it as fact.
As soon as you allow the carrier to log device data, via the TOS, that log data becomes property of the carrier, and they can sell it to whomever they want, which is also stated in their TOS, in wording similar to "data may be provided to 3rd parties."
That is the mechanism by which this current, legal but controversial, practice is occurring.
constant warrantless wiretap requests
There is no evidence of any warrantless wiretapping occouring. Let me explain.
Customer wants a phone, customer signs TOS agreeing to be monitored. Carrier does monitoring of customer, which customer agreed to. FBI wants data for an investigation. FBI pays carrier to get records of customer, which customer agreed to allow to be collected and logged. This is not a "warrantless wiretap" just as walking into an FBI office and handing them copies of all your records voluntarily is not a warrantless wiretap.
I completely get that the outcome of the process, is essentially the same as allowing the FBI to have wiretaps, but only on those who agree to it voluntarily, by way of the carrier TOS. Much like it's a given that Googles log data will be sold to the FBI, and Google clearly spells it out in their TOS.
The meat of this entire issue, is that, there is currently no way to get a phone in the US, from a carrier, and opt-out of the data collection process, such that one does not voluntarily leave a trail of everything they do. Being able to opt-out, would require law enforcement to get a judge approved wiretap to collect current and future information, as no log will have existed ( in the being able to opt out scenario ).
I understand. People are upset over the fact that CarrierIQ is being used to collect data. But everyone upset over it, agreed to it, via the TOS they signed with the carrier. So why do any of the details of the collection process matter ?
... does it matter *how* the data is being collected, or the fact that the data is being collected ( which is a given at this point ). I think what people really want, is a means to opt out of the data being collected. [law enforcement will be an obvious, unavoidable exception, given the reality of life on earth]
I wrote a post about how carrier privacy legislation will be required to fix this, since economic incentive and standard practice and legal precedent at the moment says it's all business as usual.
Which is why I say
I'm still confused as to where the controversy comes from. The US government relies on vendors for just about everything.
whether the FBI used Carrier IQ's software to in its own investigations, whether it is currently investigating Carrier IQ, or whether it is some combination of both - not unlikely given the recent uproar over the practice coupled with the U.S. intelligence communities reliance on third-party vendors.
Does it really matter ? If they want CarrierIQ data for a customer, they can just get it from the carrier, and pay the carrier to collect it [for active investigations approved by a judge].
Watching movies and videos is an expensive activity. More expensive than most realize. Start a business instead.
... just a monkey brain fart, not an attack on video watchers.
Take it for what it is
had to shell out $180 for a new 2TB
Wow. Last year on black friday, I got a 2TB Samsung drive from newegg for $70 delivered.
Bad timing indeed.
Well, if I didn't comprehend that the customers of the fast food joint, weren't purchasing the food and eating it voluntarily, I could accuse the kid working behind the counter of being a mass murderer by way of providing poison that kills people.
But I happen to understand the benefits traders provide to society with their activity, as well as the benefits the kid at the burger joint provides to society by his activity, which is exactly why both securities trading and burger slinging are legal occupations.
I was thinking the same thing.
You do realize, *everyone* is a trader, right ? Even the kid slinging burgers at the local fast food joint is a trade. He trades time for money.
Hey now. Traders do just that, they trade. They don't steal and fence. ;)
You do know that lotteries (and in fact and game that includes a progressive jackpot) can be wagered with positive expectation, right?
Yes. I am aware of a few instances where groups have gamed the lottery by purchasing enough combinations of numbers to guarantee a win. After which point, the various state entities operating the lotteries either passed regulation making it illegal to do so, or have changed the mathematics of the game to prevent it.
;) to the end, in the hopes that people would interpret it as the tounge-in-cheek funny-ha-ha it was intended to be, but alas, this is slashdot, where serious is ridiculous and funny is serious.
... above numbers are purely hypothetical and plucked from thin air for the sole purpose of illustration. Any resemblance to an actual numbers used to execute a successful business strategy or wager on a game of chance is purely coincidental. Actual numbers have been changed to protect the innocent.
My comment about lotteries and math, wasn't intended to be taken as seriously as it has been. I attached a wink
That said, buying 1 ticket with a 1 in 20 million chance of a positive outcome, is gambling.
Planning and executing the logistics required to purchase 5 of 20 million tickets to guarantee a positive outcome, is investing and executing a business strategy like any other.
Disclaimer
what else would they be useful for?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Grover's_algorithm
What is it which makes the human mind so big that it saturates our brute-force computer processing power?
Last I read, there was evidence that it functions at the quantum level, which brings us to exactly how close we are to being able to mimic it via an artificial creation ... http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/12/11/2029235/worlds-first-programmable-quantum-photonic-chip
computers have I/O ports through which they can observe their environment
A human attached a sensor, also built by humans, to the i/o port. The data is fed to the computer by a human, as opposed to, the computer growing an i/o port and a sensor on its own. The data is being "input" by humans.
But at a low level, it could still be a von Neumann machine on an i386 platform.
Therefore, everything it does is a mathematical simulation, regardless of humans ability to comprehend the formula.
So, pumping money into a [commodities|housing|internet|gold] bubble really is considered investing then? I guess this explains a lot (and yes, this is a slam on the sheeple not the parent).
This depends solely on the strategy you employ when investing in securities. If you sell the farm to buy shares in ABC co. because the neighbor, the guy at work, Bob the stock broker, etc said it was "a really hot stock, a can't miss oppourtunity." well, then I'd say you're an idiot, you are gambling, and it's probably going to bite you because you don't know how the market works. [This is especially true of the housing bubble. I was working construction at the time, and people were having brand new houses built for them, using no-doc loans, and putting them up for sale without ever moving in, in an attempt to earn 6% or so. Crazy. Houses are long term investments, not slot machines.]
That said, if you do some basic analysis, and all factors indicate the market is growing, and you buy into it, and you use stop-loss orders to limit your risk, and you sell when all analysis says the run up is over, then you are investing, because you are doing the work required to shift the otherwise close to 50/50 odds in your favor to the point where you gain a mathematical advantage.
My simplified model only addressed how the company generated wealth by going public via an IPO. There is a larger picture at play, whereby the use of the companies products can also generate wealth which I did not address.
... these are generally referred to as "growth stocks." Google is a perfect recent example of a company that was in the red, financially, because their expenses were greater than revenues, but their revenues were growing at such an exponential rate, the market didn't care. The internet was exploding in user numbers, and Google was positioned as the market leader in search. These factors get considered and are a component of the share price.
You are still investing in the company, by 2 primary mechanisms. The original IPO generates cash for the company, in exchange for an ownership interest in the company. So the company is trading equity for cash, so that it may grow faster than it could by simply re-investing revenues. The second primary mechanism, is the growth in value of the shares retained by the company. The IPO doesn't release 100% of the companies equity. The increase/decrease in value of the portion of the shares traded publicly, gets reflected on the companies on balance sheet for the shares they retained.
As with any valuation of an object, be it a screwdriver, a car, or shares of stock, the value is always perceptually related. Standard accounting practices use market value, which could be considered "the perception after polling the entire market and averaging it." A used car might be worth only $500 to you, because you don't need it, your car is better, you don't want to fix it, etc. But that same used car could be worth $10,000 to say, a criminal who has recently escaped from prison and needs a means to get away from the police. So as always, beauty ( and in this case value ) is in the eye of the beholder.
As for the "investing in stocks that don't pay anything"
So it's complicated, but it's not a complete scam as some believe, except perhaps in the handful of cases like Enron, where the books were cooked so badly, the wealth evaporated overnight, instead of a gradual decline in the companies performance or a buy out.
If you derive pleasure from losing money, send me $20 and I'll respond with an email telling you whether or not you won $40. ;)
yeah ... sorry slashdotters .... i got lost in a link maze ... hang the guy who wrote the article. ;)
Your summary accurately describes the definition of gambling as opposed to investing.
;)
Gambling is placing money at risk with an expectation of loss.
Investing is placing money at risk with an expectation of gain.
I hope I'm not the only one who finds it odd that the state lotteries they sold the public by claiming "The funds will benefit education" would put themselves out of business if people were actually learning math.
s/article/math paper ... gah
http://www.maa.org/joma/Volume8/Siegrist/RedBlack.pdf
No.