They will continue to do as they please, the only consequence on their end is the admissibility of any evidence uncovered. It's not like they are likely to face any personal criminal or civil liability for the violation of the person's rights.
Some airports don't allow you to carry on a device that can't be powered on. It's harder to hide something in a functional device than one that doesn't function I guess is the theory.
Agreeing to waive your civil rights should never be a condition of employment. Many desperate people agree privately to work for less than minimum wage, it doesn't make it an acceptable practice. Consent to violation by someone without a suitable alternative doesn't automatically negate the violation.
Ah yes, the paradox of privacy advocacy. All of us who advocate publicly for privacy and civil rights likely sacrifice some of our own in the process, and so be it, it's only because of the constant roar of millions of voices that we are able to preserve our ability to speak freely.
Sure, be we can't call it that anymore. We'll have to call it Obsessive Non-Offensive Disorder. A condition that be easily diagnosed by presenting the patient with a series of mildly racist or sexist jokes and observing their reaction. If the results are inconclusive, then work midget or retard into casual conversation and judge reaction level. It is important to ensure the test criterion should not cause direct personal offense to a category of which the patient is a member. Obsessive Non-Offensive Disorder is caused by hyper-sensitivity of empathy receptors or irrational self-righteousness. Scores are 1-5.
1= Laughs at everything and tells more offensive joke in return. Possible asshole, but not afflicted. 2= Laughs at 4 out of five with no negative reactions. patient not afflicted. 3= Laughs at at least 2 out of five and makes jovial comment like "Dude, that's wrong", patient normal. 4= Doesn't laugh at anything and body language suggests discomfort, or patient comments calmly that jokes are inappropriate. Patient suffers mild Obsessive Non-Offensive Disorder. 5= Patient does not laugh and threatens to sue, sends obnoxious self righteous Tweet, or subjects medical staff to unpleasant lecture. Patient suffers full blown Obsessive Non-Offensive Disorder.
Wasn't getting a patent pretty hard in the past? I don't get how so many ideas seem to be patentable when they are obvious and vague. These patent lawyers are going to destroy innovation in America. Software patents pretending to be something else, patenting vague ideas, patenting processes that aren't really proprietary, this shit needs to stop. The USPTO needs to get a fucking backbone and preserve the integrity of the free market and we should create a fast track process for patent invalidation. A little guy that gets sued over one of the BS patents issued in the last 25 years should be able to challenge its validity for small fee before the suit can move forward.
I'll correct myself on that one. There goes my idiot points for the day. It still wouldn't curve. For an object in flight to take an arced path something has to continue to act on it. The bullet fired from a train would simply travel at an angle except where affected by wind and air resistance, not a curve.
That Wanted thing was spectacular nonsense. I do think there is a scenario where a bullet could fly in an arc. The gun itself would have to be traveling laterally at say 650fps while it's fired, then if the bullet leaves the muzzle at 960fps the combined velocity on X and Y axis would create an arched path. Even with super powers, the motion of the arm doesn't create this very well since centrifugal force doesn't help, only the lateral motion. This would be like firing a.45 ACP handgun from a train going about 443 miles per hour and firing it perpendicular to the tracks. As superhuman abilities go, being able to accelerate an object to 650fps with your arm, in and of itself would be much more useful than arcing bullets.
If there is a TechShop location in your area, I'd go on a tour and see what they offer. It would give an idea of options and how much real estate things take up in real life.
It's not illegal, but it should be. Spokeo, I think actually has opt-outs, but others don't. Exactly how in America you don't have the right to say no to having your address published is beyond me. Don't make any enemies in this world, they sure won't have any trouble finding you. There is way too much personal info available through public records. This 1970s era pseudo honor system we have is unprepared for the age of the internet, big data and sophisticated cyber crime.
It's not secret how much I support Snowden, even if his actions were not legal. I hate supposed surveys where they don't show you the actual text of the questions asked. If I don't know how the survey asks the question, it's impossible to know how much to trust the responses. Sorry mister Snowden, your worst fears are realized. You sacrificed your own freedom to give us the chance to protect ours and most people are too ignorant to give a damn. If the ACLU actually sponsored this, they should have thrown it out. We don't need this shit in the press months before the expiration of Patriot Act Sect. 215.
Sure, but then how are they going to put all our medical records online and use big data to analyze treatments and outcomes. Oh, you don't want that? No, sorry there isn't an opt out for that. I guess even though we know businesses are incapable of protecting privacy we'll just have to be understanding that it's for our own good.
Myself, I'm preparing certified letters for my pharmacy, insurer and doctor's office to let them no they do not have my consent to do any of that and that I'd like all eligible records destroyed. Yes, I am bored, so what.
I'm working on a social media project and I do want to allow the site owner to run ads for profit if desired, but I want to protect the users and make advertising as harmless as possible. Do I need to host the ads myself if I want to enforce any protection for my users privacy and security?
It's a conflict they just don't understand. Yes, you can know more if you spy on all human interaction, but that isn't the point. It's better to not know some stuff that could be known, so that all of the innocent people can communicate freely and without reservation. I'm much more frightened by totalitarians than terrorists. I can put it no better than this: The Loss of liberty is worse than the threat of terror.
Finance.yahoo.com, is also dying. Thank you CEO Marissa Mayer, you have taken what used to be a valuable and interesting resource for investors and completely fucking ruined it.
Regarding Yahoo mail, since you can't take your yahoo email to another server, exactly what are we supposed to do with what is for many of us what we consider our permanent email address. I don't want to tell all my contacts to find me at a new address every time a new domain becomes popular. Then again, I don't want any more job related spam their so Gmail is welcome to it. It only helps with my efforts to make sure Google's algorithms think I'm a good little soldier that only cares about work. Yahoo has gotten a worse rap than it deserves. Just because the media latches on to Google doesn't mean there is something lacking in the competition. I've had my email there for over two decades and I've never had to contact support for anything, they must do a few things right. If I go anywhere with my real mail I'd have to consider Hushmail. Lack of privacy is my only real complaint about yahoo mail.
I carry small bills loose in my pocket whenever possible in large cities. If a homeless person gives me a bad vibe, I'd rather appease them and give a couple dollars and I like to be able to do it without pulling out my wallet in front of them or anyone else who may be watching. Standing there on the street looking down and fumbling in your wallet is a bad idea.
No one thought of that because then the failure would be apparent. Nobody profits from failure, well, unless you sell the whole solution before anyone knows it failed. Hey wait, I see what happened...
The old version has fewer of the unnecessary permissions they want us all to allow. So, if we want maps on Android they expect us all to allow: Identity, Contacts, Location, Photos/Media/Files, WiFi Connection Information, Phone, Bluetooth Connection Info, Device ID & Call Information.
No thank you. Do I really have to lug around an unregistered NAV device if I don't want Google seeing all this shit?
I'll be curious to see if white Americans actually still have rights. I know they are viewed as the privileged oppressors, but maybe we'll see if it can still be discrimination even if it's against white Americans.
So, Google gets to win at maps and we are just stuck with it? I can understand where can't very well offer free mapping software as a service for the whole planet and have multiple companies struggling to get people to use their version. I do hope for an alternate future where Google maps isn't the only game in town for mobile, but if Microsoft can't compete, I'm not sure who else ever will. It's not that I don't like Google Maps, but the less competition, the more leverage they have to disrespect our privacy.
I nearly learned that the hard way. As an idiot teenager I picked up a rectangular storm drain grate that was heavier than estimated. It went right into the hole and just about took me with it. It's funny I hear Google doesn't like to hire people who "just want to work for Google", but unless you really had some desire to specifically seek out Google, their interviews would seem really obnoxious. I only lasted a few interviews before it became clear I didn't want it bad enough, but I will say they didn't go off topic from the technical stuff in my case. If they pulled out some nonsense questions that far into the process I'd have been happy to explain that my job area doesn't involve golf balls, man holes, or explaining colors to fucking blind people.
I have long felt that companies should legally have to disclose if not, get consent to share your personal information outside your home country. I don't say this because people in other countries are any less trustworthy. My reasoning is that a person has more ability to control their risk exposure and be provided with known forms of legal recourse when their information isn't unknowingly shared or transmitted outside their own country. I've never been comfortable with the idea that when I call into a call center, they don't tell me where they are located. Now if I share my personal info with that agent, how would I possibly know if US laws and protections apply to the data I share or if the call center's IT environment is regulated to U.S. standards for audit compliance and data protection? How would I know if a breach of that unknown foreign call center network would be reported as it would under U.S. law?
Google's representative says she isn't defending the practices being right or wrong. Let me simplify that, if the tail is waging the dog, it is wrong. If they aren't going to book the revenue in their home country I can see the merits of booking revenue based on the true national origin (not shell company) of the advertiser or of the end customer, but booking revenue in a tax haven that is entirely unrelated to the transaction is indefensible.
'These are international tax arrangements and what Google is doing in Australia is very very similar to what Australian companies are doing outside of Australia. I am not sitting here today trying to defend whether those practices are right or wrong, they are simply the way the global tax system is currently working and we are trying to operate within that.' Said [Google's Maile Carnegie]
Slashdot Mirror
They will continue to do as they please, the only consequence on their end is the admissibility of any evidence uncovered. It's not like they are likely to face any personal criminal or civil liability for the violation of the person's rights.
Some airports don't allow you to carry on a device that can't be powered on. It's harder to hide something in a functional device than one that doesn't function I guess is the theory.
Agreeing to waive your civil rights should never be a condition of employment. Many desperate people agree privately to work for less than minimum wage, it doesn't make it an acceptable practice. Consent to violation by someone without a suitable alternative doesn't automatically negate the violation.
Ah yes, the paradox of privacy advocacy. All of us who advocate publicly for privacy and civil rights likely sacrifice some of our own in the process, and so be it, it's only because of the constant roar of millions of voices that we are able to preserve our ability to speak freely.
Sure, be we can't call it that anymore. We'll have to call it Obsessive Non-Offensive Disorder. A condition that be easily diagnosed by presenting the patient with a series of mildly racist or sexist jokes and observing their reaction. If the results are inconclusive, then work midget or retard into casual conversation and judge reaction level. It is important to ensure the test criterion should not cause direct personal offense to a category of which the patient is a member. Obsessive Non-Offensive Disorder is caused by hyper-sensitivity of empathy receptors or irrational self-righteousness. Scores are 1-5.
1= Laughs at everything and tells more offensive joke in return. Possible asshole, but not afflicted.
2= Laughs at 4 out of five with no negative reactions. patient not afflicted.
3= Laughs at at least 2 out of five and makes jovial comment like "Dude, that's wrong", patient normal.
4= Doesn't laugh at anything and body language suggests discomfort, or patient comments calmly that jokes are inappropriate. Patient suffers mild Obsessive Non-Offensive Disorder.
5= Patient does not laugh and threatens to sue, sends obnoxious self righteous Tweet, or subjects medical staff to unpleasant lecture. Patient suffers full blown Obsessive Non-Offensive Disorder.
Wasn't getting a patent pretty hard in the past? I don't get how so many ideas seem to be patentable when they are obvious and vague. These patent lawyers are going to destroy innovation in America. Software patents pretending to be something else, patenting vague ideas, patenting processes that aren't really proprietary, this shit needs to stop. The USPTO needs to get a fucking backbone and preserve the integrity of the free market and we should create a fast track process for patent invalidation. A little guy that gets sued over one of the BS patents issued in the last 25 years should be able to challenge its validity for small fee before the suit can move forward.
I'll correct myself on that one. There goes my idiot points for the day. It still wouldn't curve. For an object in flight to take an arced path something has to continue to act on it. The bullet fired from a train would simply travel at an angle except where affected by wind and air resistance, not a curve.
That Wanted thing was spectacular nonsense. I do think there is a scenario where a bullet could fly in an arc. The gun itself would have to be traveling laterally at say 650fps while it's fired, then if the bullet leaves the muzzle at 960fps the combined velocity on X and Y axis would create an arched path. Even with super powers, the motion of the arm doesn't create this very well since centrifugal force doesn't help, only the lateral motion. This would be like firing a .45 ACP handgun from a train going about 443 miles per hour and firing it perpendicular to the tracks. As superhuman abilities go, being able to accelerate an object to 650fps with your arm, in and of itself would be much more useful than arcing bullets.
If there is a TechShop location in your area, I'd go on a tour and see what they offer. It would give an idea of options and how much real estate things take up in real life.
It's not illegal, but it should be. Spokeo, I think actually has opt-outs, but others don't. Exactly how in America you don't have the right to say no to having your address published is beyond me. Don't make any enemies in this world, they sure won't have any trouble finding you. There is way too much personal info available through public records. This 1970s era pseudo honor system we have is unprepared for the age of the internet, big data and sophisticated cyber crime.
Data Brokers and Your Privacy
https://www.privacyrights.org/...
270 Current Data Brokers
https://www.privacyrights.org/...
It's not secret how much I support Snowden, even if his actions were not legal. I hate supposed surveys where they don't show you the actual text of the questions asked. If I don't know how the survey asks the question, it's impossible to know how much to trust the responses. Sorry mister Snowden, your worst fears are realized. You sacrificed your own freedom to give us the chance to protect ours and most people are too ignorant to give a damn. If the ACLU actually sponsored this, they should have thrown it out. We don't need this shit in the press months before the expiration of Patriot Act Sect. 215.
Sure, but then how are they going to put all our medical records online and use big data to analyze treatments and outcomes. Oh, you don't want that? No, sorry there isn't an opt out for that. I guess even though we know businesses are incapable of protecting privacy we'll just have to be understanding that it's for our own good.
Myself, I'm preparing certified letters for my pharmacy, insurer and doctor's office to let them no they do not have my consent to do any of that and that I'd like all eligible records destroyed. Yes, I am bored, so what.
I'm working on a social media project and I do want to allow the site owner to run ads for profit if desired, but I want to protect the users and make advertising as harmless as possible. Do I need to host the ads myself if I want to enforce any protection for my users privacy and security?
My god you're right, is it time to panic yet?
Peter: "Are you saying 9/11 didn't change everything Brian?, because 9/11 changed everything.
Brian: "Peter, you didn't know what 9/11 was until 2004."
It's a conflict they just don't understand. Yes, you can know more if you spy on all human interaction, but that isn't the point. It's better to not know some stuff that could be known, so that all of the innocent people can communicate freely and without reservation. I'm much more frightened by totalitarians than terrorists. I can put it no better than this: The Loss of liberty is worse than the threat of terror.
Finance.yahoo.com, is also dying. Thank you CEO Marissa Mayer, you have taken what used to be a valuable and interesting resource for investors and completely fucking ruined it.
Regarding Yahoo mail, since you can't take your yahoo email to another server, exactly what are we supposed to do with what is for many of us what we consider our permanent email address. I don't want to tell all my contacts to find me at a new address every time a new domain becomes popular. Then again, I don't want any more job related spam their so Gmail is welcome to it. It only helps with my efforts to make sure Google's algorithms think I'm a good little soldier that only cares about work. Yahoo has gotten a worse rap than it deserves. Just because the media latches on to Google doesn't mean there is something lacking in the competition. I've had my email there for over two decades and I've never had to contact support for anything, they must do a few things right. If I go anywhere with my real mail I'd have to consider Hushmail. Lack of privacy is my only real complaint about yahoo mail.
I carry small bills loose in my pocket whenever possible in large cities. If a homeless person gives me a bad vibe, I'd rather appease them and give a couple dollars and I like to be able to do it without pulling out my wallet in front of them or anyone else who may be watching. Standing there on the street looking down and fumbling in your wallet is a bad idea.
No one thought of that because then the failure would be apparent. Nobody profits from failure, well, unless you sell the whole solution before anyone knows it failed. Hey wait, I see what happened...
The old version has fewer of the unnecessary permissions they want us all to allow. So, if we want maps on Android they expect us all to allow: Identity, Contacts, Location, Photos/Media/Files, WiFi Connection Information, Phone, Bluetooth Connection Info, Device ID & Call Information. No thank you. Do I really have to lug around an unregistered NAV device if I don't want Google seeing all this shit?
I'll be curious to see if white Americans actually still have rights. I know they are viewed as the privileged oppressors, but maybe we'll see if it can still be discrimination even if it's against white Americans.
So, Google gets to win at maps and we are just stuck with it? I can understand where can't very well offer free mapping software as a service for the whole planet and have multiple companies struggling to get people to use their version. I do hope for an alternate future where Google maps isn't the only game in town for mobile, but if Microsoft can't compete, I'm not sure who else ever will. It's not that I don't like Google Maps, but the less competition, the more leverage they have to disrespect our privacy.
I nearly learned that the hard way. As an idiot teenager I picked up a rectangular storm drain grate that was heavier than estimated. It went right into the hole and just about took me with it. It's funny I hear Google doesn't like to hire people who "just want to work for Google", but unless you really had some desire to specifically seek out Google, their interviews would seem really obnoxious. I only lasted a few interviews before it became clear I didn't want it bad enough, but I will say they didn't go off topic from the technical stuff in my case. If they pulled out some nonsense questions that far into the process I'd have been happy to explain that my job area doesn't involve golf balls, man holes, or explaining colors to fucking blind people.
Saying men negotiate harder than women do is about the most sexist thing I've heard lately from an executive.
I have long felt that companies should legally have to disclose if not, get consent to share your personal information outside your home country. I don't say this because people in other countries are any less trustworthy. My reasoning is that a person has more ability to control their risk exposure and be provided with known forms of legal recourse when their information isn't unknowingly shared or transmitted outside their own country. I've never been comfortable with the idea that when I call into a call center, they don't tell me where they are located. Now if I share my personal info with that agent, how would I possibly know if US laws and protections apply to the data I share or if the call center's IT environment is regulated to U.S. standards for audit compliance and data protection? How would I know if a breach of that unknown foreign call center network would be reported as it would under U.S. law?
Google's representative says she isn't defending the practices being right or wrong. Let me simplify that, if the tail is waging the dog, it is wrong. If they aren't going to book the revenue in their home country I can see the merits of booking revenue based on the true national origin (not shell company) of the advertiser or of the end customer, but booking revenue in a tax haven that is entirely unrelated to the transaction is indefensible.
'These are international tax arrangements and what Google is doing in Australia is very very similar to what Australian companies are doing outside of Australia. I am not sitting here today trying to defend whether those practices are right or wrong, they are simply the way the global tax system is currently working and we are trying to operate within that.' Said [Google's Maile Carnegie]