"... the reason for everything must publicly appear. Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest, because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what in other governments are called LEADERS.
It can only be by blinding the understanding of man, and making him believe that government is some wonderful mysterious thing, that excessive revenues are obtained...."
"... A recent letter signed by 15 companies and trade groups -- including TechAmerica, which represents Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other technology companies -- demanded that the measure's author, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, drop her bill. They complain it would open up businesses to an avalanche of requests from individuals as well as costly lawsuits.
One early consequence of the heavy lobbying: A hearing on the bill, AB1291, scheduled for last week, has been pushed to next month.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a co-sponsor of the Right to Know Act, accuses the business groups of overreacting to hide their true intentions: to keep out of the public's eye the lucrative practice of amassing personal information on people who use online services, computer apps, social networking sites and other portals that track people's locations, buying habits, favorite foods and movies, and even their sexual orientation.......... The push for the new law comes as tech, banking and marketing firms find more ways to mine vast amounts of personal information on consumers to target their specific needs. Some websites have installed as many as 100 tracking tools that kick in when consumers visit them, according to the bill's analysis.
Many Facebook apps tap into their users' and their friends' profiles, including sections on religious, political and sexual preferences; race; income; and health concerns. Third-party advertising and marketing companies buy, sell and trade personal information that they get from mobile phones, financial institutions and social media sites.
Some mobile applications share location information and phone numbers of users -- a concern to advocates of domestic violence victims. Consumers who live in 27 countries that belong to the European Union already have the right to know what data companies have on them -- laws that are being complied by Facebook, Google and others that are opposing the California legislation.
Google did not reply to requests for an interview; a Facebook spokesman declined to talk about the bill. The California Chamber of Commerce referred all calls to TechAmerica, the trade group that represents major Internet companies...."
I don't misunderstand the business model. It's to collect money from advertisers by pushing stuff at viewers.
"I'm feeling lucky" now tells me I'm feeling hungry and gives me a map of restaurants near where I am. Dagnabbit, when I want food, I -know- how to search for food I want. I'm a living organism. We do this instinctively.
Google's business could have been search: making sellers more competent at describing what they have to sell, where, when, and how, and on what terms, so they can be found by people who want something -- so someone can find something simply, straightforwardly, least effort for best result.
Google could have been a reference librarian for the marketplace, helping people by narrowing a search interactively, even querying the potential seller to improve their information if people keep asking for something Google figures out is probably what the seller wants to sell, as well as querying the potential buyer.
Go to a good library. Talk to a good reference librarian. Say you want something very specific that you don't know how to find.
Google could be that.
Instead the web becomes more and more layers of repeated stuff, and readers go through clicking page after page after page. And the more pages are presented, the more the advertiser's stuff shows up, the more chances there are for clicks. $$PROFIT$$ eh? Gubbish.
Google's business could have been search. I'd gladly buy from a seller that made the effort -- one that paid Google to help make their information clearer, more distinctive, and more easily discoverable (what searches do people do trying to find this sort of thing?). Save me time, save me trouble, save me from distraction, make search better.
Instead the model is to stuff the web with more stuff I have to work harder to ignore all the time, eating up the time I have to live.
Why, yes, I am old enough to remember when signs didn't glare, pages didn't shout, and I could go to Usenet and -ask- for something and if I asked cleverly enough, showing I"d done my homework, people would answer - and then everyone else could find the answer later. Like, as Borges says somewhere, going into a dark huge library and shouting my question -- and hearing answers coming back.
Google has nothing except user data to sell. They may not disclose individual data. But they definitely sell it.
Google got their approach backward. If they'd stayed with search, they could've charged companies by how successfully, quickly, easily, and uniquely people -found- the company's products when they wanted to solve a problem or fill a need and went searching for good answers.
Make what you sell good, and well and accurately and easily described, in a way that explains what need it satisfies -- and search will enable people to find it easily; Google should have gone the route of finding a way to charge for the success Google provided the company -- success at being found.
Companies that make crap, poorly described, misleading stuff that needs advertising -- not stuff you want to find -- is the model they chose instead.
My contribution: block all the ads I can, and resolve never to buy -anything- that gets pushed in my face when I don't want it. If you want me to buy something from you, describe it clearly and fully and if I need it, I'll be able to find it.
Killfile web ads now, same as it was used for Usenet posts. If it makes you angry or crazy or distracted and wastes your time --- Killfile it, AdBlock it, NoScript it. Don't get caught by the crap, ignore the crap.
Next up, a process that removes everything _but_ the lipids, which will probably reveal a fascinating complex of varying resistances and processes that go through changes passing through the fat, too.
Also like completely fatal. Kids, do not do this at home.
Success is "successful at Google" -- I've been wondering how long it would take for something like "The Sources of the Nile" to happen. (If you haven't read the Avram Davidson story, find it sometime in a library, thank the librarian, and muse on how it's done nowadays.)
Soon they'll be autonomous, solar powered, and small and smart enough to track you down and crawl into your ear before they blow your mind out your nostrils.
HCFC Phaseout Schedule | Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory... http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html To learn more about the HCFC phaseout, including frequently asked questions, please visit this link.
Producing HCFC-22 also produces, as a byproduct, HCF-23.
Oops. oversight in the initial protocol? Or clever loophole-drafting? China gets paid for destroying HCF-23. And it hasn't been against the rules to produce more, to get paid more to destroy more of the stuff. So they ramped up HCFC-22 production instead of going with alternatives that didn't make money quite so fast.
China was very happy with that situation, but is quite unhappy with the next step, stopping the production completely: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-09/17/content_15761265.htm read down the text beyond the self-congratulations to the part where they say the next step is, well, very, very difficult.
Yeah, giving up free money is always hard. Read the fine print -- more carefully....
> burns as well as petroleum-based [diesel] fuel
(in other words not very well at all compared to gasoline) > and contains more energy per gallon than ethanol
(in other words, much less energy per gallon than gasoline)
"... They're afloat in a bubble of pressurized air wedged against the underside of the Antarctic ice sheet: below them stretch the still, supercooled waters of Lake Vostok. They're waiting for a rendezvous...."
> LED accent lighting.... can be very dim, but provide enough light to act as a night light. We used amber -- switched separately. Those (no blue) can be as bright as you want, including reading lights.
" One of the problems that new journals face is that no one wants to submit an article to a journal that doesn’t have any articles yet. If the journal turns out to be a dud, then you are left looking silly as one of the few authors to submit to a failed journal. IJERSRT has invented a creative, yet unethical, way of solving this no-articles problem."
and I wish I had no connection with this whole sordid business. But as the moral — repeat, moral — integrity of the United States is involved, I must first establish my credentials. Only thus will you understand how, with the aide of the late Dr. Alfred Kinsey, I have unwittingly triggered an avalanche that may sweep away much of Western civilization.
Slashdot Mirror
"... the reason for everything must publicly appear. Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest, because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what in other governments are called LEADERS.
It can only be by blinding the understanding of man, and making him believe that government is some wonderful mysterious thing, that excessive revenues are obtained...."
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-03.htm
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_23067322/silicon-valley-companies-quietly-try-kill-internet-privacy
"... A recent letter signed by 15 companies and trade groups -- including TechAmerica, which represents Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other technology companies -- demanded that the measure's author, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, drop her bill. They complain it would open up businesses to an avalanche of requests from individuals as well as costly lawsuits.
One early consequence of the heavy lobbying: A hearing on the bill, AB1291, scheduled for last week, has been pushed to next month.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a co-sponsor of the Right to Know Act, accuses the business groups of overreacting to hide their true intentions: to keep out of the public's eye the lucrative practice of amassing personal information on people who use online services, computer apps, social networking sites and other portals that track people's locations, buying habits, favorite foods and movies, and even their sexual orientation.... ... ... The push for the new law comes as tech, banking and marketing firms find more ways to mine vast amounts of personal information on consumers to target their specific needs. Some websites have installed as many as 100 tracking tools that kick in when consumers visit them, according to the bill's analysis.
Many Facebook apps tap into their users' and their friends' profiles, including sections on religious, political and sexual preferences; race; income; and health concerns. Third-party advertising and marketing companies buy, sell and trade personal information that they get from mobile phones, financial institutions and social media sites.
Some mobile applications share location information and phone numbers of users -- a concern to advocates of domestic violence victims.
Consumers who live in 27 countries that belong to the European Union already have the right to know what data companies have on them -- laws that are being complied by Facebook, Google and others that are opposing the California legislation.
Google did not reply to requests for an interview; a Facebook spokesman declined to talk about the bill. The California Chamber of Commerce referred all calls to TechAmerica, the trade group that represents major Internet companies...."
I don't misunderstand the business model.
It's to collect money from advertisers by pushing stuff at viewers.
"I'm feeling lucky" now tells me I'm feeling hungry and gives me a map of restaurants near where I am.
Dagnabbit, when I want food, I -know- how to search for food I want.
I'm a living organism. We do this instinctively.
Google's business could have been search: making sellers more competent at describing what they have to sell, where, when, and how, and on what terms, so they can be found by people who want something -- so someone can find something simply, straightforwardly, least effort for best result.
Google could have been a reference librarian for the marketplace, helping people by narrowing a search interactively, even querying the potential seller to improve their information if people keep asking for something Google figures out is probably what the seller wants to sell, as well as querying the potential buyer.
Go to a good library. Talk to a good reference librarian. Say you want something very specific that you don't know how to find.
Google could be that.
Instead the web becomes more and more layers of repeated stuff, and readers go through clicking page after page after page.
And the more pages are presented, the more the advertiser's stuff shows up, the more chances there are for clicks. $$PROFIT$$ eh?
Gubbish.
Google's business could have been search. I'd gladly buy from a seller that made the effort -- one that paid Google to help make their information clearer, more distinctive, and more easily discoverable (what searches do people do trying to find this sort of thing?). Save me time, save me trouble, save me from distraction, make search better.
Instead the model is to stuff the web with more stuff I have to work harder to ignore all the time, eating up the time I have to live.
Why, yes, I am old enough to remember when signs didn't glare, pages didn't shout, and I could go to Usenet and -ask- for something
and if I asked cleverly enough, showing I"d done my homework, people would answer - and then everyone else could find the answer later.
Like, as Borges says somewhere, going into a dark huge library and shouting my question -- and hearing answers coming back.
Google could have been that library.
Someone will, eventually.
Google has nothing except user data to sell.
They may not disclose individual data.
But they definitely sell it.
Google got their approach backward.
If they'd stayed with search, they could've charged companies by how successfully, quickly, easily, and uniquely people -found- the company's products when they wanted to solve a problem or fill a need and went searching for good answers.
Make what you sell good, and well and accurately and easily described, in a way that explains what need it satisfies -- and search will enable people to find it easily; Google should have gone the route of finding a way to charge for the success Google provided the company -- success at being found.
Companies that make crap, poorly described, misleading stuff that needs advertising -- not stuff you want to find -- is the model they chose instead.
My contribution: block all the ads I can, and resolve never to buy -anything- that gets pushed in my face when I don't want it.
If you want me to buy something from you, describe it clearly and fully and if I need it, I'll be able to find it.
Killfile web ads now, same as it was used for Usenet posts.
If it makes you angry or crazy or distracted and wastes your time --- Killfile it, AdBlock it, NoScript it.
Don't get caught by the crap, ignore the crap.
checked Google's 'feeling lucky' lately?
The result used to be all interesting stuff, even after
the randomized topic thing started to intervene.
But as of now about one in five times "lucky?" opens up to "feeling hungry" with a clickmap to local restaurants.
I'm feeling steered.
like, fatal.
Next up, a process that removes everything _but_ the lipids, which will probably reveal a fascinating complex of varying resistances and processes that go through changes passing through the fat, too.
Also like completely fatal.
Kids, do not do this at home.
Success is "successful at Google" -- I've been wondering how long it would take for something like "The Sources of the Nile" to happen.
(If you haven't read the Avram Davidson story, find it sometime in a library, thank the librarian, and muse on how it's done nowadays.)
> HR puts an arbitrary cap on what technical people can make and it is less than what managers make
I remember the old Farmer's Grange signs I used to see on the side of barns: "Every Hand a Field Hand."
Today it'd be "Every Employee a Competent Programmer" and you'd do that job most of the time.
Plus the organizational chores.
Soon they'll be autonomous, solar powered, and small and smart enough
to track you down and crawl into your ear before they blow your mind out your nostrils.
Ban the earworm now, before it's too late!
... achoo ...
http://www.pcffa.org/fn-sep02.htm
2002: Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
I heard the Internet is a series of tubes traversed by snakes carrying messages.
> more of a problem
More of a problem than they were expected to be
> CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) ...
> the problem was economically solved for the most part.
Excep that HCFC turns out to be more of a problem
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/25090702.asp
HCFC Phaseout Schedule | Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory ...
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html
To learn more about the HCFC phaseout, including frequently asked questions, please visit this link.
Producing HCFC-22 also produces, as a byproduct, HCF-23.
Oops. oversight in the initial protocol? Or clever loophole-drafting?
China gets paid for destroying HCF-23.
And it hasn't been against the rules to produce more, to get paid more to destroy more of the stuff.
So they ramped up HCFC-22 production instead of going with alternatives that didn't make money quite so fast.
"China is, in fact, gaming the system today as we speak by ..."
producing harmful HCFC-22 for the sole reason of destroying
HCF-23 by-product
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg44428/html/CHRG-110hhrg44428.htm
China was very happy with that situation, but is quite unhappy with the next step, stopping the production completely:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-09/17/content_15761265.htm
read down the text beyond the self-congratulations to the part where they say the next step is, well, very, very difficult.
Yeah, giving up free money is always hard. Read the fine print -- more carefully ....
> burns as well as petroleum-based [diesel] fuel
(in other words not very well at all compared to gasoline)
> and contains more energy per gallon than ethanol
(in other words, much less energy per gallon than gasoline)
My hat's off to the PR department.
And for the iPhart 10 model, it'll incorporate a tiny 3-D printer that will replicate the model it detects, so you can send and receive smells.
Innocence doesn't exempt you from the cost of defending against a lawsuit.
"I was never ruined but twice; once when I lost a lawsuit and once when I won one."
-- Voltaire.
http://jennre.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/the-public-hating-steve-allen-1955/ is worth a look.
> look it up
Yes!
http://librarianavengers.org/images/lookitup.jpg
> "Most drivers were forced to read their owner's manual
> to learn how to access their manual key, Camara said."
Regrettably, as the owner's manual was usually inside the vehicle ....
> What do you expect ....?
"... They're afloat in a bubble of pressurized air wedged against the underside of the Antarctic ice sheet: below them stretch the still, supercooled waters of Lake Vostok.
They're waiting for a rendezvous...."
A Colder War
a novelette by Charles Stross
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm
> LED accent lighting.... can be very dim, but provide enough light to act as a night light.
We used amber -- switched separately. Those (no blue) can be as bright as you want, including reading lights.
(The health issues are emerging in epidemiology statistics for use of blue-white light at nighttime)
http://articles.courant.com/2012-06-20/health/hc-light-dangerous-ama-0621-20120620_1_breast-cancer-light-pollution-ama-board-member
Adverse Health Effects of Nighttime Lighting
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph4-lightpollution-summary.pdf
" One of the problems that new journals face is that no one wants to submit an article to a journal that doesn’t have any articles yet. If the journal turns out to be a dud, then you are left looking silly as one of the few authors to submit to a failed journal.
IJERSRT has invented a creative, yet unethical, way of solving this no-articles problem."
New Journal Publishes Seven Issues of Bogus Articles to Appear Successful
http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/10/18/bogus-articles
and I wish I had no connection with this whole sordid business. But as the moral — repeat, moral — integrity of the United States is involved, I must first establish my credentials. Only thus will you understand how, with the aide of the late Dr. Alfred Kinsey, I have unwittingly triggered an avalanche that may sweep away much of Western civilization.
solar panel to power a small peltier cooler, dumping the heat outside the vehicle with a small exhaust fan?
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2841984