What's novel about treating customers differently based on expectation of future revenue. That's been going on since the first wheels were sold in lots decorated with flags made from wooly mammoth skins.
I'm glad they've gotten a patent on it, despite the fact that it is bogus. That way any other retailer tempted to use this kind of predictive behavioral modeling crap against their customers might reconsider when they realize they'll have to pay Jeff Bezos for the privilege.
Self-fulfilling prophecy much? It works both ways, guys--if you slow my order because you don't think I will be a good customer, guess what, you can be pretty sure I won't.
You're right, it doesn't, directly. But consider that data are retained and all yours are encrypted, sticking out like the a high weed in a freshly manicured lawn. Who do you think gets priority in the dragnet for up close scrutiny? Given that TPTB assume that ordinary people using encryption outside of electronic banking or (shudder) web-based voting have "something to hide," the next logical step to data retention laws is to pass further laws against "circumventing" the data retention by using non-escrowed encryption.
That's a fallacy that assumes that storage, network bandwidth, and search CPU time cost what they did in 1980. Whether one has anything to hide or not, knowing that an IM with a high school friend could be dredged up forty years later in a political contest or a lawsuit should scare the beejezus out of anyone.
In the case of the people buying this hideous overpriced DRM-laden monstrosity, I suspect you'll find those two things are in close proximity to one another.
Ding, ding, ding. At one institution I am aware of, the very study cited here was used as part of the justification for blocking TOR access from an academic network. It sounds so much better than "it's hard for our network surveillance appliances to watch what you do on the tubes when you're using TOR."
Sure, they were criminals, but criminals aren't the only ones who will take the services' advertising, which said straight up they didn't have access to the user's private key, at its word. Had it been a Chinese dissident getting the death penalty for "crimes against the State", would it still be okay for Hushmail to bury the fact they store private keys and that they're recoverable by a valid subpoena in a "technical FAQ"? Those who know their way around technically don't need services like Hushmail to communicate securely and anonymously--this services is marketed to the less technically inclined.
And they should have been set up in such a manner that it was impossible for them to hand over the public key, as they imply. I suspect the decision to make the insecure non-Java version default (saving the trouble of signing a rigged applet and pushing that down when served with a court order) was the result of some not-so-subtle back door pressure. Like when ZKS Freedom "ran out of money" right after 9/11.
I totally understand -- scholarships were the first thing that came to mind, but disruption of studies is obviously important, too. Besides, if they give him up, he can always keep that in mind when the development office calls (as they always do) in a few years asking for money.
What's funnier is that it wouldn't even be ubiquitous if they hadn't started chasing after college students that were trading them in 1994, causing articles to be written that made the hoi polloi aware they even existed.
Thanks, not necessary to apologize, but appreciate it. What I was getting at on the point-by-point rebuttal is that you didn't quote *all* the points, just the first three. When I quoted the rebuttal I was replying to, I quoted all his points. It doesn't help any that I didn't catch at that time that you weren't the OP, which would have made it obvious to me why you didn't quote the last one--it's because it didn't apply to you. I still think that genuine emergencies will be held the way they were in the past, by someone coming to get the physician (and thus he or she leaving his contact information at the front desk), because even if jamming doesn't become commonplace, passive building design to block reception will.
Since you've made turned this into a rant about how you think doctors are underpaid and resorted to hyperbolic strawmen (e.g. ". . . to simply never go outside") inflammatory language (e.g "take your head out of your ass"), I see there's no reaching past your highly excessive sense of self-importance to make you understand that you don't have the God-given right to uninterrupted cell phone coverage just because your wife happens to work in an important profession.
What's more disruptive to your inability to handle interruptions: me receiving an IM on vibrate or an usher pausing the movie, turning on the lights, and paging (as in literally, sending a page, or message carrier) to fetch me?
My inability to handle interruptions?! Your excessive sense of self-importance is duly noted. In any case, you provide an acceptable alternative in your rebuttal--someone could call the theater and have someone come get you in a genuine emergency. If that rare event prevents thousands of teeny boppers texting and talking during the movie, it is worth it.
So, carried to its logical extremes, the only people allowed to work important jobs are the ones who love money above all human interaction. See any problems with that?
No, what I see is that there would be more than one person who could take the calls in rotation, and that those who were going to literally be on call 168 hours per week would be paid for it.
Turn off Michael Moore and actually meet a few doctors. I don't know any who make enough money that they'd never, ever want to go to a concert or movie or nice dinner.
Michael Moore? Whatever. Fact is, doctors are highly paid, and don't work for free. Their salaries are sufficient compensation to be able to avoid areas where their cell phones might not work or might not be permitted when on call. If that's such a quality of life issue, I'm sure there are hospitals or practices that have more than one surgeon available within a specialty, or, failing that, less demanding professions available to someone with the intelligence to be a surgeon.
Hospitals don't have sysadmins. Duly noted.
Hospitals only have one sysadmin for life-critical systems. Duly noted. And you didn't say you work at a hospital, not that it matters because if a hospital had only one person who could be reached to fix a life-critical system, they'd lose their accreditation and/or be sued into oblivion (and rightly so) anyway.
Sort of makes you wonder how society got along before cell phones. If you're so important that you have to take a call at any time, you need to keep yourself out of places it's rude to take calls, and request compensation from your employer accordingly. The.0001% of people with cells who are surgeons are highly enough paid to stay out of the theater while on call, and get paid enough to deal with it. Sys admins, no disrespect intended, aren't going to have anyone die because they can't be reached immediately.
Can't get it in lots of Comcast areas, and didn't you know Speakeasy got bought out by Best Buy? Any good policies they still have left aren't going to last long under that corporate yoke.
Slashdot Mirror
What's novel about treating customers differently based on expectation of future revenue. That's been going on since the first wheels were sold in lots decorated with flags made from wooly mammoth skins.
Better hurry--and be sure it says "on the Internet" so it's patentable.
I'm glad they've gotten a patent on it, despite the fact that it is bogus. That way any other retailer tempted to use this kind of predictive behavioral modeling crap against their customers might reconsider when they realize they'll have to pay Jeff Bezos for the privilege.
Self-fulfilling prophecy much? It works both ways, guys--if you slow my order because you don't think I will be a good customer, guess what, you can be pretty sure I won't.
You're right, it doesn't, directly. But consider that data are retained and all yours are encrypted, sticking out like the a high weed in a freshly manicured lawn. Who do you think gets priority in the dragnet for up close scrutiny? Given that TPTB assume that ordinary people using encryption outside of electronic banking or (shudder) web-based voting have "something to hide," the next logical step to data retention laws is to pass further laws against "circumventing" the data retention by using non-escrowed encryption.
That's a fallacy that assumes that storage, network bandwidth, and search CPU time cost what they did in 1980. Whether one has anything to hide or not, knowing that an IM with a high school friend could be dredged up forty years later in a political contest or a lawsuit should scare the beejezus out of anyone.
It means exactly what he thinks it means. The maxim was spoken first well before Charlemagne's advisor referred to it.
Nice.
A washed-up 80's band with two hits to its name sues because a cover band was able to duplicate their syrupy bubble-gum pop sound. The mind boggles.
In the case of the people buying this hideous overpriced DRM-laden monstrosity, I suspect you'll find those two things are in close proximity to one another.
Ding, ding, ding. At one institution I am aware of, the very study cited here was used as part of the justification for blocking TOR access from an academic network. It sounds so much better than "it's hard for our network surveillance appliances to watch what you do on the tubes when you're using TOR."
Sure, they were criminals, but criminals aren't the only ones who will take the services' advertising, which said straight up they didn't have access to the user's private key, at its word. Had it been a Chinese dissident getting the death penalty for "crimes against the State", would it still be okay for Hushmail to bury the fact they store private keys and that they're recoverable by a valid subpoena in a "technical FAQ"? Those who know their way around technically don't need services like Hushmail to communicate securely and anonymously--this services is marketed to the less technically inclined.
And they should have been set up in such a manner that it was impossible for them to hand over the public key, as they imply. I suspect the decision to make the insecure non-Java version default (saving the trouble of signing a rigged applet and pushing that down when served with a court order) was the result of some not-so-subtle back door pressure. Like when ZKS Freedom "ran out of money" right after 9/11.
I totally understand -- scholarships were the first thing that came to mind, but disruption of studies is obviously important, too. Besides, if they give him up, he can always keep that in mind when the development office calls (as they always do) in a few years asking for money.
What's funnier is that it wouldn't even be ubiquitous if they hadn't started chasing after college students that were trading them in 1994, causing articles to be written that made the hoi polloi aware they even existed.
Unless he's on scholarship, it might be worth your son transferring out of that school that is willing to give him up so readily to the wolves.
Thanks, not necessary to apologize, but appreciate it. What I was getting at on the point-by-point rebuttal is that you didn't quote *all* the points, just the first three. When I quoted the rebuttal I was replying to, I quoted all his points. It doesn't help any that I didn't catch at that time that you weren't the OP, which would have made it obvious to me why you didn't quote the last one--it's because it didn't apply to you. I still think that genuine emergencies will be held the way they were in the past, by someone coming to get the physician (and thus he or she leaving his contact information at the front desk), because even if jamming doesn't become commonplace, passive building design to block reception will.
Oh yeah--if you're going to do a point-by-point rebuttal, it's cheating to selectively quote.
Since you've made turned this into a rant about how you think doctors are underpaid and resorted to hyperbolic strawmen (e.g. ". . . to simply never go outside") inflammatory language (e.g "take your head out of your ass"), I see there's no reaching past your highly excessive sense of self-importance to make you understand that you don't have the God-given right to uninterrupted cell phone coverage just because your wife happens to work in an important profession.
My inability to handle interruptions?! Your excessive sense of self-importance is duly noted. In any case, you provide an acceptable alternative in your rebuttal--someone could call the theater and have someone come get you in a genuine emergency. If that rare event prevents thousands of teeny boppers texting and talking during the movie, it is worth it.
So, carried to its logical extremes, the only people allowed to work important jobs are the ones who love money above all human interaction. See any problems with that?
No, what I see is that there would be more than one person who could take the calls in rotation, and that those who were going to literally be on call 168 hours per week would be paid for it.
Turn off Michael Moore and actually meet a few doctors. I don't know any who make enough money that they'd never, ever want to go to a concert or movie or nice dinner.
Michael Moore? Whatever. Fact is, doctors are highly paid, and don't work for free. Their salaries are sufficient compensation to be able to avoid areas where their cell phones might not work or might not be permitted when on call. If that's such a quality of life issue, I'm sure there are hospitals or practices that have more than one surgeon available within a specialty, or, failing that, less demanding professions available to someone with the intelligence to be a surgeon.
Hospitals don't have sysadmins. Duly noted.
Hospitals only have one sysadmin for life-critical systems. Duly noted. And you didn't say you work at a hospital, not that it matters because if a hospital had only one person who could be reached to fix a life-critical system, they'd lose their accreditation and/or be sued into oblivion (and rightly so) anyway.
Sort of makes you wonder how society got along before cell phones. If you're so important that you have to take a call at any time, you need to keep yourself out of places it's rude to take calls, and request compensation from your employer accordingly. The .0001% of people with cells who are surgeons are highly enough paid to stay out of the theater while on call, and get paid enough to deal with it. Sys admins, no disrespect intended, aren't going to have anyone die because they can't be reached immediately.
Can't get it in lots of Comcast areas, and didn't you know Speakeasy got bought out by Best Buy? Any good policies they still have left aren't going to last long under that corporate yoke.
$ dig a.com
$ dig b.com
. . .
$ dig aaaaaaaaa.com
$ dig aaaaaaaab.com
. . .
$ dig zzzzzzzzz.com
. . . that these wiretaps exist, or that they happen so often there's a rate sheet for them.