Like the Calexit movement that was started by a guy who lived in Russia, this probably has ties to Russia too as well as the Republicans. If California is split up then Texas and Alaska should also be split up. Populated cities like Houston would be split up from Rural Texas counties just like this California split.
We also have the technology to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners. It seems vegans want to force everyone else to live their lifestyle. Why not allow people to choose between artificial beef and genuine beef like people have a choice between using artificial sweeteners and natural sweeteners? While we are trying to make people "do the right thing" maybe we should eliminate all alcohol instead of giving people the choice to drink alcohol or not. I'm sure religious groups such as the Mormons would love to tell you how great their life is for not drinking alcohol. The Mormons regulate alcohol more than they do nuclear waste in Utah. I'm sure they would be happy to make everyone abstain from drinking. Dentists would love to replace all sugar with artificial sweeteners as much as they love fluoride in every cities water supply.
With Windows 10 Linux users may increase. I've had people ask me about Linux since they don't want Windows 10 and see Linux as the only option than buying an Apple or Android system that they also don't want.
The Federal Trade Commission should have been looking into Microsoft when they started forcing Windows 10 on customers by tricking them into downloading it or downloading and upgrading systems without user consent. Now they are locking down the PC system taking away consumer choice. They don't own the PC system and shouldn't have the right to lock it down forcing consumers to buy their OS. Will manufactures give consumers the option of buying laptops without any installed OS? My plans were to buy a new laptop and remove the Windows 10 and install Linux but now M$ is making this no longer an option.
I really wished I was warned or foreseen that when I spent extra money to buy a PS3 with a bigger hard drive and a keyboard that shortly after my purchase that a firmware upgrade would take away the ability to run another OS meaning I wasted money on the extra hard drive space and a keyboard. Once this update was downloaded, it wasn't like I could turn around and uninstall it if I didn't agree with the changes to the EULA or their decision to take away the ability to run another OS. Some printer manufacturers have offered firmware updates that prevents the use of ink cartridges made by third parties locking you into their more expensive ink cartridges. Consumers should have the right to know what types of DRM are being used such as a product cannot be used if you don't have an internet connection and there should be the ability to modify the EULA after purchase or eliminate features that a consumer originally had at the time of purchase. Consumers should also have the ability to uninstall any upgrades in the event the EULA changes to something they disagree on or a firmware upgrade eliminates some feature that was available at the time of purchase.
the people who use ad blocking software to prevent drive by download attacks from ads and people with a slow bandwidth connection such as 1.5 Mbps from Centurylink (no other ISP to choose from in their area) who have to give up some of their bandwidth in order to view advertisements? What about people with limited data and will be charged extra if they go over an allotted bandwidth?
Phone solicitors are asking the government to make it illegal to hang up on them or refuse to answer the phone. TV advertisers are asking the government to address the problem of viewers deciding to go to the bathroom during commercial breaks and claim to be losing millions as a result. They also want DRM technology that would prohibit someone from skipping over commercials on recorded TV programs.
If they are making money by collecting this information and refuse to allow people to opt-out of having information collected about them, they should also be required to pay you for the information you involuntarily give to them. After all, you cannot opt-out and since this is your information, you should be compensated when someone collects this information for marketing purposes.
Exactly and customers should have the right to opt-out and have all this data collected about them destroyed without having to pay a fee. For example I found a site (I believe it was Spokeo) who had all kinds of information about me including my unlisted phone number and my cell phone number that I refuse to give to nearly anyone. I wanted to have these records deleted but in order to do this I needed to sign up to their account and close this account. In order to close this account I would need to send photocopies of my drivers license and other information which I am not willing to do. They also admit that there is no guarantee that my information will be erased after I close my account and that information about me could reappear and I would have to again register with them and send them a photocopy of my drivers license or other identification in order to close my account.
The only problem is the US government loves companies collecting this information since the NSA can scoop up this information. Surveilance hawks would simply argue that these privacy laws would destroy the ability of the intelligence community to stop terrorist attacks and most Americans would buy it and demand the government stop considering privacy laws.
There are many ways to gather information. In addition to what others have posted there is WebRTC that can reveal details about your browser and other information such as your internal IP address.
https://www.privacytools.io/we...
A lot of records such as vehicles owned, voting records, hunting permits, etc are public records but not available for free. The state actually charges marketers for access to this information unless it isn't for some kind of emergency or law enforcement action. For example, a state will probably charge you a fee for vehicle registration information unless you are the manufacturer trying to obtain these records in order to contact owners about a recall on their vehicle.
License plate reader information is valuable even if a state doesn't release the owners of plate numbers. A company could easily obtain this information from another database since there are some companies such as a business or government entity such as a public school that requires a plate number and other information in order to issue a parking permit to park in their parking lot(s) (such as a college). A business can sell this information to a marketer who also collects license plate scan information to personalize your habits. With plate reader information they can determine where you shop, if you are a college student, places you visit (most cities have cameras mounted throughout the city and this data is available for a small fee), any business you frequent such as bars and night clubs which may indicate your sexual preference if you frequent gay night clubs, etc. In fact, this information is so important that makers of license plate readers have argued that it is their First Amendment right to collect plate scans when states try to limit the use of plate scanners.
I'm surprised that McDonald's doesn't already have a filter since they potentially could be liable if someone were to access a child porn site using their WiFi or the person accesses a site that contains malicious software and a customers sues because their laptop was infected with a virus or spyware. In the example I bring up, this person who viewed this alleged porn site did not violate the terms of service by visiting a porn site and didn't violate any terms of use. Another customer decided that the site he viewed was offensive and should be considered a porn site so basically this person was kicked out of the restaurant for viewing a site that wasn't a porn site and did nothing that violated their terms of use.
I would assume that McDonald's and Starbucks already have some kind of filter and I doubt someone would use a public place like McDonald's where others could see the sites they visit decide to use their WiFi for porn when most companies have a Terms of Use that clearly states that porn sites are a violation of their terms of serviced. They could be an accessory to child porn in the event someone used their network to access child porn. They also could be held liable in the event someone uses their WiFi network to access piracy sites. I would have to say that every time that I've connected to a public WiFi site, they have a terms of use that clearly states that there are certain sites off limits and that by using their service, you are bound by their terms of use and they can monitor your activity. I doubt someone intending to visit porn sites would try to do this when their activity could be monitored and these terms of use clearly state that they can contact law enforcement or refuse to allow you to access their services if you violate these terms.
So what happens if someone complains to McDonald's that they are offended by a site that they saw another customer visit that got through the porn filters such as a news program. Management agrees that this isn't porn but decides to kick this person out of the McDonald's to make this other customer happy since this customer threatened to sue because their children were allegedly exposed to porn? This person wasn't trying to view porn and the site in question isn't considered porn by most people. In fact, the only person who does consider this site to be a porn site is this parent who complained.
If you make a claim that you don't have any social network but it turns out your Facebook account you supposedly deleted years ago suddenly reappears can you get into trouble for perjury even though you had no idea that your Facebook account from years ago was reactivated? I deleted mine years ago and sometimes it returns with all the privacy settings changed to the default settings. I have to change the privacy settings to what they were before and delete my account again but it will return again sometime.
Does the DHS think terrorists are dumb or is this not a plan to monitor terrorist as they claim. Terrorists know that every phone call and social media account they have are subject to snooping by the US government and probably avoid raising eyebrows by not having social networking accounts and avoiding calling other terrorists or sending emails to them. If they have a social networking account chances are the government will be monitoring this account even if they don't indicate that they have such an account.
They don't have to recruit through the internet. They could easily do this in person by visiting schools and other places to meet potential recruits. Many gangs and white supremacist groups have used this technique to recruit people log before the internet existed. What is stopping terror groups from doing the same?
Censoring these terrorists will lead to other groups wanting to censor speech. For example many people want to eradicate porn from the internet. Some religious groups want to ban other religious groups from posting online and groups who are critical of their religious group. Drumpf would love to be able to censor members of the media and his critics who talk about his failed business ventures and drumpf university that a lot of former students claim is a fraud and are trying to sue him for ripping them off. The FBI and intelligence community would love it if they could stop the media and websites from reporting what Edward Snowden and others know. The government could also censor whistleblowers from writing on blogs or contacting the media to report what they wish to expose.
Ironically despite drumpf's personal attacks on opponents via Twitter, he hasn't received a single terms of service violation notice from Twitter when others have been banned from Twitter and other platforms for doing what he does? The people of Twitter love that drumpf brings all kinds of people onto Twitter and they get free advertisement from his posts but anyone else who isn't drumpf would have their account terminated for violating their terms of service. Sounds like fair censorship doesn't it?
I suppose we can tear up the Constitution and declare our country a fascist dictatorship and spit on the men and women who fought for our freedoms for over 200 years. We can then require people to ask the government for permission to speak and the government will tell them what they can and cannot say during this speech. If you want to post on the internet you will need to ask the government for permission to post and they will give you guidelines on what you can and cannot say. After all, what is stopping people radicalizing people in person? In fact, the government can even require that people obtain a special license in order to access the internet.
I'm sure if a landlord sees that a potential renter is in a dispute with his/her former landlord and talked about it on social media or simply said that they disliked their former landlord, their new landlord may decide against renting to them even if they have great credit and have never had troubles with renters in the past.
In the future you might have Siri call the police if it believes you are intoxicated or to tell the police that you're speeding. This would be the perfect tool for law enforcement. If you talk to a friend about buying drugs, Siri will narc on you.
Even though they are watching these shows to spend quality time with a wife or girlfriend they are still part of the viewing audience. The NFL has made changes in the past few years to appease the women who may be viewing the game with a husband or boyfriend who would otherwise not be watching the game.
With companies making robots capable of cooking and kiosks including ones with voice recognition, an entire fast food restaurant will eventually be run by robots with a worker who visits several franchises throughout the area to maintain these robots. Eventually there won't be any human fast food workers. Currently this technology is expensive but it is getting cheaper just as computers were cost prohibitive years ago but now are inexpensive. Add to this that fast food workers are demanding higher wages and benefits as well as unionizing, CEO's will decide to automate more to save on costs. In addition they can count on robots to be willing to work at odd hours and even open their restaurants 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They also won't spit in customers hamburgers or screw up orders.
This will be great since every time I order from Wendy's I don't get what I originally ordered. It seems their employees cannot listen and screw up my order. How hard is it to listen to customers? With kiosks, I have more control of what is actually ordered and don't have to rely on a clerk who doesn't accurately enter in my correct order. If I order a Coke, I didn't order coffee so please don't give me coffee instead. People who are lactose intolerant or allergic to something probably don't appreciate that they request that no cheese (or something else) is to be placed on a hamburger only to end up with a cheeseburger because the clerk didn't listen to your special request or decided you wanted a cheeseburger instead of a hamburger. I'm sure there are more skilled workers that shouldn't lose their job to automation but for some reason the local Wendy's restaurants are the worst at putting in an accurate order. This will be a new trend among fast food restaurants since they have to save money somehow since customers may not purchase their food if they raise prices and automating is better than cutting back on quality such as ordering inferior quality food to save money as they raise the wages they pay for workers. Kiosks will actually increase the accuracy of the customer experience since they enter in the orders themselves rather than relying on a clerk to enter in the order. I'm sure there is lesser need for people to answer phones at Domino's and Pizza Hut ever since they set up a website where you can enter your order online and don't have to call your local store.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the Calexit movement that was started by a guy who lived in Russia, this probably has ties to Russia too as well as the Republicans. If California is split up then Texas and Alaska should also be split up. Populated cities like Houston would be split up from Rural Texas counties just like this California split.
We also have the technology to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners. It seems vegans want to force everyone else to live their lifestyle. Why not allow people to choose between artificial beef and genuine beef like people have a choice between using artificial sweeteners and natural sweeteners? While we are trying to make people "do the right thing" maybe we should eliminate all alcohol instead of giving people the choice to drink alcohol or not. I'm sure religious groups such as the Mormons would love to tell you how great their life is for not drinking alcohol. The Mormons regulate alcohol more than they do nuclear waste in Utah. I'm sure they would be happy to make everyone abstain from drinking. Dentists would love to replace all sugar with artificial sweeteners as much as they love fluoride in every cities water supply.
With Windows 10 Linux users may increase. I've had people ask me about Linux since they don't want Windows 10 and see Linux as the only option than buying an Apple or Android system that they also don't want.
The Federal Trade Commission should have been looking into Microsoft when they started forcing Windows 10 on customers by tricking them into downloading it or downloading and upgrading systems without user consent. Now they are locking down the PC system taking away consumer choice. They don't own the PC system and shouldn't have the right to lock it down forcing consumers to buy their OS. Will manufactures give consumers the option of buying laptops without any installed OS? My plans were to buy a new laptop and remove the Windows 10 and install Linux but now M$ is making this no longer an option.
I really wished I was warned or foreseen that when I spent extra money to buy a PS3 with a bigger hard drive and a keyboard that shortly after my purchase that a firmware upgrade would take away the ability to run another OS meaning I wasted money on the extra hard drive space and a keyboard. Once this update was downloaded, it wasn't like I could turn around and uninstall it if I didn't agree with the changes to the EULA or their decision to take away the ability to run another OS. Some printer manufacturers have offered firmware updates that prevents the use of ink cartridges made by third parties locking you into their more expensive ink cartridges. Consumers should have the right to know what types of DRM are being used such as a product cannot be used if you don't have an internet connection and there should be the ability to modify the EULA after purchase or eliminate features that a consumer originally had at the time of purchase. Consumers should also have the ability to uninstall any upgrades in the event the EULA changes to something they disagree on or a firmware upgrade eliminates some feature that was available at the time of purchase.
the people who use ad blocking software to prevent drive by download attacks from ads and people with a slow bandwidth connection such as 1.5 Mbps from Centurylink (no other ISP to choose from in their area) who have to give up some of their bandwidth in order to view advertisements? What about people with limited data and will be charged extra if they go over an allotted bandwidth?
Phone solicitors are asking the government to make it illegal to hang up on them or refuse to answer the phone. TV advertisers are asking the government to address the problem of viewers deciding to go to the bathroom during commercial breaks and claim to be losing millions as a result. They also want DRM technology that would prohibit someone from skipping over commercials on recorded TV programs.
If they are making money by collecting this information and refuse to allow people to opt-out of having information collected about them, they should also be required to pay you for the information you involuntarily give to them. After all, you cannot opt-out and since this is your information, you should be compensated when someone collects this information for marketing purposes.
Exactly and customers should have the right to opt-out and have all this data collected about them destroyed without having to pay a fee. For example I found a site (I believe it was Spokeo) who had all kinds of information about me including my unlisted phone number and my cell phone number that I refuse to give to nearly anyone. I wanted to have these records deleted but in order to do this I needed to sign up to their account and close this account. In order to close this account I would need to send photocopies of my drivers license and other information which I am not willing to do. They also admit that there is no guarantee that my information will be erased after I close my account and that information about me could reappear and I would have to again register with them and send them a photocopy of my drivers license or other identification in order to close my account.
The only problem is the US government loves companies collecting this information since the NSA can scoop up this information. Surveilance hawks would simply argue that these privacy laws would destroy the ability of the intelligence community to stop terrorist attacks and most Americans would buy it and demand the government stop considering privacy laws.
There are many ways to gather information. In addition to what others have posted there is WebRTC that can reveal details about your browser and other information such as your internal IP address. https://www.privacytools.io/we...
A lot of records such as vehicles owned, voting records, hunting permits, etc are public records but not available for free. The state actually charges marketers for access to this information unless it isn't for some kind of emergency or law enforcement action. For example, a state will probably charge you a fee for vehicle registration information unless you are the manufacturer trying to obtain these records in order to contact owners about a recall on their vehicle. License plate reader information is valuable even if a state doesn't release the owners of plate numbers. A company could easily obtain this information from another database since there are some companies such as a business or government entity such as a public school that requires a plate number and other information in order to issue a parking permit to park in their parking lot(s) (such as a college). A business can sell this information to a marketer who also collects license plate scan information to personalize your habits. With plate reader information they can determine where you shop, if you are a college student, places you visit (most cities have cameras mounted throughout the city and this data is available for a small fee), any business you frequent such as bars and night clubs which may indicate your sexual preference if you frequent gay night clubs, etc. In fact, this information is so important that makers of license plate readers have argued that it is their First Amendment right to collect plate scans when states try to limit the use of plate scanners.
I'm surprised that McDonald's doesn't already have a filter since they potentially could be liable if someone were to access a child porn site using their WiFi or the person accesses a site that contains malicious software and a customers sues because their laptop was infected with a virus or spyware. In the example I bring up, this person who viewed this alleged porn site did not violate the terms of service by visiting a porn site and didn't violate any terms of use. Another customer decided that the site he viewed was offensive and should be considered a porn site so basically this person was kicked out of the restaurant for viewing a site that wasn't a porn site and did nothing that violated their terms of use. I would assume that McDonald's and Starbucks already have some kind of filter and I doubt someone would use a public place like McDonald's where others could see the sites they visit decide to use their WiFi for porn when most companies have a Terms of Use that clearly states that porn sites are a violation of their terms of serviced. They could be an accessory to child porn in the event someone used their network to access child porn. They also could be held liable in the event someone uses their WiFi network to access piracy sites. I would have to say that every time that I've connected to a public WiFi site, they have a terms of use that clearly states that there are certain sites off limits and that by using their service, you are bound by their terms of use and they can monitor your activity. I doubt someone intending to visit porn sites would try to do this when their activity could be monitored and these terms of use clearly state that they can contact law enforcement or refuse to allow you to access their services if you violate these terms.
So what happens if someone complains to McDonald's that they are offended by a site that they saw another customer visit that got through the porn filters such as a news program. Management agrees that this isn't porn but decides to kick this person out of the McDonald's to make this other customer happy since this customer threatened to sue because their children were allegedly exposed to porn? This person wasn't trying to view porn and the site in question isn't considered porn by most people. In fact, the only person who does consider this site to be a porn site is this parent who complained.
If you make a claim that you don't have any social network but it turns out your Facebook account you supposedly deleted years ago suddenly reappears can you get into trouble for perjury even though you had no idea that your Facebook account from years ago was reactivated? I deleted mine years ago and sometimes it returns with all the privacy settings changed to the default settings. I have to change the privacy settings to what they were before and delete my account again but it will return again sometime.
Does the DHS think terrorists are dumb or is this not a plan to monitor terrorist as they claim. Terrorists know that every phone call and social media account they have are subject to snooping by the US government and probably avoid raising eyebrows by not having social networking accounts and avoiding calling other terrorists or sending emails to them. If they have a social networking account chances are the government will be monitoring this account even if they don't indicate that they have such an account.
They don't have to recruit through the internet. They could easily do this in person by visiting schools and other places to meet potential recruits. Many gangs and white supremacist groups have used this technique to recruit people log before the internet existed. What is stopping terror groups from doing the same?
Censoring these terrorists will lead to other groups wanting to censor speech. For example many people want to eradicate porn from the internet. Some religious groups want to ban other religious groups from posting online and groups who are critical of their religious group. Drumpf would love to be able to censor members of the media and his critics who talk about his failed business ventures and drumpf university that a lot of former students claim is a fraud and are trying to sue him for ripping them off. The FBI and intelligence community would love it if they could stop the media and websites from reporting what Edward Snowden and others know. The government could also censor whistleblowers from writing on blogs or contacting the media to report what they wish to expose.
Ironically despite drumpf's personal attacks on opponents via Twitter, he hasn't received a single terms of service violation notice from Twitter when others have been banned from Twitter and other platforms for doing what he does? The people of Twitter love that drumpf brings all kinds of people onto Twitter and they get free advertisement from his posts but anyone else who isn't drumpf would have their account terminated for violating their terms of service. Sounds like fair censorship doesn't it?
I suppose we can tear up the Constitution and declare our country a fascist dictatorship and spit on the men and women who fought for our freedoms for over 200 years. We can then require people to ask the government for permission to speak and the government will tell them what they can and cannot say during this speech. If you want to post on the internet you will need to ask the government for permission to post and they will give you guidelines on what you can and cannot say. After all, what is stopping people radicalizing people in person? In fact, the government can even require that people obtain a special license in order to access the internet.
I'm sure if a landlord sees that a potential renter is in a dispute with his/her former landlord and talked about it on social media or simply said that they disliked their former landlord, their new landlord may decide against renting to them even if they have great credit and have never had troubles with renters in the past.
In the future you might have Siri call the police if it believes you are intoxicated or to tell the police that you're speeding. This would be the perfect tool for law enforcement. If you talk to a friend about buying drugs, Siri will narc on you.
Even though they are watching these shows to spend quality time with a wife or girlfriend they are still part of the viewing audience. The NFL has made changes in the past few years to appease the women who may be viewing the game with a husband or boyfriend who would otherwise not be watching the game.
With companies making robots capable of cooking and kiosks including ones with voice recognition, an entire fast food restaurant will eventually be run by robots with a worker who visits several franchises throughout the area to maintain these robots. Eventually there won't be any human fast food workers. Currently this technology is expensive but it is getting cheaper just as computers were cost prohibitive years ago but now are inexpensive. Add to this that fast food workers are demanding higher wages and benefits as well as unionizing, CEO's will decide to automate more to save on costs. In addition they can count on robots to be willing to work at odd hours and even open their restaurants 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They also won't spit in customers hamburgers or screw up orders.
This will be great since every time I order from Wendy's I don't get what I originally ordered. It seems their employees cannot listen and screw up my order. How hard is it to listen to customers? With kiosks, I have more control of what is actually ordered and don't have to rely on a clerk who doesn't accurately enter in my correct order. If I order a Coke, I didn't order coffee so please don't give me coffee instead. People who are lactose intolerant or allergic to something probably don't appreciate that they request that no cheese (or something else) is to be placed on a hamburger only to end up with a cheeseburger because the clerk didn't listen to your special request or decided you wanted a cheeseburger instead of a hamburger. I'm sure there are more skilled workers that shouldn't lose their job to automation but for some reason the local Wendy's restaurants are the worst at putting in an accurate order. This will be a new trend among fast food restaurants since they have to save money somehow since customers may not purchase their food if they raise prices and automating is better than cutting back on quality such as ordering inferior quality food to save money as they raise the wages they pay for workers. Kiosks will actually increase the accuracy of the customer experience since they enter in the orders themselves rather than relying on a clerk to enter in the order. I'm sure there is lesser need for people to answer phones at Domino's and Pizza Hut ever since they set up a website where you can enter your order online and don't have to call your local store.