For all practical purposes I *am* anonymous walking down the street. Sure the police can put a tail on me, but it costs them major time and money. That's the major difference - because in meatspace, they can only do this when absolutely required. On the net, they can put a tail on everyone at the same time at a relatively marginal cost.
But of course you knoew that and are only trolling.
>Would it really have hurt them to put
>a "this is a parody" disclaimer
>at the bottom of the site?
And what good would it be? Assume a sicko out there who visits the site and actually decides to try it for real. Exactly how effective would a disclaimer be in stopping him?
Scary is right. 1984 will not be brought upon us by governments - they are, relatively, too weak. It will be brought upon us, gradually, by the corporate world.
Sigh back. But you ask a good question, so please consider this answer.
Yes, typically, most people want to have as much money as possible. But also typically, most people have other, non-financial priorities. You love someone - you give that person presents, spend time with them, etc. I love coding, and I spend at least as much time developing my apps (all freeware), as I do on my freelance paid work (which is only marginally IT-related). Result: there's lots of stuff I can't afford, like a car, say. But that's the way I like my life, see. I have other priorities than just financial gain.
Corporations, OTOH, do NOT have other priorities. They live solely for financial gain. When human beings are like that, then yep, they're getting called evil. A corporation is like a guy who'd sell his own mother into slavery if it made him a profit. And corporations do! People have their sense of what's right in ethical terms - corporations don't, so they must accountability, and laws that keep them in check.
But we have a very reasonable expectation of privacy in off-line lives. The article makes a very silly comparison to "losing privacy" by just walking out on the street. That's pure idiocy. I am 99% anonymous on the street. I pay cash. On a busy street, I don't even meet anyone I know in weeks. Nobody - I mean NOBODY knows who I am, where I go and what I buy. To get that information, they'd have to put a tail on me, 24/7. On the net, everyone has a 24/7 tail, and it even comes cheap. That's the problem.
And you're going to make them, how? They won't stick to their policies - no matter how friendly - when there's no incentive for them to do so. Such policies must be binding - the way contracts are. IOW, by law. Self regulation is a big fat joke when every single day there's news on/. about yet another company who doesn't.
>A little privacy lost is not
>remotely comparable a "lost soul."
It is, the day that information can be used against you. For example, when every retailer starts to quote higher prices for X just for you, because they know you buy lots of X. Or when your prospective employer can get a nice +5 Insightful look into your personal affairs.
So it's a hyperbole, but it makes a valid point. Deal with it.
This is NOT a rich guy/poor guy issue. This is a clueful/cluless guy issue. People can't protect themselves or make informaed choices if they have no understanding of what's involved. They get their PC, get their winmodem, and get their free email account. I want to stop short of adding "...so they have to be protected by law", but the law already protects ME from lots of things I have no clue about - such as chemical additives in food, right? I'm not a biochemist and I am not going to run an analysis on every bit of good I buy - I can't make an informed choice about this - so I expect the law to set out rules for what may and what may not be put in the stuff I eat. It's really rather simple - blind belief in a free market is as wrong as any blind belief.
Funny. My filters halt about 10-15 pieces of spam per day. This has gone on for about 4 years now. Not a single "targeted" or "useful" commercial email among them.
And where did you get the notion that spam funds bandwidth?
Please consider: TV advertising pays for the TV shows I watch - that much is true. Print advertising reduces the cost of the magazines. But spam does not - in any way - pay for the email I send or receive! I pay my ISP for that. My ISP, in turn, gets no revenue at all from the spammed advertising - quite the opposite - they also bear the costs of routing, filtering and storing the spam.
Spam doesn't compare in any way to legit TV or print advertising. It would - only if it were possible for a spam company to sneakily inject their adverts into a TV station's programming without paying that TV station for carrying the adverts.
"Perfect solution"? What's perfect about ME having to pay (in money and time) for YOUR advertising? And you dare mention capitalism? Where is it a part of capitalism to have the right to advertise for free and without giving your audience the choice whether they want to receive your ads AND PAY FOR THEM? Please.
Ever think of those who use a cellphone to send or receive email? Ever thinkof the costs to ISPs who install and maintain filters and/or upgrade their hardware to handle the increased load? Ever think of the millions of people in practically ALL European countries, where normal phone connections are metered and you pay by the minute? Ever think?
Get real back. Spam is so cheap that the sender doesn't care whom he hits. I live in Poland and I get loads of spam where the only contact is a US 800 number, or where the service only makes sense for US residents anyway. So what? They don't care. It didn't cost the spammer more to include my address in the list, and of course the larger the list, the greater the profit for the list peddler. If you believe that spam is in a slightest degree "targeted", check your reality.
It's definitely NOT the 'fire in crowded theatre' approach - wrong analogy there. It's the "bullhorn outside my window at 3 am" approach. It doesn't matter WHAT you say (i.e. fire in a crowded theatre), it only matters how you say it. You can publish a pamphlet or put up a website, but you cannot forcibly enter my house and start your spiel. It's the method that counts. In the case of spam, the method employed is invasive, annoying and costly to the recipient and everyone through whose system the spam is being routed.
Not so, because you don't DIAL UP to a Napster server. The server doesn't care if it's serving a modem or a T1 user. Actually, the high-bandwidth people tend to keep the pipes busy and squeeze out everyone else. If they go away, modem users are likely to find the servie more reliable and faster.
If there's anyone out there at all, it's a pretty safe bet they further out than Saturn. If they have their own SETI (Search for Earthling Intelligence) project running, would they hear us? Nope, because we're not actually transmitting anything to them - because it's too expensive. Listening is much cheaper than sending (hardware plus the power required), and SETI isn't exactly rich. It's kind of like the net in certain areas - everyone wants to leech, but who's uploading? If we aren't, why would they?
Slashdot Mirror
YM shooting McNealy is going to solve the problem? Or shooting *anyone*?
For all practical purposes I *am* anonymous walking down the street. Sure the police can put a tail on me, but it costs them major time and money. That's the major difference - because in meatspace, they can only do this when absolutely required. On the net, they can put a tail on everyone at the same time at a relatively marginal cost.
But of course you knoew that and are only trolling.
>Would it really have hurt them to put
>a "this is a parody" disclaimer
>at the bottom of the site?
And what good would it be? Assume a sicko out there who visits the site and actually decides to try it for real. Exactly how effective would a disclaimer be in stopping him?
Huh? What's FBI's role in "encouraging people to rethink" their taste or talent?
Fine. But you don't have the right not to be offended. Nobody has.
Scary is right. 1984 will not be brought upon us by governments - they are, relatively, too weak. It will be brought upon us, gradually, by the corporate world.
Sigh back. But you ask a good question, so please consider this answer.
Yes, typically, most people want to have as much money as possible. But also typically, most people have other, non-financial priorities. You love someone - you give that person presents, spend time with them, etc. I love coding, and I spend at least as much time developing my apps (all freeware), as I do on my freelance paid work (which is only marginally IT-related). Result: there's lots of stuff I can't afford, like a car, say. But that's the way I like my life, see. I have other priorities than just financial gain.
Corporations, OTOH, do NOT have other priorities. They live solely for financial gain. When human beings are like that, then yep, they're getting called evil. A corporation is like a guy who'd sell his own mother into slavery if it made him a profit. And corporations do! People have their sense of what's right in ethical terms - corporations don't, so they must accountability, and laws that keep them in check.
Does the name DoubleClick ring a bell? The thing you don't believe in - it's their business model.
But we have a very reasonable expectation of privacy in off-line lives. The article makes a very silly comparison to "losing privacy" by just walking out on the street. That's pure idiocy. I am 99% anonymous on the street. I pay cash. On a busy street, I don't even meet anyone I know in weeks. Nobody - I mean NOBODY knows who I am, where I go and what I buy. To get that information, they'd have to put a tail on me, 24/7. On the net, everyone has a 24/7 tail, and it even comes cheap. That's the problem.
>and actually stick to those policies
/. about yet another company who doesn't.
And you're going to make them, how? They won't stick to their policies - no matter how friendly - when there's no incentive for them to do so. Such policies must be binding - the way contracts are. IOW, by law. Self regulation is a big fat joke when every single day there's news on
>A little privacy lost is not
>remotely comparable a "lost soul."
It is, the day that information can be used against you. For example, when every retailer starts to quote higher prices for X just for you, because they know you buy lots of X. Or when your prospective employer can get a nice +5 Insightful look into your personal affairs.
So it's a hyperbole, but it makes a valid point. Deal with it.
Yeah, just the way the industry died because people started to yowl about pollution, right?
This is NOT a rich guy/poor guy issue. This is a clueful/cluless guy issue. People can't protect themselves or make informaed choices if they have no understanding of what's involved. They get their PC, get their winmodem, and get their free email account. I want to stop short of adding "...so they have to be protected by law", but the law already protects ME from lots of things I have no clue about - such as chemical additives in food, right? I'm not a biochemist and I am not going to run an analysis on every bit of good I buy - I can't make an informed choice about this - so I expect the law to set out rules for what may and what may not be put in the stuff I eat. It's really rather simple - blind belief in a free market is as wrong as any blind belief.
Funny. My filters halt about 10-15 pieces of spam per day. This has gone on for about 4 years now. Not a single "targeted" or "useful" commercial email among them.
And where did you get the notion that spam funds bandwidth?
Please consider: TV advertising pays for the TV shows I watch - that much is true. Print advertising reduces the cost of the magazines. But spam does not - in any way - pay for the email I send or receive! I pay my ISP for that. My ISP, in turn, gets no revenue at all from the spammed advertising - quite the opposite - they also bear the costs of routing, filtering and storing the spam.
Spam doesn't compare in any way to legit TV or print advertising. It would - only if it were possible for a spam company to sneakily inject their adverts into a TV station's programming without paying that TV station for carrying the adverts.
Your argument is therefore utterly bogus.
Yeah, and the computers run on what energy source? Magic?
Postal mail advertisers actually pay for the delivery and other expenses incurred by third parties.
"Perfect solution"? What's perfect about ME having to pay (in money and time) for YOUR advertising? And you dare mention capitalism? Where is it a part of capitalism to have the right to advertise for free and without giving your audience the choice whether they want to receive your ads AND PAY FOR THEM? Please.
Ever think of those who use a cellphone to send or receive email? Ever thinkof the costs to ISPs who install and maintain filters and/or upgrade their hardware to handle the increased load? Ever think of the millions of people in practically ALL European countries, where normal phone connections are metered and you pay by the minute? Ever think?
Get real back. Spam is so cheap that the sender doesn't care whom he hits. I live in Poland and I get loads of spam where the only contact is a US 800 number, or where the service only makes sense for US residents anyway. So what? They don't care. It didn't cost the spammer more to include my address in the list, and of course the larger the list, the greater the profit for the list peddler. If you believe that spam is in a slightest degree "targeted", check your reality.
It's definitely NOT the 'fire in crowded theatre' approach - wrong analogy there. It's the "bullhorn outside my window at 3 am" approach. It doesn't matter WHAT you say (i.e. fire in a crowded theatre), it only matters how you say it. You can publish a pamphlet or put up a website, but you cannot forcibly enter my house and start your spiel. It's the method that counts. In the case of spam, the method employed is invasive, annoying and costly to the recipient and everyone through whose system the spam is being routed.
Someone please mod the parent WAY up! Seriously.
Not so, because you don't DIAL UP to a Napster server. The server doesn't care if it's serving a modem or a T1 user. Actually, the high-bandwidth people tend to keep the pipes busy and squeeze out everyone else. If they go away, modem users are likely to find the servie more reliable and faster.
RedHat adds value to what you can otherwise get for $0.00. Napster doesn't. The subscription fee is merely a kickback.
>I forsee the usage of Napigator in my future
Napigator is advertising-supported, hence not free (speech OR beer). A total turn-off.
If there's anyone out there at all, it's a pretty safe bet they further out than Saturn. If they have their own SETI (Search for Earthling Intelligence) project running, would they hear us? Nope, because we're not actually transmitting anything to them - because it's too expensive. Listening is much cheaper than sending (hardware plus the power required), and SETI isn't exactly rich. It's kind of like the net in certain areas - everyone wants to leech, but who's uploading? If we aren't, why would they?