Hey, these companies put their stuff up freely available on the internet, and make no attempt to block us.
If they think that magically confers some obligation on us to look at every damned ad their website serves, they're full of crap. How many times to ads end up serving malware? Do they take any responsibility for that? Or just say "wasn't us"?
They may think they have some magic click-through license, but I'll be damned if I think all of those analytics and ad companies should have access to all that. I'm not conducting a transaction with those companies, I'm viewing your publicly available website which makes no effort to keep me out.
Not my problem about your ads.
Don't want me to block your ads, make your site subscription based and block me out entirely.
But don't act like I'm somehow ripping you off. Since their privacy policy is crap, we're just enacting our own.
Scorecard research, doubleclick, quantserve, and literally HUNDREDS of other companies... their product is information about me. But I never signed up for that.
So if some billion dollar media company wants to piss and moan that I'm not watching their ads... fuck 'em, stop me.
I rank this crap right up there with "by reading this billboard you agree to have this 3rd party company rifle through your wallet". Yeah, no, there's as many as 30 third parties on a lot of sites... and I've signed a contract with NONE of them.
Yes, there will always be people like that... having a bunch of idiots using social media as an excuse to give you bad service because they know in advance they might not get a tip?
Sorry, but get over your self entitled bullshit, or get a real job.
Increasingly it sounds like social media is being used so people with shitty jobs can act like self entitled assholes and pretend their dead-end job is important.
You're a cab driver, or a waitress, not some precious little snowflake. Want better tips, give better service. But don't act entitled to awesome reviews and huge tips. And sure as hell don't use that system as a means of preemptively being a douchebag.
If anything sounds like a mentality of entitlement it's people with crap jobs who want to be able to monitor the people who don't put them on a pedestal.
Imagine if a restaurant knew as soon as walked in how much you tipped them (or other restaurants in the "socio-financial network") last time?
Hey, I have a better idea... how about you remember you work in the service industry and if you are an incompetent or a rude server you won't get tipped?
A bunch of snot-nosed teenagers who think they deserve a 20% tip for asking if you want fries with that is not what the world needs.
I've seen some utterly terrible service before. And some useless server who checks to see who the big tippers are will basically give crap service to someone who was the victim of another useless server and didn't leave a tip. It divorces the reason for the tip from the actual tip.
Some distributed social network of lazy servers keeping tabs on people who don't tip them enough... yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that?
I would not be surprised if he made the mistake of questioning someone's ancestory with the suggestion they were not racially pure and it happened to be the kid of someone who already did not like his parents.
Well, do you have anything to back that up, or is it just the wild-ass speculation it sounds like?
I would not be surprised if you were talking completely out of your ass with neither facts nor evidence to back it up. I might not even be surprised if you beat your wife and children. I might not be surprised if you killed and tortured animals.
In this case, "I would not be surprised" is code for "I''m going to make unfounded bullshit speculation and insinuate there is a basis for it other than I felt like making shit up".
Harry: "Ron, what's Seamus trying to do to that glass of water?"
Ron: "Turn it to rum. Actually managed a weak tea yesterday, before--"
-- Ron and Harry[src]
Eye of rabbit, harp string hum, turn this water into rum is a transfiguration spell that, purportedly, could turn water into rum.
globalization is not a choice. you can't opt out. with 7,221,305,422 people , jets and the internet what do you think is going to happen the people that are generating massive wealth simply understand whats going on better.
Or, you look at some of the things of globalization... free trade, exporting of copyright laws, other things which distort the market and turn it into a farce where the game is rigged...
And you decide, does this really make any sense?
I think those people "generating massive wealth" who "simply understand whats going on better" have sold us a bill of goods which says "the way to prosperity is this, follow me", when in fact what it says is "fuck you, jack, this stacks the odds in my favor and now I'll rip you off"
I think the economic models championed by the people pushing the shittiest bits of globalization are lies, and I think "globalization", as America has been selling it, it basically a long-con.
I think if countries suddenly said "why aren't we protecting out own jobs, and our own products, and our own economies", instead of operating under the myth that letting those be lost to "globalization" and ruthless corporations. What fucking benefit to society is it if a foreign-owned company maximizes their profits while cutting domestic jobs and leaving an vacuum?
Globalization is predicated on gutting as many smaller companies as possible, in order to get one massive corporation -- all so that shareholder value and executive bonuses can be maximized, while local economies are gutted and left to rot.
The notion that Country A should buy companies in Country B to, only to move jobs to Company C is only good if you're in Country A... otherwise it's pretty much raping and pillaging Country B.
Globalization is about the eternal quest to find a Country B to fuck over as much as you can.
WTF does being anti or pro Microsoft have to do with the fact that the fucking headers are being rewritten by Verizon?
I'm not blindly pro or anti Microsoft -- but let's not fucking pretend a Windows phone is a magic cure-all for something which is happening at the carrier level.
But, hey, don't let common sense or facts stand in the way of being an idiot.
Verizon's controversial technology basically involves attaching tracking numbers whenever customers view Web pages. Generally, to visit a Web page, my computer (or phone, tablet, etc.) sends a request message to the website with that page. Think of this like a very (very!) fast version of sending a letter through the mail, requesting some information.
Now imagine if the Postal Service assigned an identification number to me, and every time I sent one of those letters, a postal worker opened up the envelope and stamped the ID number inside. That is more or less what Verizon has been doing: Every time a Verizon Wireless customer requests a Web page, Verizon rewrites the request in transit to include a tracking number identifying the customer.
There is no way to disable this, and certainly not with your damned Windows phone.
Verizon is directly injecting this crap into your request, on their servers, independent of what YOU do.
Basically Verizon are acting like a bunch of greedy assholes, and setting every request you make to be something uniquely identifiable as you.
You'll be far less disappointed by assuming all corporations and government are lying, self-serving bastards who don't give a fuck about you, and will happily climb over you to get what they want.
Sorry, but am I meant to believe the US government doesn't also insist on backdoors?
Because they pretty blatantly want backdoors in crypto and everything else.
So let's not pretend it's just China doing this... every damned government is insisting on this crap.
And, really:
With these new regulations, foreign companies and business groups worry that authorities may be trying to push them out of the fast-growing market. According to the Times, the groups -- which include the US Chamber of Commerce -- sent a letter Wednesday to a top-level Communist Party committee, criticizing the new policies that they say essentially amount to protectionism.
Boo frickin' hoo. You think China gives a crap about a stern letter from the US Chamber of Commerce? Or that they care if you have access to their markets?
Other than that's the only way they can keep expanding indefinitely, what makes corporations feel like they're entitled to be in any market?
I'm betting a bunch of the companies involved in this collective hand-wringing are already enabling the US government to have access through other backdoors -- so don't pretend it's even more terrible when China does it.
If America is so concerned about backdoors and exploits in Chinese made products... make 'em yourselves.
American companies need to stop acting like they can tell countries where they do business what they're willing to do. Suck it up, you want access to the market you play by the rules. Just like they would have to do to do business in the US.
I hear this crap and I just hear "Waaah, how are we to make a profit if you impose rules on us, woe is us, how will be maximize executive bonuses if there are rules?"
In what way should anybody be surprised that a wearable, wireless device has implemented security in a completely incompetent way?
These are products which are intended to be cool, shiny, and pretty... but secure? Not even a little.
I continue to be unsurprised by this crap, and I continue fairly firm in my indifference to owning any of this stuff... and the same goes the for "Interweb of Stuff"; I assume that out of the gate it's going to be insecure and stupid.
Unless companies have actual legal liability for shit security, you'll continue to see shit security.
So just don't buy it if you value security or privacy -- because they're all pretty much designed to upload your information to analytics companies anyway.
The wireless industry estimates that for every 10 Megahertz of spectrum licensed for wireless broadband, 7,000 American jobs are created and U.S. gross domestic product increases by $1.7 billion.
And more importantly, this correlates to a 5% increase in executive compensation, and a 2% increase in the hookers and cocaine fund.
This will also increase the pool for bribing politicians by an additional 1.5%, ensuring the best opportunities to purchase favorable legislation.
CEOs are said to be pleased with the forecasted pillaging of the American public, and look forward to raising your rates and finding new and creative ways to give you less for your money, while optimizing long-term executive compensation.
"We are showing that the privacy we are told that we have isn't real"
Of course it's not bloody real.
For us to believe this data has been 'anonymized', we have to assume that a) the company is qualified to do what is required to anonymize the data, b) that they actually give a shit, and c) that they bear any penalty if they do a terrible job.
Entrusting these companies with this data in the first place is the problem. Allowing them to share it all over the place for profit and with no restriction is a terrible idea.
This is precisely why sane countries have data protection and privacy laws -- because corporations are greedy, self serving entities, who won't give a crap if the collateral damage of their stuff is to damage the privacy of everybody they deal with.
And this is precisely why all of those analytics companies in web pages are just parasites and not to be trusted.
Honestly, lately I find Firefox to be more of a memory pig than Chrome... as of the last update to Firefox grows to using 2GB of RAM after a few hours, instead of staying under 1GB after several days.
Because every developer apparently feels that all of my memory is there for just them.
Yeah, Mozilla, I'm looking at you guys -- that's just sloppy.
Ah, but it comes with a catch. These are Mozilla servers.The AX (Administrator Experience) team has made regular improvements to them every month. As of this writing, the case has been modified so that it has no front-panel status display (not even a status bar of LEDs to show temperature and system load), and the case has been modified so that the power button is operated by a foot pedal, and next week the fiber/ethernet ports will be covered over with a 2-inch thick layer of beautifully minimalistic white epoxy laboriously hand-polished to a glossy sheen.
The wireless provider is no longer allowed to treat their own subscription offering as being different from, say, Netflix by pretending data which they're sending you is magically different than any other data -- which prevents them from undercutting other services by making those services artificially more expensive.
This basically allowed them to make competition obsolete by giving themselves an exemption, and treat their data packets as special.
This didn't help consumers, or competition... it helped them get an unfair leg up because they own the network and could cheat.
Do you think people are well served when a company can undercut competition by rigging the system?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, these companies put their stuff up freely available on the internet, and make no attempt to block us.
If they think that magically confers some obligation on us to look at every damned ad their website serves, they're full of crap. How many times to ads end up serving malware? Do they take any responsibility for that? Or just say "wasn't us"?
They may think they have some magic click-through license, but I'll be damned if I think all of those analytics and ad companies should have access to all that. I'm not conducting a transaction with those companies, I'm viewing your publicly available website which makes no effort to keep me out.
Not my problem about your ads.
Don't want me to block your ads, make your site subscription based and block me out entirely.
But don't act like I'm somehow ripping you off. Since their privacy policy is crap, we're just enacting our own.
Scorecard research, doubleclick, quantserve, and literally HUNDREDS of other companies ... their product is information about me. But I never signed up for that.
So if some billion dollar media company wants to piss and moan that I'm not watching their ads ... fuck 'em, stop me.
I rank this crap right up there with "by reading this billboard you agree to have this 3rd party company rifle through your wallet". Yeah, no, there's as many as 30 third parties on a lot of sites ... and I've signed a contract with NONE of them.
So fucking what?
Yes, there will always be people like that ... having a bunch of idiots using social media as an excuse to give you bad service because they know in advance they might not get a tip?
Sorry, but get over your self entitled bullshit, or get a real job.
Increasingly it sounds like social media is being used so people with shitty jobs can act like self entitled assholes and pretend their dead-end job is important.
You're a cab driver, or a waitress, not some precious little snowflake. Want better tips, give better service. But don't act entitled to awesome reviews and huge tips. And sure as hell don't use that system as a means of preemptively being a douchebag.
If anything sounds like a mentality of entitlement it's people with crap jobs who want to be able to monitor the people who don't put them on a pedestal.
Hey, I have a better idea ... how about you remember you work in the service industry and if you are an incompetent or a rude server you won't get tipped?
A bunch of snot-nosed teenagers who think they deserve a 20% tip for asking if you want fries with that is not what the world needs.
I've seen some utterly terrible service before. And some useless server who checks to see who the big tippers are will basically give crap service to someone who was the victim of another useless server and didn't leave a tip. It divorces the reason for the tip from the actual tip.
Some distributed social network of lazy servers keeping tabs on people who don't tip them enough ... yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that?
So, first Uber thinks they're exempt from the laws, and now they expect their customers to fawn over them to protect their fucking fragile egos?
These guys sound like uber assholes.
Sorry, but nothing I've ever heard about this company makes me think I'd ever want to have anything to do with them.
So, we're going to actively block the little nerdlings if they happen to have a penis?
This sounds utterly moronic, misguided, and pointless.
Sure, try to get other people involved .. but don't fucking actively stop the boys if you find yourself with no girls or minorities who are interested.
Well, do you have anything to back that up, or is it just the wild-ass speculation it sounds like?
I would not be surprised if you were talking completely out of your ass with neither facts nor evidence to back it up. I might not even be surprised if you beat your wife and children. I might not be surprised if you killed and tortured animals.
In this case, "I would not be surprised" is code for "I''m going to make unfounded bullshit speculation and insinuate there is a basis for it other than I felt like making shit up".
LOL ...
Hey, if he can prove it ...
It's kind of mind-boggling, isn't it?
This tells me the principal at this school is quite possibly a complete fucking moron who is too stupid to hold this job.
For pretending he'd use his magic powers he gets suspended? Amazing.
Or, you look at some of the things of globalization ... free trade, exporting of copyright laws, other things which distort the market and turn it into a farce where the game is rigged ...
And you decide, does this really make any sense?
I think those people "generating massive wealth" who "simply understand whats going on better" have sold us a bill of goods which says "the way to prosperity is this, follow me", when in fact what it says is "fuck you, jack, this stacks the odds in my favor and now I'll rip you off"
I think the economic models championed by the people pushing the shittiest bits of globalization are lies, and I think "globalization", as America has been selling it, it basically a long-con.
I think if countries suddenly said "why aren't we protecting out own jobs, and our own products, and our own economies", instead of operating under the myth that letting those be lost to "globalization" and ruthless corporations. What fucking benefit to society is it if a foreign-owned company maximizes their profits while cutting domestic jobs and leaving an vacuum?
Globalization is predicated on gutting as many smaller companies as possible, in order to get one massive corporation -- all so that shareholder value and executive bonuses can be maximized, while local economies are gutted and left to rot.
The notion that Country A should buy companies in Country B to, only to move jobs to Company C is only good if you're in Country A ... otherwise it's pretty much raping and pillaging Country B.
Globalization is about the eternal quest to find a Country B to fuck over as much as you can.
Globalization is a fucking Ponzi scheme.
WTF does being anti or pro Microsoft have to do with the fact that the fucking headers are being rewritten by Verizon?
I'm not blindly pro or anti Microsoft -- but let's not fucking pretend a Windows phone is a magic cure-all for something which is happening at the carrier level.
But, hey, don't let common sense or facts stand in the way of being an idiot.
Are you clueless or something?
There is no way to disable this, and certainly not with your damned Windows phone.
Verizon is directly injecting this crap into your request, on their servers, independent of what YOU do.
Basically Verizon are acting like a bunch of greedy assholes, and setting every request you make to be something uniquely identifiable as you.
And what evidence do we have the globalization helps anybody except corporations who fuck the rest of us over in the process?
Everybody acts like globalization is a good thing ... and unless you're a multinational corporation, I have yet to be convinced that's true.
H1B visas are just large corporations cheating the system by bringing in cheaper labor from other countries.
I'm of the opinion that globalization is a crock, championed by those who make money from it, and which comes at the expense of everybody else.
Easy answer: don't trust any of them.
You'll be far less disappointed by assuming all corporations and government are lying, self-serving bastards who don't give a fuck about you, and will happily climb over you to get what they want.
It's probably not far from the truth.
Sorry, but am I meant to believe the US government doesn't also insist on backdoors?
Because they pretty blatantly want backdoors in crypto and everything else.
So let's not pretend it's just China doing this ... every damned government is insisting on this crap.
And, really:
Boo frickin' hoo. You think China gives a crap about a stern letter from the US Chamber of Commerce? Or that they care if you have access to their markets?
Other than that's the only way they can keep expanding indefinitely, what makes corporations feel like they're entitled to be in any market?
I'm betting a bunch of the companies involved in this collective hand-wringing are already enabling the US government to have access through other backdoors -- so don't pretend it's even more terrible when China does it.
If America is so concerned about backdoors and exploits in Chinese made products ... make 'em yourselves.
American companies need to stop acting like they can tell countries where they do business what they're willing to do. Suck it up, you want access to the market you play by the rules. Just like they would have to do to do business in the US.
I hear this crap and I just hear "Waaah, how are we to make a profit if you impose rules on us, woe is us, how will be maximize executive bonuses if there are rules?"
LOL ... thanks for that ... I haven't heard anyone else use that one in years.
I actually heard it for the first time from people who were in the business of aircraft maintenance. I still think it's hilarious.
In what way should anybody be surprised that a wearable, wireless device has implemented security in a completely incompetent way?
These are products which are intended to be cool, shiny, and pretty ... but secure? Not even a little.
I continue to be unsurprised by this crap, and I continue fairly firm in my indifference to owning any of this stuff ... and the same goes the for "Interweb of Stuff"; I assume that out of the gate it's going to be insecure and stupid.
Unless companies have actual legal liability for shit security, you'll continue to see shit security.
So just don't buy it if you value security or privacy -- because they're all pretty much designed to upload your information to analytics companies anyway.
And more importantly, this correlates to a 5% increase in executive compensation, and a 2% increase in the hookers and cocaine fund.
This will also increase the pool for bribing politicians by an additional 1.5%, ensuring the best opportunities to purchase favorable legislation.
CEOs are said to be pleased with the forecasted pillaging of the American public, and look forward to raising your rates and finding new and creative ways to give you less for your money, while optimizing long-term executive compensation.
Suckers.
Of course it's not bloody real.
For us to believe this data has been 'anonymized', we have to assume that a) the company is qualified to do what is required to anonymize the data, b) that they actually give a shit, and c) that they bear any penalty if they do a terrible job.
Entrusting these companies with this data in the first place is the problem. Allowing them to share it all over the place for profit and with no restriction is a terrible idea.
This is precisely why sane countries have data protection and privacy laws -- because corporations are greedy, self serving entities, who won't give a crap if the collateral damage of their stuff is to damage the privacy of everybody they deal with.
And this is precisely why all of those analytics companies in web pages are just parasites and not to be trusted.
Well ... nobody has been scammed by the telcos as much as you have.
If you gave them hundreds of billions and got nothing in return, blame your politicians, and shoot their lobbyists.
Subsidized and conned aren't the same thing.
Honestly, lately I find Firefox to be more of a memory pig than Chrome ... as of the last update to Firefox grows to using 2GB of RAM after a few hours, instead of staying under 1GB after several days.
Because every developer apparently feels that all of my memory is there for just them.
Yeah, Mozilla, I'm looking at you guys -- that's just sloppy.
*bites lip* Oh, keep talking nerdy to me.
LOL ... geez, I wish I had something like that just laying around in a cupboard.
Sheeee-it.
It may come as a surprise to you .... but well used sarcasm can be insightful.
Sorry you don't feel you were consulted, but that's been true for a VERY long time.
You don't have to like it, but you should probably get over it.
Now, let's take the contrary to your position:
The wireless provider is no longer allowed to treat their own subscription offering as being different from, say, Netflix by pretending data which they're sending you is magically different than any other data -- which prevents them from undercutting other services by making those services artificially more expensive.
This basically allowed them to make competition obsolete by giving themselves an exemption, and treat their data packets as special.
This didn't help consumers, or competition ... it helped them get an unfair leg up because they own the network and could cheat.
Do you think people are well served when a company can undercut competition by rigging the system?
Perhaps your ability to detect sarcasm needs some adjustment?
Or ... whoosh!