Open in this case I suppose means they will make it available to any software or system willing to pay their ransom, whereas MS will be selective about who gets to use it and how.
The log view looks equally as ugly, but in a different way. The linear view is offered for a reason, there are uses for it. If you scale up any other period in US history only one looks this extreme as the Nasdaq, and that is the crash of the Dow preceding the depression.
For moving long term trends log is good, but it tends to marginalize recent events. For example a move from 10,000 to 5,000 looks like a hiccup compared to an earlier move from 2,000 to 1,000, even though both events represent an 50% decrease in value. You wouldn't know by looking at the log chart that the Nasdaq lost about 2/3rds of its value.
I still don't understand what we are arguing then. Clearly they can legally do it, or else this would be a discussion about a court case. The question is whether or not this is an acceptable way to be treated as customers. Having companies I buy from who are in monopoly positions acting as crime prevention units is not my idea of acceptable.
I'm not entirely sure why you feel the practice needs to be defended either. Do you also defend Blockbuster and Wal-Mart using their enormous market share to dictate the content of music and movies?
They are little 1x1 images encoded with names that are basically serial numbers associated with your e-mail addres. If you view HTML based e-mail, the server records that you have viewed the page as soon as the gif is requested.
Just looking at junkmail counts as a success for spammers in this case. Oh, and you get added to special lists of people who actually read junkmail.
We aren't discussing the issue of what's legal or not. The question is when did it become ok for private companies to become a vigilantes and enforcers of laws. Your cable provider is not a federal agency, its a service provider.
How many of these mini-gods will we be answering to if this is allowed? I don't want my paperboy withholding my paper because I hit my dog with it.
I mainly buy used now. Mostly for that reason, I don't want to deal with companies anymore for ANYTHING (warranties and maintenance in my cars case). Customer service is dead, and customer servitude seems to be the order of the day.
I'd personally rather buy an off warranty used car like my M3 for less, and take my chances with private mechanics. It's the same reason I won't upgrade from Win2k... no new feature is worth getting tangled in MS's licensing web.
I'm afraid most Americans will be like the guy I am arguing with above, and never stand up to it. This will leave the minority of us who don't deal well with gilded captivity having to learn to live with the invasions. This is why I despise apologists for bad corporate behavior.
Alright then, so is it ok for rental companies to put cameras in their cars and watch renters... Making sure they don't say..
- pick up hookers,
- make shady business dealings inside
- bring in an explosive or illegal substance?
If that doesn't bother you then more power to you brother... you should have no problem with the constitution being dismantled over the next decade. You seem perfectly happy to have laws enforced by those who have no business forcing them on you.
You are saying it would be ok for Ford and GM to put monitors on all of our cars so that if we exceed the speed limit they can come take the car back? How about we get smart money going to make sure we pay every cent of our taxes and never use it to buy anything illegal? Condoms should come with monitors too? Wouldn't want to let us go sticking them into prostitutes, animals, or other men where it's illegal.
It doesn't SEEM heavy handed, it IS heavy handed. Not everyone is ready to bend over like you and accept being treated like a criminal for refusing to be disneyfied lumps of consumerism.
If bandwith consumption is their issue, then they can always go the capping/rate increase route.
I hear that.gif format thingy does wonders too. Now if they could just invent something to compress datafiles and audio, we'd really be able to get cooking with this web thing.
Privacy is one of those things, like reputation, that one has to protect through other mechanisms than legal rights.
That's an interesting view, but you can extend that in any direction and debate the need for law out of existance. Laws don't stop bad things from happening, but they do allow for legal recourse. I shouldn't have to avoid bars because I "may" run into someone who would like to kick my ass. I know I have protection of law that says if someone decides to hit me with a barstool, I can sue him. We could eliminate all such laws, but huge amounts of energy would be wasted. For example I might need to hire a body gaurd to protect myself, and everyone would need to register handguns. As it is now, someone can film you in the restroom with a hidden camera. If you find out it has been done, you have no recourse. You would prefer leave that hole in the law?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
That is a legal protection of privacy, and it has served us well.
The government should have no right to search your luggage at airports, because that luggage is your property. But the only thing stopping them from tracking your movements is propriety and decency
I don't know exacty what your point is here, since you seem to be arguing with yourself. Governments don't have rights. There is no Bill-of-Government-Rights. I would say that the government can and will do anything it wants, with the exception of what is listed in the Bill of Rights and other laws. And that alone isnt even enough, if people don't fight to protect any of those listed rights in court, they too go ignored. Propriety and decency have never been what keeps government in check. The aggressive defense of rights by citizens in a seperate court system has. This is why laws are important, you can't just AVOID contact with the government as you seemed to suggest.
p.s. I find it somewhat ironic that the same community that argues that information should be free is the same community that screams the loudest when their personal information gets traded on the open market.
1. Info wants to be free is the statement(as stated many times on this site)
2. Info isn't freeing itself when it comes from spying
3. Are we talking about govt or corporations now? You seem to be mixing the two together. I can chose a different store to shop at, I can't chose a different government to pay taxes too.
How naive are we collectively? We haven't had privacy in a real sense since the 70s....What privacy do you have to save? These people are just engaging in mental masturbation, there is no privacy, the point is moot.
This guy got a 5 with that? So much for eternal vigilance, lets all just roll over and accept our destiny to have no privacy. Please. Man hasn't had "real" privacy since he has had neighbors with eyes, that doesn't mean we all should have just given up trying 10,000 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Open in this case I suppose means they will make it available to any software or system willing to pay their ransom, whereas MS will be selective about who gets to use it and how.
The log view looks equally as ugly, but in a different way. The linear view is offered for a reason, there are uses for it. If you scale up any other period in US history only one looks this extreme as the Nasdaq, and that is the crash of the Dow preceding the depression.
For moving long term trends log is good, but it tends to marginalize recent events. For example a move from 10,000 to 5,000 looks like a hiccup compared to an earlier move from 2,000 to 1,000, even though both events represent an 50% decrease in value. You wouldn't know by looking at the log chart that the Nasdaq lost about 2/3rds of its value.
How bad the downturn really is.
You won't see this graph on CNBC very often.
I still don't understand what we are arguing then. Clearly they can legally do it, or else this would be a discussion about a court case. The question is whether or not this is an acceptable way to be treated as customers. Having companies I buy from who are in monopoly positions acting as crime prevention units is not my idea of acceptable.
I'm not entirely sure why you feel the practice needs to be defended either. Do you also defend Blockbuster and Wal-Mart using their enormous market share to dictate the content of music and movies?
They are little 1x1 images encoded with names that are basically serial numbers associated with your e-mail addres. If you view HTML based e-mail, the server records that you have viewed the page as soon as the gif is requested.
Just looking at junkmail counts as a success for spammers in this case. Oh, and you get added to special lists of people who actually read junkmail.
We aren't discussing the issue of what's legal or not. The question is when did it become ok for private companies to become a vigilantes and enforcers of laws. Your cable provider is not a federal agency, its a service provider.
How many of these mini-gods will we be answering to if this is allowed? I don't want my paperboy withholding my paper because I hit my dog with it.
Agreed
I mainly buy used now. Mostly for that reason, I don't want to deal with companies anymore for ANYTHING (warranties and maintenance in my cars case). Customer service is dead, and customer servitude seems to be the order of the day.
I'd personally rather buy an off warranty used car like my M3 for less, and take my chances with private mechanics. It's the same reason I won't upgrade from Win2k... no new feature is worth getting tangled in MS's licensing web.
I'm afraid most Americans will be like the guy I am arguing with above, and never stand up to it. This will leave the minority of us who don't deal well with gilded captivity having to learn to live with the invasions. This is why I despise apologists for bad corporate behavior.
Alright then, so is it ok for rental companies to put cameras in their cars and watch renters... Making sure they don't say..
- pick up hookers,
- make shady business dealings inside
- bring in an explosive or illegal substance?
If that doesn't bother you then more power to you brother... you should have no problem with the constitution being dismantled over the next decade. You seem perfectly happy to have laws enforced by those who have no business forcing them on you.
You are saying it would be ok for Ford and GM to put monitors on all of our cars so that if we exceed the speed limit they can come take the car back? How about we get smart money going to make sure we pay every cent of our taxes and never use it to buy anything illegal? Condoms should come with monitors too? Wouldn't want to let us go sticking them into prostitutes, animals, or other men where it's illegal.
It doesn't SEEM heavy handed, it IS heavy handed. Not everyone is ready to bend over like you and accept being treated like a criminal for refusing to be disneyfied lumps of consumerism.
If bandwith consumption is their issue, then they can always go the capping/rate increase route.
Suddenly the somewhat goofy Brazil become that much more prophetic.
I hear that .gif format thingy does wonders too. Now if they could just invent something to compress datafiles and audio, we'd really be able to get cooking with this web thing.
Privacy is one of those things, like reputation, that one has to protect through other mechanisms than legal rights.
That's an interesting view, but you can extend that in any direction and debate the need for law out of existance. Laws don't stop bad things from happening, but they do allow for legal recourse. I shouldn't have to avoid bars because I "may" run into someone who would like to kick my ass. I know I have protection of law that says if someone decides to hit me with a barstool, I can sue him. We could eliminate all such laws, but huge amounts of energy would be wasted. For example I might need to hire a body gaurd to protect myself, and everyone would need to register handguns. As it is now, someone can film you in the restroom with a hidden camera. If you find out it has been done, you have no recourse. You would prefer leave that hole in the law?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
That is a legal protection of privacy, and it has served us well.
The government should have no right to search your luggage at airports, because that luggage is your property. But the only thing stopping them from tracking your movements is propriety and decency
I don't know exacty what your point is here, since you seem to be arguing with yourself. Governments don't have rights. There is no Bill-of-Government-Rights. I would say that the government can and will do anything it wants, with the exception of what is listed in the Bill of Rights and other laws. And that alone isnt even enough, if people don't fight to protect any of those listed rights in court, they too go ignored. Propriety and decency have never been what keeps government in check. The aggressive defense of rights by citizens in a seperate court system has. This is why laws are important, you can't just AVOID contact with the government as you seemed to suggest.
p.s. I find it somewhat ironic that the same community that argues that information should be free is the same community that screams the loudest when their personal information gets traded on the open market.
1. Info wants to be free is the statement(as stated many times on this site)
2. Info isn't freeing itself when it comes from spying
3. Are we talking about govt or corporations now? You seem to be mixing the two together. I can chose a different store to shop at, I can't chose a different government to pay taxes too.
How naive are we collectively? We haven't had privacy in a real sense since the 70s. ...What privacy do you have to save? These people are just engaging in mental masturbation, there is no privacy, the point is moot.
This guy got a 5 with that? So much for eternal vigilance, lets all just roll over and accept our destiny to have no privacy. Please. Man hasn't had "real" privacy since he has had neighbors with eyes, that doesn't mean we all should have just given up trying 10,000 years ago.
There IS privacy, and it always needs protection.