The Fourth Amendment. Currently, under the rule of King George, law enforcement can invade your home at will and without a warrant.
Do you think being on an international call during a time of war should somehow be protected from surveillance?
We're not a war. Congress has not declared a war on any person or nation.
I'm tempted to ask, "What are you saying on your calls anyway?" but that will set the slashbots off.
What I say on my calls are none of yours and the governments business. Especially if I make those calls in the privacy of my own house. Making such calls on a cell phone in public is another matter since everyone around you can hear your yammering.
Doesn't anyone work on corporate email systems?
That is a private entity who owns the equipment and the communication pathways. That is completely different than having a publicly financed telecommunication system where everyone and their grandmother are communicating.
It's one of my top movies to watch no matter how many times Comedy Central runs it. That last line is my favorite.
The other scene I like is when Jake goes to get his girl and he asks his friend where she and her date went.
"All I know is he got a room at the Sunrise Motel." "Room number 6." "It's the one right after the ice machine. If you hit the Pepsi machine, you've gone too far." "Oh, and the door will definitely not be locked." "That's all I know."
Her: "For once I wish a guy would take a dump on my chest."
Him: "That, is disgusting. I'm appalled. I can't believe no one has taken a dump on your chest."
Her: Looking soulfully into his eyes, "Would you be that man?"
Him: "It would be an honor and a privilege."
Yeah, yeah, mod me down as offtopic. Can I help it if I think of that scene when someone says they're appalled?
Besides, you know, it's funny. You would never suspect that everyone at this school is a professional dancer.
I'm not taking it personally but I found it amazing that someone like me would not be considered for the position. This was a very low-level position I was applying for.
Since I was absolutely truthful when asked every question my only thoughts would be either:
1) because I was truthful they didn't want someone like me
2) the polygraph had no idea how to handle complete honesty.
Either way, with the way things have gone since then, I'm glad I didn't get the position.
Normal operating procedure. Years ago, when I applied for a position with an unnamed 3-letter agency, I gave them several, double-sided, sheets of information going back ten years. Went through the whole process of urine testing, blood analysis, polygraph (twice), and psychological evaluation (bubble test and actual person). After all was said and done I received notice that I would not proceed to the next stage.
I wrote a letter requesting the specific reason for this and was told that that information was proprietary and might disclose operational procedures.
So let's review. I give them almost 20 pages of documentation, agree that they can ask questions about me from family members, relatives,neighbors, etc., agree to let them do a credit check on me and contact other law enforcement agencies to see if I have a record, answer an entire booklet of psychological questions, undergo two polygraph tests, a blood test and urinalysis and they won't tell me how they came to their decistion because in doing so it might reveal how they gather the information.
Beleive what you want, but telepathy is a proven, replicable phenomenon.
Bullpucky. If telepathy were proven they would be shouting their results from the mountaintops to let everyone know. The CIA et al would be all over them like flies to a 3-day old raccoon carcass on the Alabama asphalt in mid July. Oh wait, they already have and found that if there is such as a thing as remote viewing it is highly subjective and not able to be used for anything other than parlor tricks. In other words, it's reproducable.
Further, if they could prove and replicate their results they would go to the James Randi Foundation (as others above have said), sign the contract and get their $1 million.
The fact is that they can't reproduce their results under controlled conditions, they haven't proven anything other than they can manipulate their subjects AND they haven't gone to claim their million dollar prize.
that wonderful color-coded scale that was touted to alert people to the current state of readiness? You do remember that chart, don't you?
Me neither.
So tell me again how sending the entire nation into a tizzy everytime bin Laden sneezes is going to be any better? Don't we have enough dumbasses living in a swamp coming on tv and telling everyone how afraid they are that their double-wide will be bombed whenever they see someone whose skin isn't white?
Do we really need this crap other than to keep people in a state of panic?
Pennsylvania just legalized slot gambling, not even table gambling, and that was a fight and a half.
While the struggle to get slot machines in Pennsylvania was, and still is, an acrimonious debate, the reason behind the debate is because of who benefits. Slots coming to PA is not to help increase revenue (though it will) nor to stop people from going to West Virginia, Delaware or New Jersey and spending their money at those gambling locations (though it will slow the exodus) nor is it to help in property tax reduction (um, yeah).
No, the one and only reason that slots came to PA was to keep the horsetrack business alive. Without the slots the horsetracks in the state would have been dead within 5 - 10 years. Don't believe me? Then why is it that all the racetracks in the state (8 total) get to have slots licenses but only fourteen total licenses, including those at the tracks, are available for the entire Commonwealth? If the Commonwealth wanted to bring gambling to the land it would have allowed slot parlors to open anywhere that one could afford to pay the licensing and other fees. You'll never see a slot parlor in downtown Harrisburg but someone is fighting to build one just outside Gettysburg.
Let us not forget also the current controversy of having a middleman buy the slot machines and then distribute them to the parlors instead of allowing the companies to sell directly to the parlors. Just another way for certain elected officials to get kickbacks and produce jobs for their connected friends.
Oh, and as far as not allowing table gambling is concerned, you do know the reason for that, don't you? It's because a table game requires the person to concentrate on the game at hand and thus wouldn't allow them to watch the horse races. A slot machine requires no concentration and one can stop playing the machine for a moment and place bets on the races then resume playing the machine.
I'm not against gambling. I used to go to Atlantic City and spend a few bucks. I've gambled in Vegas and would like to see the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut. But what I object to is the typical PA bullshit of how the process was done and will be implemented. The Gaming Control Board is a joke. It's rules are so lax that corruption in the industry will be rampant.
Then there's the employee, an investigator no less, who was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, escape and public intoxication. Let us not forget the other folks of the gaming board who have also had issues including one who lied on his application and two others, attorneys in fact, who were involved in drunken brawls.
The real fight is not whether to allow gambling in Pennsylvania. The real fight is over how much money will be skimmed off the top for political purposes. Does the word WAM ring a bell?
i'm just saying that 40 is kind of a small sample size for something being touted so much by the anti-cellphone-while-driving peoples.
Dateline on NBC had a special last year (maybe 2004) with a professor who has done repeated studies on this subject. He takes people of different ages, sex, backgrounds, etc and puts them on a closed course. The course has some curves but also has objects jump out to simulate kids or animals dashing in front of the car and such
The first time through there are no distractions. Every person completes the course perfectly. The second time he has them use a cell phone to perform various tasks (making a call, receiving a call, writing directions, etc). In every case the people were distracted enough to run over cones, hit obstacles and in one case the woman didn't see the styrofoam cut out of a deer pop into her lane and destroyed it.
This same professor then had the same subjects get moderately drunk (just like in this experiment). While only slightly better all of the drivers still hit things or screwed up.
His final test was to have the drivers stay up all night the run the course again. On average all the drivers were no better than when they were drunk.
While this current study might seem small this subject has been studied over and over and the results are always the same: driving while on your cell phone is just as dangerous as driving drunk or when drowsy.
now it's cars and minivans. What next, cameras in refrigerators? Never mind.
What is this constant desire to add more fluff, more crap, more ways for things to go wrong, onto items? If I want a picture of something, I'll use a camera. That's what it's designed for. If I want to get back to a place, I'll use a map. That's what it's designed for.
Every new gadget that gets added to something is one more point of failure. You know why slr cameras of 20 and 30 years ago are still around and working? Because they were designed with one function: to take pictures. They didn't tell you the time, remind you of your appointment or give you directions.
If you can't find your way around using a map, having a GPS system in your car, now with new and flashy pictures!, isn't going to help.
This is what happens when those of us who moderate correctly aren't given points. You're stuck with the asshats who mode people as Flamebait and Troll simply to drive down the post.
But hey, what do I know. I haven't had mod points in probably a year no matter how much I meta-mod (which I've stopped) and can't get stories accepted.
As people keep telling me, the systems broke. Accept it. Once you do you'll be better off.
Or, to put it in terms a geek should understand, "It's dead Jim."
Regardless of when the Pope said this (as some have pointed out), this once again shows the stifling effect that religion can have on science.
We are curious animals by nature. If we weren't curious we wouldn't have been able to develop the societies we have and everything that goes with them. Why shouldn't we explore how the universe began? If by exploring how things got started we can gain some insight into a better, more efficient form of energy, why not explore?
Maybe what it comes down to is that by discovering that illnesses aren't caused by evil spirits or that mentally deranged people aren't possessed by the devil then the reason for religion ceases to exist. After all, if everything can be reasonably explained to come from natural sources then why have gods and goddesses?
The popes comment leads me to believe it was one designed to undercut the scientific realm so those in a position of power within religious circles could continue their search for new members. After all, we know for a fact that the Vatican has in its possession books which contradict portions of the modern bible as well as some which were written by others which provide a different perspective on what things were like way back when. But one cannot read these books, even if they know the title, because to do so would set off a firestorm of consternation at the hypocrisy of modern Catholicism and Christianity in general. Instead, they are held simply so others cannot expand their knowledge of the past. So long as these works remain hidden, the power of the Church cannot be questioned.
Is it any wonder then that the Pope, the keeper of the gate so to speak, would want to dissuade an eminent scientist from exploring the mysteries of the universe? Religion, as a whole, has become nothing but a quest for power. Not giving hope to the unwashed masses, not giving comfort in time of need. Power, pure and simple.
just kidding, we all know that you are not all fatties.
This is a completely offtopic comment but it has to be said. You don't know how correct you are in your comment. I'm one of those non-fatties and let me tell you, trying to find a pair of pants in my size (30" waist) is something close to impossible.
It matters not what store, time of year or any other combination you can think of, the dearth of clothes in general that I can wear is extremely small. For example, there were early Fathers Day sales this past weekend (June 10th & 11th). I went to two local malls and found zero items in my size. Apparently guys can have a 38" waist and a 30" inseam (i.e. an inverted pear shape) but can't be thin and svelte.
It's not my fault I have a high metabolism (always have) and can eat most people under the table. Nor is it my fault that I'm beyond the age where my body is supposed to gain weight and lose hair but has done neither.
All I can say is if I should ever be able to buy a clothing store the first order of business will be to fire the buyers. They're idiots. They have no concept of what consumers want in either sizes or style.
"Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring."
You can read more about what Sir Berners-Lee had to say at the 2006 conference in Edinburgh in my journal entry which was rejected. (After all, who cares what Tim has to say)
consequently a "happy married life" for a $5.99 membership fee.
What dating site are you going to that they only charge $5.99? With the exception of the completely free ones (Plenty of Fish, OKCupid, etc) they all charge a minimum of $20/month. Granted, you don't have to pay the fee but if you want to talk with someone or, in the case of Match, even find out who's looked at your profile or sent you an email, you have to pay.
Consider the various legislation for HDTV and radio and the restrictions on recording.
That's why I use a vcr. I don't watch many programs on a regular basis but the ones I do sometimes overlap so I have to record. I just bought the vcr a year or so ago and it should last me close to 10 years. I have half a dozen tapes which keep getting reused so don't need to buy tapes for a while though if I really needed more I could always overwrite some of the dusty ones I have.
When I need to skip commercials I hit Fast Forward and turn my head away. I use my peripheral vision to let me know when to lift the button. I'm usually pretty close.
When I watch regular tv I hit mute and walk away during the commercials. I know to come back in about 2 minutes.
Heck, when I get the sunday paper the first thing I do is disassemble it, put the actual paper in order, remove the comics, Parade magazine and any coupons and put all the advertising stuff to the side. I never see the ads (ok, coupons are technically ads).
When they force people to watch commercials by not allowing you to change channels I guess it will be time to give up tv. I'm pretty close now due to the ridiculous cost (almost $50/month) for maybe 15 channels that I watch. I've gotten so good that when they try to pull the pop-up shit at the bottom of the screen I don't even notice whatever it is they're trying to tell me. I just focus my attention on what show is on. I know there is something there but I couldn't tell you what it is.
If you don't participate in this stuff you can't lose your privacy. I don't contribute, visit or have an account on any of the stuff that is mentioned. Why? Don't care. I use the web in the way I want, not the way the advertisers think I should.
Just as if you clear your cookies every time you're done surfing the marketers will always treat you as a new visitor even if you visit every day. In other words, the sites statistics are skewed and will burn money because of inflated figures.
Yeah sure, most people don't care about privacy. Witness the reaction to people when you tell them that their phone messages might be recorded by the government or that the police can search their home without a warrant; "I have nothing to hide so what's the big deal?"
Yet, amazingly, people are paranoid about identity theft. Um folks, just how do you think some of you lost your identity? Naw, it couldn't have been that long winded, detailed bio you posted on MySpace now could it? You know, the one where you posted your first and last name, your hometown, what school you went/go to, where you hang out and all the other useless cruft that people just have to know about you.
While the author does have a point, data mining is the new wave in online transactions, if people don't participate the advertisers will just be burning money for little reward.
Kind of like commercials. I don't watch/listen/read them so the money that is spent to get me to buy a product or service is wasted.
Don't want to lose your privacy? Don't participate in things that could affect you in that way. It's that simple.
After calming down from my apoplectic seizure after reading the blurb, all I can say is, WTH!!!!! How is it possible that true Conservatives would even allow this nonsense to see the light of day?
I know this is a rhetorical question but I have to ask it anyway: whatever happened to laissez-faire and keeping the big, bad government out of our lives?
No, we shouldn't be tagging immigrants. Or anyone else. Most of my family were immigrants and most came from a country which had a long run of tagging certain people and they got called on it. But now, somehow in the twisted mind of american right-wing neo-fascists, it's now ok to tag people? WTF????
Why not just get it over with and require different people to carry different ID cards. You know, like Israel, Iran, and Syria do and the former Soviet Union did. While we're at it, we can have these same people have different license plates so the police can see at a glance what group is drving the car and make the decision whether or not to pull over the car so they can rummage through the occupants and their possessions to see if they're doing anything wrong.
Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we just have various groups wear colored symbols on their clothes. That way everyone will know who is who.
Just like the warrantless phone monitoring, just like law enforcement officials can now invade your home without a warrant to see if there is evidence of a crime so they can get a warrant, this is not a fishing expedition.
Nor are we trying to track where everyone goes or what they read. We're ensuring that everyone is fully protected from those bad, bad terrorists. You know, 9/11 and all.
You see, people want to be free. We're ensuring they can be free by these actions. All we ask is that people understand that we're in it for the long run and ask for their patience while we administer these proctology exams.
Just remember, 9/11 was a wakup call. We can't let these terrorists take our freedoms away.
Slashdot Mirror
The Fourth Amendment. Currently, under the rule of King George, law enforcement can invade your home at will and without a warrant.
Do you think being on an international call during a time of war should somehow be protected from surveillance?
We're not a war. Congress has not declared a war on any person or nation.
I'm tempted to ask, "What are you saying on your calls anyway?" but that will set the slashbots off.
What I say on my calls are none of yours and the governments business. Especially if I make those calls in the privacy of my own house. Making such calls on a cell phone in public is another matter since everyone around you can hear your yammering.
Doesn't anyone work on corporate email systems?
That is a private entity who owns the equipment and the communication pathways. That is completely different than having a publicly financed telecommunication system where everyone and their grandmother are communicating.
Not Another Teen Movie
It's one of my top movies to watch no matter how many times Comedy Central runs it. That last line is my favorite.
The other scene I like is when Jake goes to get his girl and he asks his friend where she and her date went.
"All I know is he got a room at the Sunrise Motel."
"Room number 6."
"It's the one right after the ice machine. If you hit the Pepsi machine, you've gone too far."
"Oh, and the door will definitely not be locked."
"That's all I know."
No, this is appalling:
Her: "For once I wish a guy would take a dump on my chest."
Him: "That, is disgusting. I'm appalled. I can't believe no one has taken a dump on your chest."
Her: Looking soulfully into his eyes, "Would you be that man?"
Him: "It would be an honor and a privilege."
Yeah, yeah, mod me down as offtopic. Can I help it if I think of that scene when someone says they're appalled?
Besides, you know, it's funny. You would never suspect that everyone at this school is a professional dancer.
I'm not taking it personally but I found it amazing that someone like me would not be considered for the position. This was a very low-level position I was applying for.
Since I was absolutely truthful when asked every question my only thoughts would be either:
1) because I was truthful they didn't want someone like me
2) the polygraph had no idea how to handle complete honesty.
Either way, with the way things have gone since then, I'm glad I didn't get the position.
Normal operating procedure. Years ago, when I applied for a position with an unnamed 3-letter agency, I gave them several, double-sided, sheets of information going back ten years. Went through the whole process of urine testing, blood analysis, polygraph (twice), and psychological evaluation (bubble test and actual person). After all was said and done I received notice that I would not proceed to the next stage.
I wrote a letter requesting the specific reason for this and was told that that information was proprietary and might disclose operational procedures.
So let's review. I give them almost 20 pages of documentation, agree that they can ask questions about me from family members, relatives,neighbors, etc., agree to let them do a credit check on me and contact other law enforcement agencies to see if I have a record, answer an entire booklet of psychological questions, undergo two polygraph tests, a blood test and urinalysis and they won't tell me how they came to their decistion because in doing so it might reveal how they gather the information.
Um, yeah.
Bullpucky. If telepathy were proven they would be shouting their results from the mountaintops to let everyone know. The CIA et al would be all over them like flies to a 3-day old raccoon carcass on the Alabama asphalt in mid July. Oh wait, they already have and found that if there is such as a thing as remote viewing it is highly subjective and not able to be used for anything other than parlor tricks. In other words, it's reproducable.
Further, if they could prove and replicate their results they would go to the James Randi Foundation (as others above have said), sign the contract and get their $1 million.
The fact is that they can't reproduce their results under controlled conditions, they haven't proven anything other than they can manipulate their subjects AND they haven't gone to claim their million dollar prize.
In short, they haven't proven squat.
that wonderful color-coded scale that was touted to alert people to the current state of readiness? You do remember that chart, don't you?
Me neither.
So tell me again how sending the entire nation into a tizzy everytime bin Laden sneezes is going to be any better? Don't we have enough dumbasses living in a swamp coming on tv and telling everyone how afraid they are that their double-wide will be bombed whenever they see someone whose skin isn't white?
Do we really need this crap other than to keep people in a state of panic?
does it still taste salty?
While the struggle to get slot machines in Pennsylvania was, and still is, an acrimonious debate, the reason behind the debate is because of who benefits. Slots coming to PA is not to help increase revenue (though it will) nor to stop people from going to West Virginia, Delaware or New Jersey and spending their money at those gambling locations (though it will slow the exodus) nor is it to help in property tax reduction (um, yeah).
No, the one and only reason that slots came to PA was to keep the horsetrack business alive. Without the slots the horsetracks in the state would have been dead within 5 - 10 years. Don't believe me? Then why is it that all the racetracks in the state (8 total) get to have slots licenses but only fourteen total licenses, including those at the tracks, are available for the entire Commonwealth? If the Commonwealth wanted to bring gambling to the land it would have allowed slot parlors to open anywhere that one could afford to pay the licensing and other fees. You'll never see a slot parlor in downtown Harrisburg but someone is fighting to build one just outside Gettysburg.
Let us not forget also the current controversy of having a middleman buy the slot machines and then distribute them to the parlors instead of allowing the companies to sell directly to the parlors. Just another way for certain elected officials to get kickbacks and produce jobs for their connected friends.
Oh, and as far as not allowing table gambling is concerned, you do know the reason for that, don't you? It's because a table game requires the person to concentrate on the game at hand and thus wouldn't allow them to watch the horse races. A slot machine requires no concentration and one can stop playing the machine for a moment and place bets on the races then resume playing the machine.
I'm not against gambling. I used to go to Atlantic City and spend a few bucks. I've gambled in Vegas and would like to see the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut. But what I object to is the typical PA bullshit of how the process was done and will be implemented. The Gaming Control Board is a joke. It's rules are so lax that corruption in the industry will be rampant.
Not to mention that one of the employees of the board dangled his girlfriend out their apartment window and dropped her while they were celebrating his job appointment in the commission because both were drunk as skunks.
Then there's the employee, an investigator no less, who was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, escape and public intoxication. Let us not forget the other folks of the gaming board who have also had issues including one who lied on his application and two others, attorneys in fact, who were involved in drunken brawls.
The real fight is not whether to allow gambling in Pennsylvania. The real fight is over how much money will be skimmed off the top for political purposes. Does the word WAM ring a bell?
Dateline on NBC had a special last year (maybe 2004) with a professor who has done repeated studies on this subject. He takes people of different ages, sex, backgrounds, etc and puts them on a closed course. The course has some curves but also has objects jump out to simulate kids or animals dashing in front of the car and such
The first time through there are no distractions. Every person completes the course perfectly. The second time he has them use a cell phone to perform various tasks (making a call, receiving a call, writing directions, etc). In every case the people were distracted enough to run over cones, hit obstacles and in one case the woman didn't see the styrofoam cut out of a deer pop into her lane and destroyed it.
This same professor then had the same subjects get moderately drunk (just like in this experiment). While only slightly better all of the drivers still hit things or screwed up.
His final test was to have the drivers stay up all night the run the course again. On average all the drivers were no better than when they were drunk.
While this current study might seem small this subject has been studied over and over and the results are always the same: driving while on your cell phone is just as dangerous as driving drunk or when drowsy.
And when we tell them we have the same issues we can combine our resources to solve both our problems.
Why does that sound familiar?
What is this constant desire to add more fluff, more crap, more ways for things to go wrong, onto items? If I want a picture of something, I'll use a camera. That's what it's designed for. If I want to get back to a place, I'll use a map. That's what it's designed for.
Every new gadget that gets added to something is one more point of failure. You know why slr cameras of 20 and 30 years ago are still around and working? Because they were designed with one function: to take pictures. They didn't tell you the time, remind you of your appointment or give you directions.
If you can't find your way around using a map, having a GPS system in your car, now with new and flashy pictures!, isn't going to help.
This is what happens when those of us who moderate correctly aren't given points. You're stuck with the asshats who mode people as Flamebait and Troll simply to drive down the post.
But hey, what do I know. I haven't had mod points in probably a year no matter how much I meta-mod (which I've stopped) and can't get stories accepted.
As people keep telling me, the systems broke. Accept it. Once you do you'll be better off.
Or, to put it in terms a geek should understand, "It's dead Jim."
Done. Thanks for the correction.
Are they sure it is isn't the coating from cheddar cheese snacks that they've been munching on?
If there's a bit of orange then it's probably just the Cheetos.
Reminds me of this pile of crap we have for our area.
Regardless of when the Pope said this (as some have pointed out), this once again shows the stifling effect that religion can have on science.
We are curious animals by nature. If we weren't curious we wouldn't have been able to develop the societies we have and everything that goes with them. Why shouldn't we explore how the universe began? If by exploring how things got started we can gain some insight into a better, more efficient form of energy, why not explore?
Maybe what it comes down to is that by discovering that illnesses aren't caused by evil spirits or that mentally deranged people aren't possessed by the devil then the reason for religion ceases to exist. After all, if everything can be reasonably explained to come from natural sources then why have gods and goddesses?
The popes comment leads me to believe it was one designed to undercut the scientific realm so those in a position of power within religious circles could continue their search for new members. After all, we know for a fact that the Vatican has in its possession books which contradict portions of the modern bible as well as some which were written by others which provide a different perspective on what things were like way back when. But one cannot read these books, even if they know the title, because to do so would set off a firestorm of consternation at the hypocrisy of modern Catholicism and Christianity in general. Instead, they are held simply so others cannot expand their knowledge of the past. So long as these works remain hidden, the power of the Church cannot be questioned.
Is it any wonder then that the Pope, the keeper of the gate so to speak, would want to dissuade an eminent scientist from exploring the mysteries of the universe? Religion, as a whole, has become nothing but a quest for power. Not giving hope to the unwashed masses, not giving comfort in time of need. Power, pure and simple.
This is a completely offtopic comment but it has to be said. You don't know how correct you are in your comment. I'm one of those non-fatties and let me tell you, trying to find a pair of pants in my size (30" waist) is something close to impossible.
It matters not what store, time of year or any other combination you can think of, the dearth of clothes in general that I can wear is extremely small. For example, there were early Fathers Day sales this past weekend (June 10th & 11th). I went to two local malls and found zero items in my size. Apparently guys can have a 38" waist and a 30" inseam (i.e. an inverted pear shape) but can't be thin and svelte.
It's not my fault I have a high metabolism (always have) and can eat most people under the table. Nor is it my fault that I'm beyond the age where my body is supposed to gain weight and lose hair but has done neither.
All I can say is if I should ever be able to buy a clothing store the first order of business will be to fire the buyers. They're idiots. They have no concept of what consumers want in either sizes or style.
3/Sorry mom, the dog ate my phone. I had to wait to retrieve it.
You can read more about what Sir Berners-Lee had to say at the 2006 conference in Edinburgh in my journal entry which was rejected. (After all, who cares what Tim has to say)
What dating site are you going to that they only charge $5.99? With the exception of the completely free ones (Plenty of Fish, OKCupid, etc) they all charge a minimum of $20/month. Granted, you don't have to pay the fee but if you want to talk with someone or, in the case of Match, even find out who's looked at your profile or sent you an email, you have to pay.
That's why I use a vcr. I don't watch many programs on a regular basis but the ones I do sometimes overlap so I have to record. I just bought the vcr a year or so ago and it should last me close to 10 years. I have half a dozen tapes which keep getting reused so don't need to buy tapes for a while though if I really needed more I could always overwrite some of the dusty ones I have.
When I need to skip commercials I hit Fast Forward and turn my head away. I use my peripheral vision to let me know when to lift the button. I'm usually pretty close.
When I watch regular tv I hit mute and walk away during the commercials. I know to come back in about 2 minutes.
Heck, when I get the sunday paper the first thing I do is disassemble it, put the actual paper in order, remove the comics, Parade magazine and any coupons and put all the advertising stuff to the side. I never see the ads (ok, coupons are technically ads).
When they force people to watch commercials by not allowing you to change channels I guess it will be time to give up tv. I'm pretty close now due to the ridiculous cost (almost $50/month) for maybe 15 channels that I watch. I've gotten so good that when they try to pull the pop-up shit at the bottom of the screen I don't even notice whatever it is they're trying to tell me. I just focus my attention on what show is on. I know there is something there but I couldn't tell you what it is.
If you don't participate in this stuff you can't lose your privacy. I don't contribute, visit or have an account on any of the stuff that is mentioned. Why? Don't care. I use the web in the way I want, not the way the advertisers think I should.
Just as if you clear your cookies every time you're done surfing the marketers will always treat you as a new visitor even if you visit every day. In other words, the sites statistics are skewed and will burn money because of inflated figures.
Yeah sure, most people don't care about privacy. Witness the reaction to people when you tell them that their phone messages might be recorded by the government or that the police can search their home without a warrant; "I have nothing to hide so what's the big deal?"
Yet, amazingly, people are paranoid about identity theft. Um folks, just how do you think some of you lost your identity? Naw, it couldn't have been that long winded, detailed bio you posted on MySpace now could it? You know, the one where you posted your first and last name, your hometown, what school you went/go to, where you hang out and all the other useless cruft that people just have to know about you.
While the author does have a point, data mining is the new wave in online transactions, if people don't participate the advertisers will just be burning money for little reward.
Kind of like commercials. I don't watch/listen/read them so the money that is spent to get me to buy a product or service is wasted.
Don't want to lose your privacy? Don't participate in things that could affect you in that way. It's that simple.
After calming down from my apoplectic seizure after reading the blurb, all I can say is, WTH!!!!! How is it possible that true Conservatives would even allow this nonsense to see the light of day?
I know this is a rhetorical question but I have to ask it anyway: whatever happened to laissez-faire and keeping the big, bad government out of our lives?
No, we shouldn't be tagging immigrants. Or anyone else. Most of my family were immigrants and most came from a country which had a long run of tagging certain people and they got called on it. But now, somehow in the twisted mind of american right-wing neo-fascists, it's now ok to tag people? WTF????
Why not just get it over with and require different people to carry different ID cards. You know, like Israel, Iran, and Syria do and the former Soviet Union did. While we're at it, we can have these same people have different license plates so the police can see at a glance what group is drving the car and make the decision whether or not to pull over the car so they can rummage through the occupants and their possessions to see if they're doing anything wrong.
Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we just have various groups wear colored symbols on their clothes. That way everyone will know who is who.
Nor are we trying to track where everyone goes or what they read. We're ensuring that everyone is fully protected from those bad, bad terrorists. You know, 9/11 and all.
You see, people want to be free. We're ensuring they can be free by these actions. All we ask is that people understand that we're in it for the long run and ask for their patience while we administer these proctology exams.
Just remember, 9/11 was a wakup call. We can't let these terrorists take our freedoms away.