Should we infer that it is because Obama, or the Dems are in power? Do you consider them "Lefties?" Shall we further infer that you think the Republicans, conservatives ("Righties?"), or McCain would not have been cronyists? Do you actually think the Republican Team is better than the Democrat Team, or that they are in any measurable and substantive way fundamentally different?
You don't like today's White House Droid? It's so much kinder and gentler than the previous one, no? At least it doesn't come off as such a moron. That's about the only comfort though. At least it isn't a corrupt and compromised moron droid. It's a corrupt and compromised intelligent and articulate speech reading droid.
You realize that you are going to be perceived as a crank or a nut job, right? I'm sure you are more than aware of it, and to me that is the truly sad and frightening part. By pointing this stuff out, true though it may be, you are essentially raising your hand and saying "I am a wacko, please send me to the re-education camp!" Luckily, we have no such camps at the moment. We do have no-fly lists, terrorist watch lists, and god knows what else. I hope you're not on them yet, Dude. Be safe.
My point is that I do not believe that is what's really going on. I can't help but suspect that many companies are just throwing us a stale bone to distract us, and will leverage cleverly written terms of use to continue behavioral tracking in more sophisticated ways.
Gaaahhhh! After re-reading it several times, it appears that you are right. It is an "opt-out cookie" management mechanism. It looks like the new aspects are that they now include management of other companies' opt-out cookies, presumably based on a list of known such cookies, that would have to be maintained by someone. It is similar to the Mozilla idea in that it is persistent, but I like that Mozilla's method is 1) generic, and 2) ever-present. Both mechanisms would rely on behavior trackers' voluntary or enforced compliance.
I think you are oversimplifying. Advertisers have always tracked and have always liked to track. Everything depends on the demographics of the medium where the ads will appear, and the demographics are the product of tracking, even back in the old days. Today they want to track everything because 1) they can, and 2) this allows them to focus ads more sharply than ever before.
Now you can tell with a high degree of probability that an end user is on the market for size 7 women's lavender-colored running shoes with a digital calorie counter and striped shoelaces. Advertisers of such shoes would kill their grandmothers for that kind of data.
OK, "focusing on cookies," "dealing with cookies," "working as if cookies were the most important tracking mechanism." TFA seems to refer only to cookies.
Obsolete doesn't mean nobody uses it. Companies that don't have wide ranging access to user behavior across multiple sites on their backend have to use cookies. People who have content linking back to their servers placed on pages across many domains can do such tracking. Hint hint.
They are not on the same page. Blocking cookies is pointless. Robust all-knowing behavior tracking occurs on the server side. By implementing a header flag, Mozilla is ahead of the game. That flag covers any kind of tracking currently used or to be deployed in the future by asserting a generic end-user request always and uniformly. Blocking cookies addresses an obsolete tracking mechanism.
...with streaming none of the bandwidth is dedicated to a specific user
TCP packets are streamed to each specific end user, and the endpoints are tracked and reported (among other session data). Netflix must either pay the cost per MB associated with the sum total of each of their end users, or negotiate a billing model that depends on a flat rate plus occasional peaks, or squeeze Level 3's balls until they bleed profusely and they give Netflix some absurdly low rate that has no relationship with reality.
That notion has universal appeal. It is simple enough that practically all voters understand it. It is compatible with most people's moral code, at least in principle. It lends itself very easily to law-and-order populism and electioneering, and of course anything that increases the use of police forces and prisons is popular with several major lobbying organizations. One problem, though: it only occasionally works. This is aside from any legal and civil rights issues associated with assigning liability to providers of goods and services who have no practical or conspiratorial relationship with the law breakers, and cannot easily be demonstrated to have shown negligence. Can anyone point out clearly relevant court precedent?
A few weeks more or less after five years is not a big deal. Del.icio.us was hardly the cause of Yahoo's losses nor a large fraction thereof. Yahoo's problems go quite a bit farther.
I overheard this guy over at the Starbucks in Sunnyvale about a half a mile from Yahoo, and he said some chick told another guy in line that her friend got really drunk the night before and the guy she ended up with in a bathroom stall (she didn't know his name) in The City said he knew a girl who used to work at Yahoo that was still seeing a guy from AMD who was buying a sandwich at one of those places near Lawrence and Arques about a month ago and he thought he heard some Indian guys at a table talking about how some chick was totally fucked up at an office party and was telling everyone how she heard some older guys in suits in a parking lot bragging about how they got blown by some girl who claimed she worked at Yahoo and said that she heard they were thinking about laying a few people off.
You are perhaps referring to countries where the vast majority of voters made it clear that public funds should not be used to bail out finance companies, and yet their representatives voted to do it anyway? Or where the vast majority of voters made it clear that public funds or new debt should not be used to pay for extending tax cuts for the very wealthy, and this very day they will vote to do so anyway? Or the nation that invaded Iraq for absolutely no justifiable reason aside from further enriching cronies foreign and domestic?
My advice to you is: Wake up, citizen. It's far worse than you are apparently aware.
That's fucked up. I've heard Gen Y kids try to contradict the notion that TSA engages in unlawful search and seizure. They find the "it's for our safety" a perfectly reasonable argument. God help us.
Slashdot Mirror
All Obama Lefties
Should we infer that it is because Obama, or the Dems are in power? Do you consider them "Lefties?" Shall we further infer that you think the Republicans, conservatives ("Righties?"), or McCain would not have been cronyists? Do you actually think the Republican Team is better than the Democrat Team, or that they are in any measurable and substantive way fundamentally different?
You don't like today's White House Droid? It's so much kinder and gentler than the previous one, no? At least it doesn't come off as such a moron. That's about the only comfort though. At least it isn't a corrupt and compromised moron droid. It's a corrupt and compromised intelligent and articulate speech reading droid.
You realize that you are going to be perceived as a crank or a nut job, right? I'm sure you are more than aware of it, and to me that is the truly sad and frightening part. By pointing this stuff out, true though it may be, you are essentially raising your hand and saying "I am a wacko, please send me to the re-education camp!" Luckily, we have no such camps at the moment. We do have no-fly lists, terrorist watch lists, and god knows what else. I hope you're not on them yet, Dude. Be safe.
What does the Solicitor General do? Well, for example, they can get governments like Saudi Arabia off the hook for things like, oh, funding the 911 attacks against the US. If they're good, they can even get a seat on the Supreme Court. You know, stuff like that.
My point is that I do not believe that is what's really going on. I can't help but suspect that many companies are just throwing us a stale bone to distract us, and will leverage cleverly written terms of use to continue behavioral tracking in more sophisticated ways.
Gaaahhhh! After re-reading it several times, it appears that you are right. It is an "opt-out cookie" management mechanism. It looks like the new aspects are that they now include management of other companies' opt-out cookies, presumably based on a list of known such cookies, that would have to be maintained by someone. It is similar to the Mozilla idea in that it is persistent, but I like that Mozilla's method is 1) generic, and 2) ever-present. Both mechanisms would rely on behavior trackers' voluntary or enforced compliance.
Sorry, Dude, my mistake.
I think you are oversimplifying. Advertisers have always tracked and have always liked to track. Everything depends on the demographics of the medium where the ads will appear, and the demographics are the product of tracking, even back in the old days. Today they want to track everything because 1) they can, and 2) this allows them to focus ads more sharply than ever before.
Now you can tell with a high degree of probability that an end user is on the market for size 7 women's lavender-colored running shoes with a digital calorie counter and striped shoelaces. Advertisers of such shoes would kill their grandmothers for that kind of data.
Not true. The big behavior trackers no longer rely on cookies and haven't for some time. Cookies are a red herring, which is the point I am flogging.
OK, "focusing on cookies," "dealing with cookies," "working as if cookies were the most important tracking mechanism." TFA seems to refer only to cookies.
Obsolete doesn't mean nobody uses it. Companies that don't have wide ranging access to user behavior across multiple sites on their backend have to use cookies. People who have content linking back to their servers placed on pages across many domains can do such tracking. Hint hint.
Just because they're not serving ads doesn't mean that they don't or can't track you.
Likewise, just because they're not setting cookies doesn't mean that they don't or can't track you.
They are not on the same page. Blocking cookies is pointless. Robust all-knowing behavior tracking occurs on the server side. By implementing a header flag, Mozilla is ahead of the game. That flag covers any kind of tracking currently used or to be deployed in the future by asserting a generic end-user request always and uniformly. Blocking cookies addresses an obsolete tracking mechanism.
...with streaming none of the bandwidth is dedicated to a specific user
TCP packets are streamed to each specific end user, and the endpoints are tracked and reported (among other session data). Netflix must either pay the cost per MB associated with the sum total of each of their end users, or negotiate a billing model that depends on a flat rate plus occasional peaks, or squeeze Level 3's balls until they bleed profusely and they give Netflix some absurdly low rate that has no relationship with reality.
Welcome, Comrades! Welcome to the Glorious Union of Soviet Corporatist Republics!
Make it illegal, and people will stop doing it.
That notion has universal appeal. It is simple enough that practically all voters understand it. It is compatible with most people's moral code, at least in principle. It lends itself very easily to law-and-order populism and electioneering, and of course anything that increases the use of police forces and prisons is popular with several major lobbying organizations. One problem, though: it only occasionally works. This is aside from any legal and civil rights issues associated with assigning liability to providers of goods and services who have no practical or conspiratorial relationship with the law breakers, and cannot easily be demonstrated to have shown negligence. Can anyone point out clearly relevant court precedent?
A Faraday Cage around the store. Some kind of wire mesh embedded in the walls and ceiling to interfere with cell phones while in the store.
I guess that never crosses people's minds. Too obtuse and not intuitively obvious enough.
<result code="access denied"/>
<!--
fe07.api.del.ac4.yahoo.net uncompressed/chunked Fri Dec 17 01:28:29 UTC 2010
-->
Aawww....
A few weeks more or less after five years is not a big deal. Del.icio.us was hardly the cause of Yahoo's losses nor a large fraction thereof. Yahoo's problems go quite a bit farther.
I suspect that the vast majority of users put bookmarks there to drive traffic to their sites, not because it is otherwise particularly useful.
I overheard this guy over at the Starbucks in Sunnyvale about a half a mile from Yahoo, and he said some chick told another guy in line that her friend got really drunk the night before and the guy she ended up with in a bathroom stall (she didn't know his name) in The City said he knew a girl who used to work at Yahoo that was still seeing a guy from AMD who was buying a sandwich at one of those places near Lawrence and Arques about a month ago and he thought he heard some Indian guys at a table talking about how some chick was totally fucked up at an office party and was telling everyone how she heard some older guys in suits in a parking lot bragging about how they got blown by some girl who claimed she worked at Yahoo and said that she heard they were thinking about laying a few people off.
That's almost first hand info, Dude.
Yahoo to close! Delicious.
embarrassing democratic countries
You are perhaps referring to countries where the vast majority of voters made it clear that public funds should not be used to bail out finance companies, and yet their representatives voted to do it anyway? Or where the vast majority of voters made it clear that public funds or new debt should not be used to pay for extending tax cuts for the very wealthy, and this very day they will vote to do so anyway? Or the nation that invaded Iraq for absolutely no justifiable reason aside from further enriching cronies foreign and domestic?
My advice to you is: Wake up, citizen. It's far worse than you are apparently aware.
Thanks! I needed to read that.
That's fucked up. I've heard Gen Y kids try to contradict the notion that TSA engages in unlawful search and seizure. They find the "it's for our safety" a perfectly reasonable argument. God help us.