I've never been to Oregon, but I'd be in shock if they didn't have a gas tax.
You forgot to mention that you didn't read the article, either. As was discussed in the article, not only were they the first state to adopt a gas tax, but they also still have one.
Never underestimate the power of actually reading the referenced article.
they don't need to know, but some people believe that it's OK for them to know. They don't see a large downside to marketers knowing their buying habits and patterns. In fact, there is an upside that some consumers see: the marketers can use that information to more effectively market goods and services to people. It means that people who buy Old Spice don't have to deal with as many tampon ads, and people who buy DVD players get more ads for DVDs and the like. It is helpful in some people's eyes and comes at a small cost.
Yeah. It was pretty common around here to get recordings of political messages during the elections. People got called from both Clintons, GW Bush, and Jean Carnahan (and probably Jim Talent, too, though I never heard that). The recording I got urged me to vote, not necessarily for her or anything, but the point was clear.
Politicians, the local phone company, and some others are immune to the Missouri no-call law. I'm not sure if the fact that her message wasn't a direct plea for me to vote for her helps her in the no-call law, but it really seems like it was deliberately done for some reason.
Under US law, it is ILLEGAL for Yahoo! to send unsolicited advertising messages to a mobile device, such as a pager and the like. You can bill them up to $500 for EACH MESSAGE.
Really, there's a federal law in place for that? Is that part of the same law that deals with fax spams or something? I've been looking for something like this for a while, but assumed that I would have to find a state statute for it. I'd love any information you can provide on this as my cursory searches have turned up nothing so far. Thanks.
try http://www.ago.state.mo.us/nocalllaw.htm It works well for me. The only exceptions so far have been Jean Carnahan recording during the elections and SBC. I would have gladly sued either.
It has become my understanding that people don't see it as a violation of privacy. They're happy to provide that information if it helps people market goods and services to them more effectively. Since the information doesn't do the consumers any good to keep it under wraps, they might as well sell it. In return for disclosing this kind of information they get compensated by having goods and services more effectively marketed toward them. For instance, they may get fewer Kotex ads and more Old Spice ads if that's what market they're in.
It's a small minority that see this exchange as unadvantageous for either side. Fortunately, at this time, you can still opt out of a lot of this kind of thing if you're against it. Keeping that option and gaining it back in other areas seems like a worthy cause. To that end, converting others to your point of view is a necessity. How do you recommend we do that? What reasons do you have for people to not trade some personal information for more customized marketing?
Looks like it was presented at the Watershed Heroes Field Training Workshop and Conference in Amana, Iowa in April of 2001 also. http://www.fb.com/programs/waterheroes/2001/upda te 2-2001.pdf
The second is the Registered Traveler ID. I wonder how this will affect the market over at newsfutures.com where you can buy and sell futures on real life events, like whether there will be a national "Registered Travelers" system in place by 4/1/03.
Hey, Ali - I've got a problem with my network over here, too. I can't seem to DHCP addresses with my wireless cards sometimes. Come over sometime today or tomorrow and get it fixed for me before business starts back up on Monday. Call me and let me know what time is best for you.
You know, this came to my head last night as I was falling asleep. I pictured it as a learning filtering system just like bogofilter or any of the other statistical mail filtering deals. It could work on embedded images and look at their URL, size, and possibly content to decide if you wanted to view it or not. When you saw a banner ad or something that you didn't want in your browser, right click on it and add it to the spams list. Your browser learns a little more and starts filtering out similar images.
I initially thought about it based on a news story about the supreme court and library filtering systems. One problem with the filtering in libraries is that you have to depend on some company to make a good block list. They get a huge government grant and produce a crappy filter.
Seems like we could make a rather intelligent filtering proxy or browser or something to remove adult content from library kiosk machines. That way the libraries wouldn't be dependant on some poor filtering list, the kind that elicits cries of censorship. Eventually, a smart enough filter could be built to keep out objectionable material.
The only thing I couldn't figure out was how to train the statistical filter well.
Let's say an average bill, per month, is now $300 for an average home.
Holy Shit! That's about 10 times what I pay. I wonder if it's mainly because of currency differences, climate (Canada vs Missouri), size of home and family, or the recent "jump" that you mentioned.
Anyway, the calculation is a little different for me.
But.. erm... if Fox really did shed some new light that hasn't been discussed a zillion tims over, other networks would have also noted that new evidence has come to light. I mean, they wouldn't just sit around in a vacuum if the FOX programming in question had any new revelationist thinking to it. But it didn't. There was nothing in that special that hasn't been debated a zillion times before; although, the way FOX pitched it, they'd be loathe to have you, the viewer, realize this.
The major networks have been paid off by the government. It's just a blessing that this other station was too good to be scared by the government goons and able to bring us the real truth! Remember, FOX is a new network and wasn't around during NASA's heyday of faking moon landings and paying off TV networks.
Whoah, that's pretty weird. I'm using mozilla 1.0 on OSX and I just noticed that the string "" (or is that ⊂ ?) is supposed to be.
I wonder if I just found my first mozilla bug, or my first slash bug.
(Now I notice in the preview of my posting that mozilla has pretty much trashed what I posted, so if it makes no sense to you, then you're probably using mozilla.)
Yeah, that's a great demonstration. We actually had a contraption to do this. A pinball was shot out of a tube across the room. When it left the barrel of the "gun", it tripped a switch which turned off the electromagnet holding the "monkey" coffee can. They hit about halfway down every time. I thought it was pretty cool, too.
My understanding (and the way my bottrap works) is that because some spambots use robots.txt as a list of places to search and not ignore, you can use robots.txt to point them to a trap, allowing you to identify them and treat them differently. Since the new behavior is to not fall into this trap it makes it more difficult to discriminate them.
Not abiding by the rules of robots.txt was an identifying characteristic of old spambots which was used against them.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to mention that you didn't read the article, either. As was discussed in the article, not only were they the first state to adopt a gas tax, but they also still have one.
Never underestimate the power of actually reading the referenced article.
You save all of your sensitive trash for a year? That seems a little inconvenient and perhaps a bit insecure. Do you keep it in a safe?
they don't need to know, but some people believe that it's OK for them to know. They don't see a large downside to marketers knowing their buying habits and patterns. In fact, there is an upside that some consumers see: the marketers can use that information to more effectively market goods and services to people. It means that people who buy Old Spice don't have to deal with as many tampon ads, and people who buy DVD players get more ads for DVDs and the like. It is helpful in some people's eyes and comes at a small cost.
Yeah. It was pretty common around here to get recordings of political messages during the elections. People got called from both Clintons, GW Bush, and Jean Carnahan (and probably Jim Talent, too, though I never heard that). The recording I got urged me to vote, not necessarily for her or anything, but the point was clear.
Politicians, the local phone company, and some others are immune to the Missouri no-call law. I'm not sure if the fact that her message wasn't a direct plea for me to vote for her helps her in the no-call law, but it really seems like it was deliberately done for some reason.
Really, there's a federal law in place for that? Is that part of the same law that deals with fax spams or something? I've been looking for something like this for a while, but assumed that I would have to find a state statute for it. I'd love any information you can provide on this as my cursory searches have turned up nothing so far. Thanks.
try http://www.ago.state.mo.us/nocalllaw.htm
It works well for me. The only exceptions so far have been Jean Carnahan recording during the elections and SBC. I would have gladly sued either.
It has become my understanding that people don't see it as a violation of privacy. They're happy to provide that information if it helps people market goods and services to them more effectively. Since the information doesn't do the consumers any good to keep it under wraps, they might as well sell it. In return for disclosing this kind of information they get compensated by having goods and services more effectively marketed toward them. For instance, they may get fewer Kotex ads and more Old Spice ads if that's what market they're in.
It's a small minority that see this exchange as unadvantageous for either side. Fortunately, at this time, you can still opt out of a lot of this kind of thing if you're against it. Keeping that option and gaining it back in other areas seems like a worthy cause. To that end, converting others to your point of view is a necessity. How do you recommend we do that? What reasons do you have for people to not trade some personal information for more customized marketing?
Looks like it was presented at the Watershed Heroes Field Training Workshop and Conference in Amana, Iowa in April of 2001 also.
a te 2-2001.pdf
http://www.fb.com/programs/waterheroes/2001/upd
The second is the Registered Traveler ID.
I wonder how this will affect the market over at newsfutures.com where you can buy and sell futures on real life events, like whether there will be a national "Registered Travelers" system in place by 4/1/03.
Hey, Ali - I've got a problem with my network over here, too. I can't seem to DHCP addresses with my wireless cards sometimes. Come over sometime today or tomorrow and get it fixed for me before business starts back up on Monday. Call me and let me know what time is best for you.
Thanks.
That's blatently inconsiderate, and intolerably so. It's almost as though paskie and CowboyNeal were intentionally being inconsiderate.
Danger, Will Robinson!
Bug #199684 does not exist
You know, this came to my head last night as I was falling asleep. I pictured it as a learning filtering system just like bogofilter or any of the other statistical mail filtering deals. It could work on embedded images and look at their URL, size, and possibly content to decide if you wanted to view it or not. When you saw a banner ad or something that you didn't want in your browser, right click on it and add it to the spams list. Your browser learns a little more and starts filtering out similar images.
I initially thought about it based on a news story about the supreme court and library filtering systems. One problem with the filtering in libraries is that you have to depend on some company to make a good block list. They get a huge government grant and produce a crappy filter.
Seems like we could make a rather intelligent filtering proxy or browser or something to remove adult content from library kiosk machines. That way the libraries wouldn't be dependant on some poor filtering list, the kind that elicits cries of censorship. Eventually, a smart enough filter could be built to keep out objectionable material.
The only thing I couldn't figure out was how to train the statistical filter well.
That would seemingly help out her google rankings quite a lot.
Let's say an average bill, per month, is now $300 for an average home.
Holy Shit! That's about 10 times what I pay. I wonder if it's mainly because of currency differences, climate (Canada vs Missouri), size of home and family, or the recent "jump" that you mentioned.
Anyway, the calculation is a little different for me.
But
The major networks have been paid off by the government. It's just a blessing that this other station was too good to be scared by the government goons and able to bring us the real truth! Remember, FOX is a new network and wasn't around during NASA's heyday of faking moon landings and paying off TV networks.
The Fugitive.
Remind me not peer out the window next time I fly into Stickholm.
Are you sure he answered it twice?
Homer: Uh...it's like...did anyone see the movie "Tron"?
Hibbert: No.
Lisa: No.
Marge: No.
Wiggum: No.
Bart: No.
Patty: No.
Wiggum: No.
Ned: No.
Selma: No.
Frink: No.
Lovejoy: No.
Wiggum: Yes. I mean -- um, I mean, no. No, heh.
-- "Treehouse of Horror VI"
Whoah, that's pretty weird. I'm using mozilla 1.0 on OSX and I just noticed that the string "" (or is that ⊂ ?) is supposed to be.
I wonder if I just found my first mozilla bug, or my first slash bug.
(Now I notice in the preview of my posting that mozilla has pretty much trashed what I posted, so if it makes no sense to you, then you're probably using mozilla.)
I can't get the magnet to hold my beer cans. You folks in the 60's sure had different stuff than we do today. No we have to use coffee cans.
Are you sure that it's not "all of the light"?
Yeah, that's a great demonstration. We actually had a contraption to do this. A pinball was shot out of a tube across the room. When it left the barrel of the "gun", it tripped a switch which turned off the electromagnet holding the "monkey" coffee can. They hit about halfway down every time. I thought it was pretty cool, too.
My understanding (and the way my bottrap works) is that because some spambots use robots.txt as a list of places to search and not ignore, you can use robots.txt to point them to a trap, allowing you to identify them and treat them differently. Since the new behavior is to not fall into this trap it makes it more difficult to discriminate them.
Not abiding by the rules of robots.txt was an identifying characteristic of old spambots which was used against them.