This is basically my take. Remember all those folks who kept denigrating any argument against privacy intrusions as a "slippery slope fallacy?" Well, welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope.
Relax dude, it's a clickbait headline designed precised to invoke irrational emotional responses like you just gave.
I actually read the article, the proposal isn't a proposal at all, it is merely commentary on possible choices available if you wanted to more reliable online identities. Using Government issued ID is an available option, but nowhere did it recommend that.
Just because you've gotten away with what you are doing doesn't mean it's legal where you live. Better check.
Nah, you see because outside of USA-land, most roads aren't 100 feet wide. Mine, and most residential neighbourhood streets here, are wide enough for about 3 1/2 cars. So park one car on each side and you automatically get a one lane street. Park your allowed 12-18 inches off the kerb and you automatically force most people to reduce their speed to about 20mph too. Win win.
And of course if you really annoy someone they might just key your car or slash your tires... lack of authoritarianism and cowboy "justice" swings both ways.
Most civilised people don't resort to violence when they don't get their own way. And even should an American visit my street, I have insurance that covers that.
Of course sales growth / adoption rates have to level off: you can't sell a billion phones every year to a population of ~7 billion indefinitely. Much like desktops before them, smartphones have reached the point where the hardware is "good enough" that replacing it at less than a 3-5 year interval is unnecessary.
Assuming a 5 year replacement, and 7 billion customers, that means 1.4 Billion new devices each year. So a billion phones a year sounds reasonable.
I got on snapchat too, mainly to message my kids. I think it's a great platform as rather than receiving everyone else's bullshit about themselves, communication is targeted to the receiver, and is personal, ie how communication should be. The additional benefit of volatile data is a big win too, but I can't see how they can ever make any money off of it.
And a quick call to 311 would see you and your neighbor receive parking tickets within the hour, at least where I live, for pulling that.
You have a law that prevents you from parking on the street? Don't you live in the land of the free?
Similar deal, the city has bylaw enforcement that doesn't look fondly upon cowboy traffic enforcement and if they manage to find out who you are they will make things unpleasant for you.
Sounds quite authoritarian. Glad I don't live there.
Are you including yourself in that category?
I don't have people rat running down my street, so you tell me who's winning.
"Social Media" was new and interesting 5-10 years ago, now just like every other type of media it's just mostly noise and ads, so the novelty of having other's opinions rammed down your throat is wearing off.
Like newspapers, tv and other media sources, "social media" will slowly dilute while the kids will find something newer and shinier to waste their time on (probably also labelled social media, but will actually be something other than FB and Twitter).
How exactly do you plan on doing that without breaking the law?
There's plenty of methods available to calm traffic.
One was to lobby the local council to put speed humps in our street because there's a school nearby and "think of the children". (see that stuff can be used in your favour if you use your brain)
Another is to have you neighbour park off the kerb a bit and you do the same on the other side of the road, instant bottle neck.
Traffic Cones also have a remarkable effect on restricting flow, and everyone just accepts that they are there for a legitimate reason.
There's other tricks that I'm not going to disclose here, but ultimately if you want something to happen, you can't always wait for someone else to do it for you.
The world is shaped by unreasonable people. You have a choice if you want to do the shaping, or be shaped by others.
I'm not going to sue for my $500 loss if I have a 10% chance of losing and he'll spend 30k defending himself. Loser pays means that poor and middle class can't seek justice at all.
Not sure where it works like this, but I've lived in a few countries (none of them USA), and all of them had a concept of a small claims court. ie for claims under a certain figure (usually $3-5k) are lawyer-free, resolved by a local 'court' with just the plaintiff, the defendant and an adjudicator, for a fee of around $50.
So yeah, poor people can have justice too.
It works differently in pretty much every other country.
eg In my country for example, any claim under $5k is settled in a lawyer-free small claims court (similar to Judge Judy). In fact Judge Judy is American, so it doesn't even work like that in all US states. No-one has ever been made bankrupt in such a court.
Because it would, that is how supply and demand work.
Only if the demand remained in the exact same locations as now, which it wouldn't because of the financial freedom it gives people to not have to live in shitty suburbs in big cities.
Consider this: If you think it wouldn't hurt, why not just give everyone $1 million, wouldn't that solve everything? Think that through a bit and you'll see why it doesn't work.
That doesn't work for the same reason that zero dollars doesn't work. You do know that some where between black and white exist other colours?
The same way "salami insurance for all" would increase wait times in the salami store. It creates a longer line in which people must stand before they can get to buy the salami and makes it impossible for people at the end of the line to get the salami even if they need it to save their lives.
Do you even know how a hospital works?
Hint: It's a little more intelligently managed than your local meat shop. Look up the word triage, then come back and appreciate your idiotic analogy.
Also look up preventive medicine, then tell me how this is relevant in the salami story. I won't hold my breath.
But if you don't understand basic economics, then why do you insert yourself into this debate at all?
To try and educate people like you who clearly have no fucking clue...
I remember reading that the national death rate in Belgium actually went down during the Nazi invasion and WW II.
Ok that sounds like a load of shit. And a quick Google tells me 88000 Belgians were killed during the German invasion and occupation. Without even looking up the pre-war mortality rate, I'll bet my house that it wasn't anywhere near that level.
More people spending money on insurance is not "more people with medical services".
So they don't get medical services? So what are they paying insurance for? And how does it increase the wait times, if people aren't using the services?
Your argument makes no sense.
Also, medical misprescription is one of the biggest killers in America. It's in the top three. It's grossly underreported because if your doc fucks up and stops your heart with a bad drug combo it's most likely to be reported as a heart attack and stop there.
A citation would be good right about now. In my country, a death needs sign off from the state coroner, which is legally and politically liable for it's conclusions. The family can request an independent autopsy, so that scenario doesn't sound plausible to me.
Then your family is extremely lightweight in its internet usage.
Or maybe you are just a bandwidth hog?
What is all this data you are downloading? Outside of crap TV and movies there really isn't much else on the Internet for regular people.
How do you keep your data usage so low? I hit 300gb every month.
On what?
I use about 50GB which covers the entire family's web/email/youtube/spotify/gaming, as well as a few torrents (we're not big TV watchers, but get through a few each week).
I have friends who hoard thousands of 1080p movies and boxsets that they never watch, but they are hardly representative of your average users.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure I saw it get slipped in at some point in the 90's.
Nope, never happened. In fact it gets thrown out every time it's raised, specifically because of privacy concerns.
So in this case, the system works.
This is basically my take. Remember all those folks who kept denigrating any argument against privacy intrusions as a "slippery slope fallacy?" Well, welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope.
Relax dude, it's a clickbait headline designed precised to invoke irrational emotional responses like you just gave.
I actually read the article, the proposal isn't a proposal at all, it is merely commentary on possible choices available if you wanted to more reliable online identities. Using Government issued ID is an available option, but nowhere did it recommend that.
Just because you've gotten away with what you are doing doesn't mean it's legal where you live. Better check.
Nah, you see because outside of USA-land, most roads aren't 100 feet wide. Mine, and most residential neighbourhood streets here, are wide enough for about 3 1/2 cars. So park one car on each side and you automatically get a one lane street. Park your allowed 12-18 inches off the kerb and you automatically force most people to reduce their speed to about 20mph too. Win win.
And of course if you really annoy someone they might just key your car or slash your tires... lack of authoritarianism and cowboy "justice" swings both ways.
Most civilised people don't resort to violence when they don't get their own way. And even should an American visit my street, I have insurance that covers that.
Not Gartner, but this is one of my favourites: https://foundersgrid.com/bitco...
Read the predictions, then check the date at the bottom of the page.
Of course sales growth / adoption rates have to level off: you can't sell a billion phones every year to a population of ~7 billion indefinitely. Much like desktops before them, smartphones have reached the point where the hardware is "good enough" that replacing it at less than a 3-5 year interval is unnecessary.
Assuming a 5 year replacement, and 7 billion customers, that means 1.4 Billion new devices each year. So a billion phones a year sounds reasonable.
I got on snapchat too, mainly to message my kids. I think it's a great platform as rather than receiving everyone else's bullshit about themselves, communication is targeted to the receiver, and is personal, ie how communication should be. The additional benefit of volatile data is a big win too, but I can't see how they can ever make any money off of it.
And a quick call to 311 would see you and your neighbor receive parking tickets within the hour, at least where I live, for pulling that.
You have a law that prevents you from parking on the street? Don't you live in the land of the free?
Similar deal, the city has bylaw enforcement that doesn't look fondly upon cowboy traffic enforcement and if they manage to find out who you are they will make things unpleasant for you.
Sounds quite authoritarian. Glad I don't live there.
Are you including yourself in that category?
I don't have people rat running down my street, so you tell me who's winning.
"Social Media" was new and interesting 5-10 years ago, now just like every other type of media it's just mostly noise and ads, so the novelty of having other's opinions rammed down your throat is wearing off.
Like newspapers, tv and other media sources, "social media" will slowly dilute while the kids will find something newer and shinier to waste their time on (probably also labelled social media, but will actually be something other than FB and Twitter).
How exactly do you plan on doing that without breaking the law?
There's plenty of methods available to calm traffic.
One was to lobby the local council to put speed humps in our street because there's a school nearby and "think of the children". (see that stuff can be used in your favour if you use your brain)
Another is to have you neighbour park off the kerb a bit and you do the same on the other side of the road, instant bottle neck.
Traffic Cones also have a remarkable effect on restricting flow, and everyone just accepts that they are there for a legitimate reason.
There's other tricks that I'm not going to disclose here, but ultimately if you want something to happen, you can't always wait for someone else to do it for you.
The world is shaped by unreasonable people. You have a choice if you want to do the shaping, or be shaped by others.
enjoy jail then I guess?
Yeah ok, if that make you feel better...
I'm not going to sue for my $500 loss if I have a 10% chance of losing and he'll spend 30k defending himself. Loser pays means that poor and middle class can't seek justice at all.
Not sure where it works like this, but I've lived in a few countries (none of them USA), and all of them had a concept of a small claims court. ie for claims under a certain figure (usually $3-5k) are lawyer-free, resolved by a local 'court' with just the plaintiff, the defendant and an adjudicator, for a fee of around $50.
So yeah, poor people can have justice too.
It works differently in pretty much every other country.
eg In my country for example, any claim under $5k is settled in a lawyer-free small claims court (similar to Judge Judy). In fact Judge Judy is American, so it doesn't even work like that in all US states. No-one has ever been made bankrupt in such a court.
Even easier, go buy some bricks.
Leave bricks randomly scattered on your street.
Rinse and repeat.
Those roads do not belong to property owners...
All power is assumed. You assume the right to drive down my street, I assume I have the right to try and prevent you. Let the games begin!
Because it would, that is how supply and demand work.
Only if the demand remained in the exact same locations as now, which it wouldn't because of the financial freedom it gives people to not have to live in shitty suburbs in big cities.
Consider this: If you think it wouldn't hurt, why not just give everyone $1 million, wouldn't that solve everything? Think that through a bit and you'll see why it doesn't work.
That doesn't work for the same reason that zero dollars doesn't work. You do know that some where between black and white exist other colours?
Facebook is safe because they are the 100lb gorilla
A 100lb gorilla is a very small gorilla....
The same way "salami insurance for all" would increase wait times in the salami store. It creates a longer line in which people must stand before they can get to buy the salami and makes it impossible for people at the end of the line to get the salami even if they need it to save their lives.
Do you even know how a hospital works? Hint: It's a little more intelligently managed than your local meat shop. Look up the word triage, then come back and appreciate your idiotic analogy.
Also look up preventive medicine, then tell me how this is relevant in the salami story. I won't hold my breath.
But if you don't understand basic economics, then why do you insert yourself into this debate at all?
To try and educate people like you who clearly have no fucking clue...
Not really, there are plenty of families that use even more.
Yeah but it's not the norm. I have ISP experience, so can assure you that 300GB/month is most definitely in the high range.
As for what we're using the internet for? Well, it's several hours of streaming every day
You should get out more.
I remember reading that the national death rate in Belgium actually went down during the Nazi invasion and WW II.
Ok that sounds like a load of shit. And a quick Google tells me 88000 Belgians were killed during the German invasion and occupation. Without even looking up the pre-war mortality rate, I'll bet my house that it wasn't anywhere near that level.
So just don't do that then.
Seems to be an odd complaint, why do people love watching screens so much?
More people spending money on insurance is not "more people with medical services".
So they don't get medical services? So what are they paying insurance for? And how does it increase the wait times, if people aren't using the services?
Your argument makes no sense.
2 Kids with tablets probably eat 50GB in youtube videos....
Maybe your kids should get out more? That much screen time can't be healthy...
Also, medical misprescription is one of the biggest killers in America. It's in the top three. It's grossly underreported because if your doc fucks up and stops your heart with a bad drug combo it's most likely to be reported as a heart attack and stop there.
A citation would be good right about now. In my country, a death needs sign off from the state coroner, which is legally and politically liable for it's conclusions. The family can request an independent autopsy, so that scenario doesn't sound plausible to me.
Then your family is extremely lightweight in its internet usage.
Or maybe you are just a bandwidth hog?
What is all this data you are downloading? Outside of crap TV and movies there really isn't much else on the Internet for regular people.
How do you keep your data usage so low? I hit 300gb every month.
On what? I use about 50GB which covers the entire family's web/email/youtube/spotify/gaming, as well as a few torrents (we're not big TV watchers, but get through a few each week).
I have friends who hoard thousands of 1080p movies and boxsets that they never watch, but they are hardly representative of your average users.