I agree with you, however there are some things that bother me
"They're not "reading" your data in any real sense (no actual person ever sees your data without an appropriate reason)" --> the problem with this is that once its set up they CAN do it even if they dont want to do it, you just need someone like say... every government agency in the world to come and bully them into doing it (im suuuuure theyll refuse), even if its just automated and no human is looking at it
Great point. Though I think Google is more likely to refuse than you might think (or at least put up a fight), the reality is that there are governments in the world that Google likes to do business with (*cough* China *cough*) which have a reputation for feeling entitled to monitor their citizens. Google has very publicly butted heads with governments like these, but ultimately they don't have a lot of power over how those governments treat their citizens.
The United States is a little bit of a different story. We have the legislative structure and democratic process in place that's needed to formalize privacy laws that offer real protection against government intrusion. Unfortunately, our legislators', um, "methodical" approach to passing laws leaves us with some substantial loopholes through which the government can potentially inappropriately gather information (the PATRIOT Act, the CFAA, etc). I think it's important that citizens of democratic governments demand robust privacy laws to prevent unreasonable government intrusion.
But that's a larger issue, and one that relates to ANY company that gathers personal data on your habits (phone companies, ISPs, retail rewards programs, libraries, cable providers, etc, etc, etc, etc). You can't really single out Google for collecting data on you that could be subpoenaed by the government. But the point is still important: The "appropriateness" of a government's request for information on your personal activities is somewhat subjective.
GOOGLE DOES NOT SELL YOUR INFORMATION TO ANY THIRD PARTY!!!! EVER!
Good point. I should have been more clear on that one.
When I said that Google "sells your data," I meant your aggregate demographic data. And they do so in a hard-to-reverse manner. For instance, someone comes to Google and says, "I want to advertise to men ages 18-25 that are into video games and fantasy novels." Google doesn't respond with a list of people who fit that demographic. Instead, they take the advert from the client and they display it to people whose Google usage history suggests that they fit that demographic. Maybe those people searched for "Brandon Sanderson" or visited a World of Warcraft fan site. Maybe they have a Google+ profiles that identifies them as being 22 years old. Google doesn't share the specifics with third parties. Instead, they use your usage data to attach you to various demographic profiles and they sell the "eyes" (for lack of a better term) of those demographic profiles.
So yes, Google doesn't directly sell your information to third parties. The process is a bit more nuanced than that.
From the video, Microsoft wants you to think that Google is an evil oppressor that takes money out of your pocket by selling data on your behavior. They also want you to think that Google is "watching" you like some nosey neighbor who rather than blabbing your secrets all over town, will instead sell all your dirty secrets to the highest bidder.
And hey, if you think of it like that, it's pretty scary.
But seriously. Have you ever tried to actually sell your personal data to someone? Like, if you went to Starbucks and said, "Hey, I like coffee, I'm single, have a full time job, and disposable income. I'll let you tell me how great Starbucks is if you just pay me a dollar!" I'm sure that they'd probably look at you with some understandable confusion. Nothing is worth more than you can sell it for. That's simply the reality of economics. So your personal information generally has 0 monetary value to you and would probably cost you more to sell than it would cost you in time and energy to affect that sale.
Google is providing you a service. You're "paying" for that service by allowing Google to monetize your personal information ON YOUR BEHALF. It's a sort of barter agreement. Google will give you something at no monetary cost in exchange for the opportunity to sell your data to third parties. They're not selling your emails. They're not selling your text messages. They're not "reading" your data in any real sense (no actual person ever sees your data without an appropriate reason). They're effectively acting as your agent to monetize your demographic information. And rather than paying you in cash, they're paying you in services.
This is actually no different than how broadcast television works. They use companies like Nielsen to determine aggregate demographic information on the viewership for a given show. Then they sell that information to third parties (advertisers), who supply the necessary capital to run the TV channel and produce new content, which the network then gives to you for "free". Google's model is identical. Just because Google can fine-tune that demographic information does not alter the basic structure of the model.
All the FUD about "big data" relies on some over-zealous anthropomorphization of large scale data processing systems. Microsoft likes to use phrases like "Google reads your email" to scare you into thinking that there's some overworked engineers at Google that do nothing all day except sit around and chuckle about those emails you sent to your wife. But that just doesn't happen. It's scare tactics put out by people who have either never worked with large data sets or are purposefully obfuscating the truth with the intent to scare you.
In the end, you ultimately have a choice: You can simply stop using Google's services and thereby refuse to opt-in to their tracking. Humankind lasted millions of years without Google. You can avoid Google today if you don't want to pay for their services. But to freak out and say that Google is somehow operating nefariously by monetizing their services in a way that doesn't cost you cash out of pocket comes across as a bit obtuse.
It's so interesting to see people's reaction to the whole driver-less car thing. It's incredible to see the kind of ethical thought-experiment that must necessarily go through everyone's mind when they come to this conclusion: How many lives must be saved before I will tolerate someone being brutally slain by a malfunctioning computer?
Every day, children are run down by drivers who are not paying attention, tired, drunk, or just plain don't have time to react. Since a driver-less car is incapable of being drunk, tired, or distracted, then it's a safe bet that they'll be much better at avoiding those accidents that can be avoided. But the reality is that the latter scenario (no time to react) would still lead to the deaths of many children (and others!).
At what point does it become "worth it"? When the driver-less car causes 1/10th as many fatalities? 1/100th? 1/1,000th? How many human deaths must be prevented by letting computers drive cars before we're willing to accept 1 single death by those same computers?
In related news, high school GPA has been shown to be a predictor of college success. Therefore, high school students will all be assigned a GPA of 4.0.
I imagine the success shown by students taking algebra 2 in schools that don't require it is reflected by students taking any elective mathematics courses as part of any curriculum.
Every CS undergrad should do at least one internship. More if possible. CS Students have it super-easy. For students in many fields, an internship is a huge expense. The internships are generally unpaid and often leave iterns doing "busy work." But with CS internships, they are generally paid, sometimes they pay quite well, and because of the money involved, you're rarely fetching coffee.
By the time I graduated with my CS degree, I had more than 2 years of real-world development experience with two different organizations. I had 3 job offers to pick from --- months before graduation.
The bottom line is that school isn't just about getting good grades. Work isn't just about showing up and getting your tasks done. Both school and work (while you're a college student) should have the same goal: Building knowledge and experience.
If you think that walking out of school with a 3.8 GPA and no experience can get you a job in today's market, you're just as naïve as someone who thinks that they can get a job with 3 years of experience and no degree. Today's market is incredibly competitive. You need to do everything you can while you're in college so that you can compete with all the qualified, experienced, laid-off folks that are out there looking for jobs with you when you graduate!
I do appreciate the existentialism, though. I mean, in the end, doesn't every side of a battle see themselves as the patriots and their opponent as the "bad guys"*?
*Insert whatever the term of choice is for the conflict in question. Whether it's Fascists, Commies, Terrorists, or Borg, it's still "the bad guys."
Google has been skirting the edge of their "don't be evil" policy with China since the start. If you have to censor your search results, it's not worth the trouble.
Your statement is ironically close to the truth. Quantum computers actually function in parallel to conventional devices when it comes to the simple tasks that they perform, such as rendering intricate scenes, or estimating series values. What quantum computers are better at is taking advantage of quantum effects to exponentially outperform conventional computers at things such as factoring immense integers. They will most likely be used for decryption and quantum simulations, or other mathematically novel applications. In other words, it benefits businesses and scientists the most. They will most likely have commercial value in the future, but that is when they develop more uses for it, such as emulating the human mind to make ultra-realistic (if not realistic) AI. At the moment however, it is still in the computer equivalent stage of useless behemoth. Someone in some field will most likely make a huge discovery similar to the silicon transistors of the past, win a Nobel prize, and set the stage for a new revolution. Feels like a long way from now, but I'll probably be proved wrong.
I actually am inclined not to agree with you. Back when people were making similar statements about the computer in general, they weren't small enough, powerful enough, or cheap enough for anyone to afford them who wasn't going to set up some sort of business unit around them. But I say give it 20-30 years. What will probably end up happening is that they'll be making quantum processors that run along side traditional processors, working much like today's GPUs, or yesterday's "Math Co-processors." Programmers will take particularly complex mathematical tasks and offload them to the quantum processor. My money says that 50-60 years from now, you'll be running a hybrid quantum/traditional computer on a mobile device you carry in your pocket.
Don't believe me? Try going to someone in the 1950's and explaining to them that in 50-60 years, people will have computers that fit in their pockets and instead of solving the world's mathematical problems with these computers, we've created MySpace... *shutter*
... One more note... Not only does this study do nothing to show that AT&T might be modifying traffic, it shows that AT&T is probably NOT modifying traffic!
Comcast has admitted to sending false resets, so, no surprise, they are on top of the list. In fact, they are not only on top of the list, they're nowhere else. This is to be expected with a systematic interference with traffic.
HOWEVER, if you look down the list, and I mean, WAYYY down the list, you'll find that ranked at #101 (out of 108)... is AT&T! If AT&T has been systematically producing false resets, they wouldn't just have one network high on the list, but all of them.. (see: Comcast).
No one ever got a good rep defending AT&T, but stories like this just make/. look like a group of geeks with nothing better to do than bash AT&T. I'm sure you can find some legitimate grievances against AT&T instead of wasting people's time and ruining the reputation of a good news source with trash like this.
Did Vuze ever confirmed that P2P connections created resets? or its just the reset count from the plugin? This study doesn't show anything but network quality. Furthermore, since so many networks have peering agreements with each other and your data flies around between them readily, it barely judges network quality.
Furthermore, they aren't sampling anything but P2P traffic, there's no sampling of something benign like web traffic or gaming traffic. If there was some sort of control group involved, I would be more convinced. But the fact is that there isn't.
Using this methodology, one could produce a study saying pretty much anything. For instance, you could "show" that car manufacturers design their cars to experience mechanical failure at between 20,000 and 25,000 miles by producing a list of incidents where such a thing happens. Of course, cars fail at other times too, they even fail at a higher rate later in their lifespan. But if you only look at cars that are 20,000-25,000 miles into their lives, you would never know, now would you?
Linspire has had some pretty good ideas when it comes to making Linux easy for the Windows user. But since it has not been free, I have been reluctent to recommend it to friends. I would like to see how this turns out...
Wow, that is scary. The sad part is that I would normally scold you for posting that kind of personal information on someone on the web for all to see...
Run Over by the RIAA Don...t Tap the Glass By Cassi Hunt
Either since the day I visited my first aquarium or the day Goldie came into my family's life, our parents have told us not to tap the glass of the fish tank. It's cruel to Goldie -- I understand and respect that. I mean, heck, I am a vegetarian. But would we have many qualms over a little water perturbation if Goldie were, say, a bloodthirsty shark? I'd knock on that glass to the near-cracking point. And in that spirit, I decided to call up my new friend at the RIAA negotiation hotline again. (Hereafter I'll refer to her as Bowie, which means "yellow haired," as I'm pretty sure that's the case.)
Last time I spoke with Bowie, the conversation was pretty much over after she named $3750 as the settlement amount. (I haven't actually agreed to settle yet.) So when I called her again, I asked -- again -- about how to negotiate that amount. I counted on the fact that self-important types wouldn't be inclined to remember a lowly pirate like me. Bowie didn't disappoint. She launched into her spiel about how the RIAA doesn't negotiate settlements. I told her that it was too much to ask for thousands of dollars from a college student who only makes just enough from term and summer employment to still come out a couple thousand in debt.
Bowie replied that the RIAA was oh-so-kind enough to offer a six month repayment plan. At this point, I was beginning to speculate on Bowie's hair color, and decided to switch tactics. I concisely and calmly explained how the situation was ridiculous: they weren't offering a settlement, they were issuing an ultimatum! Let us screw you over gently now, or with chains and whips in court. Surely there must be some flexibility for individual cases.
Well, she replied, they do make allowances if something like a medical emergency comes up. Now we're getting somewhere. "And who would I talk to about a situation like that, because I'd like to talk to them now."
"Me," she replied. Ever feel like your nose has just been flattened by something large and solid? I mean, besides the doors at 77 Mass. Ave. "But you're not in a situation like that."
Oh, but I am. The Institvte has left me with severe bouts of p-set-induced insomnia and a case of stuck-to-desk-itis that recurs two to three times in a semester, then again just before break. And my wallet certainly takes a hit for it.
But as much as I tried to argue that I was in as unique a situation as someone with medical expenses, there was no getting through. Bowie even had the audacity to say, "In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements."
Are. You. Shitting. Me.
There you have it, fellow Techsters: proof of the fantastic levels of absurdity to which the RIAA attack has sunk. The Recording Industry of America would rather see America's youth deprived of higher education, forever marring their ability to contribute personally and financially to society -- including the arts -- so that they may crucify us as examples to our peers. To say nothing of wrecking our lives in the process. I finally understand what the RIAA meant when they told me "stealing music is not a victimless crime" -- the victims hang for all to see.
Please, RIAA -- if any competent representative happens to enjoy flipping through The Tech -- please tell me Bowie is a moronic tool who can't help what the Superior Gray Coverage Golden Blonde hair dye does to her mental facilities. Please tell me you actually care about the futures of the age demographic that buys most of your music (http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/pdf/2004co nsumerprofile.pdf). Your evil pirates are people too, people who enjoy music and almost always still purchase it legitimately. Each has an individual life and circumstances that deserve c
I can't believe that the RIAA would stoop to such a level. The scariest part is that perfectly intelligent people believe that everyone who is sued by the RIAA deserves it and is guilty. I wish that there was some simple way to explain to a lay-person how knowing the IP address of someone downloading music doesn't mean much in linking to an actual person. People assume that an IP address is like a social security number, that always links to a single person and always to the same person. This fallacy is one of our biggest problems in infroming lay-people about what the RIAA is doing. Maybe this bit of info will help people to see how evil the RIAA actually is.
First M$ creates an entire industry focused around fixing holes in their OS. Now they are threatening to fix their own holes and that industry is mad at them?
It seems to me this is like horses being mad at cars for making them obsolete.
However, I am yet to be convinced that Vista will not require third party anti-malware support.
This is quite a step up for relations between Steve Jobs and Sony... It seems like just yesterday when Steve's approach meant you needed to hide the Sony Rep in the closet
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you, however there are some things that bother me
"They're not "reading" your data in any real sense (no actual person ever sees your data without an appropriate reason)" --> the problem with this is that once its set up they CAN do it even if they dont want to do it, you just need someone like say... every government agency in the world to come and bully them into doing it (im suuuuure theyll refuse), even if its just automated and no human is looking at it
Great point. Though I think Google is more likely to refuse than you might think (or at least put up a fight), the reality is that there are governments in the world that Google likes to do business with (*cough* China *cough*) which have a reputation for feeling entitled to monitor their citizens. Google has very publicly butted heads with governments like these, but ultimately they don't have a lot of power over how those governments treat their citizens.
The United States is a little bit of a different story. We have the legislative structure and democratic process in place that's needed to formalize privacy laws that offer real protection against government intrusion. Unfortunately, our legislators', um, "methodical" approach to passing laws leaves us with some substantial loopholes through which the government can potentially inappropriately gather information (the PATRIOT Act, the CFAA, etc). I think it's important that citizens of democratic governments demand robust privacy laws to prevent unreasonable government intrusion.
But that's a larger issue, and one that relates to ANY company that gathers personal data on your habits (phone companies, ISPs, retail rewards programs, libraries, cable providers, etc, etc, etc, etc). You can't really single out Google for collecting data on you that could be subpoenaed by the government. But the point is still important: The "appropriateness" of a government's request for information on your personal activities is somewhat subjective.
GOOGLE DOES NOT SELL YOUR INFORMATION TO ANY THIRD PARTY!!!! EVER!
Good point. I should have been more clear on that one.
When I said that Google "sells your data," I meant your aggregate demographic data. And they do so in a hard-to-reverse manner. For instance, someone comes to Google and says, "I want to advertise to men ages 18-25 that are into video games and fantasy novels." Google doesn't respond with a list of people who fit that demographic. Instead, they take the advert from the client and they display it to people whose Google usage history suggests that they fit that demographic. Maybe those people searched for "Brandon Sanderson" or visited a World of Warcraft fan site. Maybe they have a Google+ profiles that identifies them as being 22 years old. Google doesn't share the specifics with third parties. Instead, they use your usage data to attach you to various demographic profiles and they sell the "eyes" (for lack of a better term) of those demographic profiles.
So yes, Google doesn't directly sell your information to third parties. The process is a bit more nuanced than that.
From the video, Microsoft wants you to think that Google is an evil oppressor that takes money out of your pocket by selling data on your behavior. They also want you to think that Google is "watching" you like some nosey neighbor who rather than blabbing your secrets all over town, will instead sell all your dirty secrets to the highest bidder.
And hey, if you think of it like that, it's pretty scary.
But seriously. Have you ever tried to actually sell your personal data to someone? Like, if you went to Starbucks and said, "Hey, I like coffee, I'm single, have a full time job, and disposable income. I'll let you tell me how great Starbucks is if you just pay me a dollar!" I'm sure that they'd probably look at you with some understandable confusion. Nothing is worth more than you can sell it for. That's simply the reality of economics. So your personal information generally has 0 monetary value to you and would probably cost you more to sell than it would cost you in time and energy to affect that sale.
Google is providing you a service. You're "paying" for that service by allowing Google to monetize your personal information ON YOUR BEHALF. It's a sort of barter agreement. Google will give you something at no monetary cost in exchange for the opportunity to sell your data to third parties. They're not selling your emails. They're not selling your text messages. They're not "reading" your data in any real sense (no actual person ever sees your data without an appropriate reason). They're effectively acting as your agent to monetize your demographic information. And rather than paying you in cash, they're paying you in services.
This is actually no different than how broadcast television works. They use companies like Nielsen to determine aggregate demographic information on the viewership for a given show. Then they sell that information to third parties (advertisers), who supply the necessary capital to run the TV channel and produce new content, which the network then gives to you for "free". Google's model is identical. Just because Google can fine-tune that demographic information does not alter the basic structure of the model.
All the FUD about "big data" relies on some over-zealous anthropomorphization of large scale data processing systems. Microsoft likes to use phrases like "Google reads your email" to scare you into thinking that there's some overworked engineers at Google that do nothing all day except sit around and chuckle about those emails you sent to your wife. But that just doesn't happen. It's scare tactics put out by people who have either never worked with large data sets or are purposefully obfuscating the truth with the intent to scare you.
In the end, you ultimately have a choice: You can simply stop using Google's services and thereby refuse to opt-in to their tracking. Humankind lasted millions of years without Google. You can avoid Google today if you don't want to pay for their services. But to freak out and say that Google is somehow operating nefariously by monetizing their services in a way that doesn't cost you cash out of pocket comes across as a bit obtuse.
It's so interesting to see people's reaction to the whole driver-less car thing. It's incredible to see the kind of ethical thought-experiment that must necessarily go through everyone's mind when they come to this conclusion: How many lives must be saved before I will tolerate someone being brutally slain by a malfunctioning computer?
Every day, children are run down by drivers who are not paying attention, tired, drunk, or just plain don't have time to react. Since a driver-less car is incapable of being drunk, tired, or distracted, then it's a safe bet that they'll be much better at avoiding those accidents that can be avoided. But the reality is that the latter scenario (no time to react) would still lead to the deaths of many children (and others!).
At what point does it become "worth it"? When the driver-less car causes 1/10th as many fatalities? 1/100th? 1/1,000th? How many human deaths must be prevented by letting computers drive cars before we're willing to accept 1 single death by those same computers?
It's a real-life example of the "Trolley Problem"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Must be a build-up of inhibitory assemblies.
With an email address like "firstname.lastname@gmail.com"! I mean, you might as well have the address "user@example.com"!
Duke Nukem Forever will ship in June
What parallel universe did YOU fall into?
Google got totally 6-pooled.
In related news, high school GPA has been shown to be a predictor of college success. Therefore, high school students will all be assigned a GPA of 4.0.
I imagine the success shown by students taking algebra 2 in schools that don't require it is reflected by students taking any elective mathematics courses as part of any curriculum.
You're both right.
Degrees are super important.
So is school.
Every CS undergrad should do at least one internship. More if possible. CS Students have it super-easy. For students in many fields, an internship is a huge expense. The internships are generally unpaid and often leave iterns doing "busy work." But with CS internships, they are generally paid, sometimes they pay quite well, and because of the money involved, you're rarely fetching coffee.
By the time I graduated with my CS degree, I had more than 2 years of real-world development experience with two different organizations. I had 3 job offers to pick from --- months before graduation.
The bottom line is that school isn't just about getting good grades. Work isn't just about showing up and getting your tasks done. Both school and work (while you're a college student) should have the same goal: Building knowledge and experience.
If you think that walking out of school with a 3.8 GPA and no experience can get you a job in today's market, you're just as naïve as someone who thinks that they can get a job with 3 years of experience and no degree. Today's market is incredibly competitive. You need to do everything you can while you're in college so that you can compete with all the qualified, experienced, laid-off folks that are out there looking for jobs with you when you graduate!
Interesting. I didn't know that...
I do appreciate the existentialism, though. I mean, in the end, doesn't every side of a battle see themselves as the patriots and their opponent as the "bad guys"*?
*Insert whatever the term of choice is for the conflict in question. Whether it's Fascists, Commies, Terrorists, or Borg, it's still "the bad guys."
Google has been skirting the edge of their "don't be evil" policy with China since the start. If you have to censor your search results, it's not worth the trouble.
Your statement is ironically close to the truth. Quantum computers actually function in parallel to conventional devices when it comes to the simple tasks that they perform, such as rendering intricate scenes, or estimating series values. What quantum computers are better at is taking advantage of quantum effects to exponentially outperform conventional computers at things such as factoring immense integers. They will most likely be used for decryption and quantum simulations, or other mathematically novel applications. In other words, it benefits businesses and scientists the most. They will most likely have commercial value in the future, but that is when they develop more uses for it, such as emulating the human mind to make ultra-realistic (if not realistic) AI. At the moment however, it is still in the computer equivalent stage of useless behemoth. Someone in some field will most likely make a huge discovery similar to the silicon transistors of the past, win a Nobel prize, and set the stage for a new revolution. Feels like a long way from now, but I'll probably be proved wrong.
I actually am inclined not to agree with you. Back when people were making similar statements about the computer in general, they weren't small enough, powerful enough, or cheap enough for anyone to afford them who wasn't going to set up some sort of business unit around them. But I say give it 20-30 years. What will probably end up happening is that they'll be making quantum processors that run along side traditional processors, working much like today's GPUs, or yesterday's "Math Co-processors." Programmers will take particularly complex mathematical tasks and offload them to the quantum processor. My money says that 50-60 years from now, you'll be running a hybrid quantum/traditional computer on a mobile device you carry in your pocket.
Don't believe me? Try going to someone in the 1950's and explaining to them that in 50-60 years, people will have computers that fit in their pockets and instead of solving the world's mathematical problems with these computers, we've created MySpace... *shutter*
... One more note... Not only does this study do nothing to show that AT&T might be modifying traffic, it shows that AT&T is probably NOT modifying traffic!
/. look like a group of geeks with nothing better to do than bash AT&T. I'm sure you can find some legitimate grievances against AT&T instead of wasting people's time and ruining the reputation of a good news source with trash like this.
Comcast has admitted to sending false resets, so, no surprise, they are on top of the list. In fact, they are not only on top of the list, they're nowhere else. This is to be expected with a systematic interference with traffic.
HOWEVER, if you look down the list, and I mean, WAYYY down the list, you'll find that ranked at #101 (out of 108)... is AT&T! If AT&T has been systematically producing false resets, they wouldn't just have one network high on the list, but all of them.. (see: Comcast).
No one ever got a good rep defending AT&T, but stories like this just make
Furthermore, they aren't sampling anything but P2P traffic, there's no sampling of something benign like web traffic or gaming traffic. If there was some sort of control group involved, I would be more convinced. But the fact is that there isn't.
Using this methodology, one could produce a study saying pretty much anything. For instance, you could "show" that car manufacturers design their cars to experience mechanical failure at between 20,000 and 25,000 miles by producing a list of incidents where such a thing happens. Of course, cars fail at other times too, they even fail at a higher rate later in their lifespan. But if you only look at cars that are 20,000-25,000 miles into their lives, you would never know, now would you?
Not if you work for Verizon:
http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html
Linspire has had some pretty good ideas when it comes to making Linux easy for the Windows user. But since it has not been free, I have been reluctent to recommend it to friends. I would like to see how this turns out...
... Or at least forcing someone to debug it should
Wow, that is scary. The sad part is that I would normally scold you for posting that kind of personal information on someone on the web for all to see...
Here's TFA (in case of an unlikely slashdotting):
Run Over by the RIAA Don...t Tap the Glass
By Cassi Hunt
Either since the day I visited my first aquarium or the day Goldie came into my family's life, our parents have told us not to tap the glass of the fish tank. It's cruel to Goldie -- I understand and respect that. I mean, heck, I am a vegetarian. But would we have many qualms over a little water perturbation if Goldie were, say, a bloodthirsty shark? I'd knock on that glass to the near-cracking point. And in that spirit, I decided to call up my new friend at the RIAA negotiation hotline again. (Hereafter I'll refer to her as Bowie, which means "yellow haired," as I'm pretty sure that's the case.)
Last time I spoke with Bowie, the conversation was pretty much over after she named $3750 as the settlement amount. (I haven't actually agreed to settle yet.) So when I called her again, I asked -- again -- about how to negotiate that amount. I counted on the fact that self-important types wouldn't be inclined to remember a lowly pirate like me. Bowie didn't disappoint. She launched into her spiel about how the RIAA doesn't negotiate settlements. I told her that it was too much to ask for thousands of dollars from a college student who only makes just enough from term and summer employment to still come out a couple thousand in debt.
Bowie replied that the RIAA was oh-so-kind enough to offer a six month repayment plan. At this point, I was beginning to speculate on Bowie's hair color, and decided to switch tactics. I concisely and calmly explained how the situation was ridiculous: they weren't offering a settlement, they were issuing an ultimatum! Let us screw you over gently now, or with chains and whips in court. Surely there must be some flexibility for individual cases.
Well, she replied, they do make allowances if something like a medical emergency comes up. Now we're getting somewhere. "And who would I talk to about a situation like that, because I'd like to talk to them now."
"Me," she replied. Ever feel like your nose has just been flattened by something large and solid? I mean, besides the doors at 77 Mass. Ave. "But you're not in a situation like that."
Oh, but I am. The Institvte has left me with severe bouts of p-set-induced insomnia and a case of stuck-to-desk-itis that recurs two to three times in a semester, then again just before break. And my wallet certainly takes a hit for it.
But as much as I tried to argue that I was in as unique a situation as someone with medical expenses, there was no getting through. Bowie even had the audacity to say, "In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements."
Are. You. Shitting. Me.
There you have it, fellow Techsters: proof of the fantastic levels of absurdity to which the RIAA attack has sunk. The Recording Industry of America would rather see America's youth deprived of higher education, forever marring their ability to contribute personally and financially to society -- including the arts -- so that they may crucify us as examples to our peers. To say nothing of wrecking our lives in the process. I finally understand what the RIAA meant when they told me "stealing music is not a victimless crime" -- the victims hang for all to see.
Please, RIAA -- if any competent representative happens to enjoy flipping through The Tech -- please tell me Bowie is a moronic tool who can't help what the Superior Gray Coverage Golden Blonde hair dye does to her mental facilities. Please tell me you actually care about the futures of the age demographic that buys most of your music (http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/pdf/2004co nsumerprofile.pdf). Your evil pirates are people too, people who enjoy music and almost always still purchase it legitimately. Each has an individual life and circumstances that deserve c
I can't believe that the RIAA would stoop to such a level. The scariest part is that perfectly intelligent people believe that everyone who is sued by the RIAA deserves it and is guilty. I wish that there was some simple way to explain to a lay-person how knowing the IP address of someone downloading music doesn't mean much in linking to an actual person. People assume that an IP address is like a social security number, that always links to a single person and always to the same person. This fallacy is one of our biggest problems in infroming lay-people about what the RIAA is doing. Maybe this bit of info will help people to see how evil the RIAA actually is.
First M$ creates an entire industry focused around fixing holes in their OS. Now they are threatening to fix their own holes and that industry is mad at them?
It seems to me this is like horses being mad at cars for making them obsolete.
However, I am yet to be convinced that Vista will not require third party anti-malware support.
Unhandled Exception: You have been eaten by a grue.
This is quite a step up for relations between Steve Jobs and Sony... It seems like just yesterday when Steve's approach meant you needed to hide the Sony Rep in the closet