I can't explain how absolutely giddy it makes me to know that Time Warner is working together with Microsoft. Hey, who needs antitrust laws? It's just a small collaboration I know -- I'm sure that part of healthy competition is helping eachother improve productivity. It's like good sportsmanship.......yeah, that's the ticket.
I think the ideal result (hopefully) will survive, because cutting off e-commerce that doesn't meet privacy standards will pro-actively force a lot of other countries to enact strong privacy laws, or deal with the implications of being 'left out' of the EU market.
The EU is setting an example that the US should've been setting long ago. Personally I think the whole issue is only being demonized by a media and a government that both have a vested interest in the globalization of businesses that routinely ignore privacy guidelines, and profit from it.
Re:This is in the New York Post, people!
on
To the Moon, Alice
·
· Score: 1
I don't see how a capitalist news media can lean right or left; they lean towards whatever is profitable. Writers aren't going to spontaneously conspire to lean towards anything, but the higher-ups that ultimately decide what goes in and what stays out are driven by greed. I wouldn't consider any of the corporate media to be reputable. But anyway, the Post is owned by News Corp and the Fox Entertainment Group, which most people seem to think is inherently untrustworthy.
I don't doubt the validity of this story, but people should pay closer attention to the news sources they put so much trust in. Coincidentally, the advert for tonights local news in Charlotte NC is an investigative report on possible UFO visits.
I'm a college student and I've never worked in an office environment, so that might be why:D
But I do see a lot of scanned memos from tobacco companies and such, so I had assumed most companies continued to do it the old fashioned way. Sometimes email seems a lot less secure than an office with a shredder.
I agree. Has anyone ever heard of a company that sends out memos by email? Why would they in an office environment? Especially a memo like this one. If it were sent out on paper (which makes more sense) then the person who leaked it would've copied and/or scanned it to give it some hint of validity.
These people were adults. They should've been responsible, but instead they chose to shift the responsibility onto someone else's shoulders. The only sad part is that there is even a need for 'repo-men'. We have professional thieves like these for the same reason we have similarly overbearing laws; when people behave like helpless children, they are treated (and mistreated) like helpless children.
If you take the route of mod-maker to get your foot in the door, hire a lawyer if and when you're offered a job. I'm not 'in the biz', but I would imagine if you let yourself get all starry-eyed at the chance of working with theDisco Pirate himself, you'd be more prone to signing away the lives of your children and grandchildren.
And again, sorry, but please GOD let IGN be next. Living day to day without them pandering to my manly needs for babes and alchohol is sure to have it's downsides, but I think I can cope, and I really can't think of any.
Sorry, but good riddens. I've read so many rediculous reviews on that site that I can only say I'll miss the comedic value. Reviews that liken games to works of incomprehensible genius for their obviously intended commentary on the world as we know it. Articles with shocking revelations like 'online games are going to be big'. WHA!??!!?
I will say that I'm surprised they could be short on money when even I accidentally click one of the 100 ads on their front page when I go looking for rediculously stupid articles. Forgive me for my cynicism, I just think that sites like OMM will do fine (despite the tragic loss of Daily Radar), simply because OMM doesn't suck.
I'm going by the link I made, as far AT&T and Disney is concerned, they co-own a lot of things. If that page is inaccurate, the same conclusion can be drawn in plenty of other examples. AOL and Time Warner (Warner Bros Records) themselves, for instance.
I agree that they'll cave simply because it's in their best interests to, but they're not going to sue themselves. Internet users have fewer and fewer choices; the broadband market is dominated by AOL-TimeWarner and AT and as far as alternatives go, the big fish are eating the little fish. Most people connect to Napster to download music that is copyrighted by the music division of their own ISP's 'corporate-mothership'. AOL-TimeWarner will keep 'Road Runner' and @Home users on a short leash on behalf of 'Warner Bros Records', 'Walt Disney' will keep AT&T users on a short leash to protect 'Walt Disney Pictures' and 'Walt Disney Records'.
Maybe I missed whatever revolutionary comments put us on opposing sides, but it looks to me like you agree. One definition of 'monopolized' is control through excluding others. Or 'hindering competition', so why nitpick. You acknowledge the security flaws, any schmuck knows how prone to crashes it is, you assume I use linux, and you ignored the other issues I mentioned. My only point was that MS deserves the bashing, and I really don't see any arguement from you.
I'm curious why you would make such an effort to defend the original post anyway. I mean I'm sorry if you can't see how troll-ish it is. You generalize the readers as MS-hating zombies, and unless you can read minds I would call that ignorant and insulting.
This sort of attitude annoys me to no end. God forbid people bash a company that sets out to monopolize the industry, makes crappy software, then pushes CPRM and UCITA. It reminds me of an old response I saw that said, "I know it's 'cool' these days to bash companies like Nike...." THEY MAKE THEIR PRODUCT IN SWEATSHOPS FOR GOD SAKES.
Only in a country this rife with ignorance and complacency could people be demeaned for doing the right thing just because so many other people do the right thing. Activism becomes 'geeky' because of morons who call it a 'trend' that bratty young people use just to have something to rebel against. Despite the fact that most people would rather sit on their ass than protect their own rights; despite the fact that AOL and Microsoft dominate the market with inferior products; the few people who break from the majority are the ones called ignorant conformists. What a pile of bullshit.
Sadly, I have to agree. This is just one step towards the deregulation of 'Corporate America' out of many. In terms of radio and TV, it dates back to at least 1996, with the Telecommunications Act.
The 'hot-rodding' of computers is probably one of the few ways this hobby could ever stop being seen as geeky. We'd have to turn it into a manly brag-off hobby: "This transparent beast I got can smoke your Compaq, man. It's got dual 22GHz 'Athlon Avatar's', 5 exhaust fans, AI 5x more efficient than the human brain, and a HeMan GX 975 MB Video Card! RAAAARRRR!!!"
I wonder if Slashdot could get a friendly letter from the RIAA about this.........much in the same manner as the one they got from those scientologists.
And on another note, I feel like I should explain all the 'modding down' I did in this thread. Posts like this and this are nice, but please, moderators -- they are not deserving of a 5. And they definitely don't belong above comments like this and this.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but how the hell does this not get on the front page? A story that effects almost all the games and other software which every person that reads this site uses....
You aren't forced (unknowingly even) into that job, you profit from it, your rights (hopefully) aren't violated, and tomorrow there's a million different things that could happen to end your need for it.
In the case of online profiling, websites use things like cookie files to profit from internet users who, assuming they even know about it, never gave their permission. You can stop it by disabling cookies, which will also keep you from visiting a large number of websites. And it won't get rid of the information gathered on you before they were disabled; for that, you'll have to find out which sites were using them to gather info; then you'll need to find out what that site's ad-server is. Sometimes you only need to notice the url in the bottom left when you hold the mouse pointer over an ad. Other times it'll only show an IP address, leaving you to find out who it is. Sooner or later or by an act of god, you might find the adserver. At that point you can find out whether or not they give people the choice to opt-out of the theft of their persona information. If they don't give you a choice, you're done. If they do, you can take them up on the offer and trust that a company who's business is deception will keep their word and erase you from their database.
Off the leash? When were they ever ON the leash? Americans have rights, including the right not to have their personal information stolen, and used for someone elses profit. The businesses mentioned here do that, and THOUSANDS of others not mentioned here do the same. Whether you think privacy is a dream, a preference, or a right, you should understand that no one here is a goddamned farm animal that exists only for the purpose of providing for a master. The only despicable thing about this story is that most people aren't young enough to be protected by the 4th amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't explain how absolutely giddy it makes me to know that Time Warner is working together with Microsoft. Hey, who needs antitrust laws? It's just a small collaboration I know -- I'm sure that part of healthy competition is helping eachother improve productivity. It's like good sportsmanship.......yeah, that's the ticket.
I think the ideal result (hopefully) will survive, because cutting off e-commerce that doesn't meet privacy standards will pro-actively force a lot of other countries to enact strong privacy laws, or deal with the implications of being 'left out' of the EU market.
The EU is setting an example that the US should've been setting long ago. Personally I think the whole issue is only being demonized by a media and a government that both have a vested interest in the globalization of businesses that routinely ignore privacy guidelines, and profit from it.
I don't see how a capitalist news media can lean right or left; they lean towards whatever is profitable. Writers aren't going to spontaneously conspire to lean towards anything, but the higher-ups that ultimately decide what goes in and what stays out are driven by greed. I wouldn't consider any of the corporate media to be reputable. But anyway, the Post is owned by News Corp and the Fox Entertainment Group, which most people seem to think is inherently untrustworthy.
I don't doubt the validity of this story, but people should pay closer attention to the news sources they put so much trust in. Coincidentally, the advert for tonights local news in Charlotte NC is an investigative report on possible UFO visits.
I'm a college student and I've never worked in an office environment, so that might be why :D
But I do see a lot of scanned memos from tobacco companies and such, so I had assumed most companies continued to do it the old fashioned way. Sometimes email seems a lot less secure than an office with a shredder.
I agree. Has anyone ever heard of a company that sends out memos by email? Why would they in an office environment? Especially a memo like this one. If it were sent out on paper (which makes more sense) then the person who leaked it would've copied and/or scanned it to give it some hint of validity.
These people were adults. They should've been responsible, but instead they chose to shift the responsibility onto someone else's shoulders. The only sad part is that there is even a need for 'repo-men'. We have professional thieves like these for the same reason we have similarly overbearing laws; when people behave like helpless children, they are treated (and mistreated) like helpless children.
On more recent trends.
A score of 5 is insufficient for this post.
If you take the route of mod-maker to get your foot in the door, hire a lawyer if and when you're offered a job. I'm not 'in the biz', but I would imagine if you let yourself get all starry-eyed at the chance of working with the Disco Pirate himself, you'd be more prone to signing away the lives of your children and grandchildren.
And again, sorry, but please GOD let IGN be next. Living day to day without them pandering to my manly needs for babes and alchohol is sure to have it's downsides, but I think I can cope, and I really can't think of any.
Sorry, but good riddens. I've read so many rediculous reviews on that site that I can only say I'll miss the comedic value. Reviews that liken games to works of incomprehensible genius for their obviously intended commentary on the world as we know it. Articles with shocking revelations like 'online games are going to be big'. WHA!??!!?
I will say that I'm surprised they could be short on money when even I accidentally click one of the 100 ads on their front page when I go looking for rediculously stupid articles. Forgive me for my cynicism, I just think that sites like OMM will do fine (despite the tragic loss of Daily Radar), simply because OMM doesn't suck.
I'm going by the link I made, as far AT&T and Disney is concerned, they co-own a lot of things. If that page is inaccurate, the same conclusion can be drawn in plenty of other examples. AOL and Time Warner (Warner Bros Records) themselves, for instance.
I agree that they'll cave simply because it's in their best interests to, but they're not going to sue themselves. Internet users have fewer and fewer choices; the broadband market is dominated by AOL-TimeWarner and AT and as far as alternatives go, the big fish are eating the little fish. Most people connect to Napster to download music that is copyrighted by the music division of their own ISP's 'corporate-mothership'. AOL-TimeWarner will keep 'Road Runner' and @Home users on a short leash on behalf of 'Warner Bros Records', 'Walt Disney' will keep AT&T users on a short leash to protect 'Walt Disney Pictures' and 'Walt Disney Records'.
Maybe I missed whatever revolutionary comments put us on opposing sides, but it looks to me like you agree. One definition of 'monopolized' is control through excluding others. Or 'hindering competition', so why nitpick. You acknowledge the security flaws, any schmuck knows how prone to crashes it is, you assume I use linux, and you ignored the other issues I mentioned. My only point was that MS deserves the bashing, and I really don't see any arguement from you.
I'm curious why you would make such an effort to defend the original post anyway. I mean I'm sorry if you can't see how troll-ish it is. You generalize the readers as MS-hating zombies, and unless you can read minds I would call that ignorant and insulting.
This sort of attitude annoys me to no end. God forbid people bash a company that sets out to monopolize the industry, makes crappy software, then pushes CPRM and UCITA. It reminds me of an old response I saw that said, "I know it's 'cool' these days to bash companies like Nike...." THEY MAKE THEIR PRODUCT IN SWEATSHOPS FOR GOD SAKES.
Only in a country this rife with ignorance and complacency could people be demeaned for doing the right thing just because so many other people do the right thing. Activism becomes 'geeky' because of morons who call it a 'trend' that bratty young people use just to have something to rebel against. Despite the fact that most people would rather sit on their ass than protect their own rights; despite the fact that AOL and Microsoft dominate the market with inferior products; the few people who break from the majority are the ones called ignorant conformists. What a pile of bullshit.
Sadly, I have to agree. This is just one step towards the deregulation of 'Corporate America' out of many. In terms of radio and TV, it dates back to at least 1996, with the Telecommunications Act.
The 'hot-rodding' of computers is probably one of the few ways this hobby could ever stop being seen as geeky. We'd have to turn it into a manly brag-off hobby: "This transparent beast I got can smoke your Compaq, man. It's got dual 22GHz 'Athlon Avatar's', 5 exhaust fans, AI 5x more efficient than the human brain, and a HeMan GX 975 MB Video Card! RAAAARRRR!!!"
Awwwwwwwww fudge it!@! It undoes moderation that I made? I assumed that I could post without any issue once I had used all my points. GRRRR.
I wonder if Slashdot could get a friendly letter from the RIAA about this.........much in the same manner as the one they got from those scientologists.
And on another note, I feel like I should explain all the 'modding down' I did in this thread. Posts like this and this are nice, but please, moderators -- they are not deserving of a 5. And they definitely don't belong above comments like this and this.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but how the hell does this not get on the front page? A story that effects almost all the games and other software which every person that reads this site uses....
I'm confused -- will this have any effect on all the SDMI business?
Color changing walls with musical borders on the top edge. Now that's a groovy bachelor pad.
You aren't forced (unknowingly even) into that job, you profit from it, your rights (hopefully) aren't violated, and tomorrow there's a million different things that could happen to end your need for it.
In the case of online profiling, websites use things like cookie files to profit from internet users who, assuming they even know about it, never gave their permission. You can stop it by disabling cookies, which will also keep you from visiting a large number of websites. And it won't get rid of the information gathered on you before they were disabled; for that, you'll have to find out which sites were using them to gather info; then you'll need to find out what that site's ad-server is. Sometimes you only need to notice the url in the bottom left when you hold the mouse pointer over an ad. Other times it'll only show an IP address, leaving you to find out who it is. Sooner or later or by an act of god, you might find the adserver. At that point you can find out whether or not they give people the choice to opt-out of the theft of their persona information. If they don't give you a choice, you're done. If they do, you can take them up on the offer and trust that a company who's business is deception will keep their word and erase you from their database.
So I don't really see a comparison.
Off the leash? When were they ever ON the leash? Americans have rights, including the right not to have their personal information stolen, and used for someone elses profit. The businesses mentioned here do that, and THOUSANDS of others not mentioned here do the same. Whether you think privacy is a dream, a preference, or a right, you should understand that no one here is a goddamned farm animal that exists only for the purpose of providing for a master. The only despicable thing about this story is that most people aren't young enough to be protected by the 4th amendment.