'var' is necessary for anonymous types, which can be very useful in some scenarios. I do discourage lazy use of var for declaring instances of known types though.
That's not the case though. You CAN NOT choose not to be tracked; not being an user is just a mild inconvenience for the likes of Facebook.
Facebook (and also Google) build shadow profiles on you, and they collect and correlate all kinds of data about you - both online and offline. Facebook slurps data about you from your friends' phone contact lists, from their tagged pictures, from web pages you visit which carry the Facebook tag. Google sucks your phone location data and your web searches. If you use their DNS provider, Google knows which web sites you visit and when. A large percent of web sites you may use also rat you out to Google via links to googleanalytics, googlefonts or gstatic.com. Google is even buying your real world credit card transactions, so they know what you're buying in brick-and-mortar stores, and when. It all goes into their stash.
Really, you have no choice; you'll be watched by either of them (and who knows how many more) whether you sign for their services or not.
Great China please be contended already betterest. When temporary old hand go speak no unripe propaganda. If herein internet bring inconvenience please understanding. From China to World - is the common goal of us!
Haspel took over months after the tortures had ended
Yeah, you appear to be lying - or, to be charitable, just misinformed... The various articles mention the names of two tortured people. It's true that she wasn't there for the first, but she was there for the second. More precisely, she was the chief of the Thailand prison between October and December 2002. The second person in the article was tortured between mid-November and December 2002, so during her tenure.
The thing is, OTA updates can give you material improvements.
No: *updates* can give you material improvements. There is no reason for them to be OTA. OTA, while maybe more convenient for some, opens the gate to a whole slew of abuses and risks. When you car has OTA access you can be tracked by everybody and their dog, you can be hacked, and you have no control over the updates (and if some update proves to be buggy, tough noogies. Just wait for the next one,which will,fix the problem, we promise).
Instead of OTA, updates should be done via a DVD or USB. To me, the mild inconvenience of having to download an update to an USB and stick it in the entertainment system is trivial compared to having the choice to apply the update on my own schedule and being safe from bored teenagers who buy an exploit off the dark Web and think it would be cool to disable your brakes or from criminals who lock your car and ask for a Bitcoin payment to get it unlocked. Add to this the fact that Google, the insurance companies and any number of other nosy outsiders don't get to know every breath I take and every move I make, and the decision is clear.
Of course MP tracks user data. THAT'S HOW THEY PAY FOR THE FUCKING TICKETS!!!!
Well, I don't have a Movie Pass, but your post made me curious, so I went to their web site to check, and that's absolutely not what they say. The important thing - and the reason why you're in the wrong - is that there is no informed consent from the customer's part to an exchange of privacy for low prices.
The Movie Pass web site doesn't state anywhere that tracking is the price you pay for low ticket prices. They don't sell you a $10 MP if you consent to full tracking, but raise the price to $15 if you only let them track your location the evening of the movie, or to $20 if you turn off your phone after you bought the movie tickets. Their (I assume ironically) called "privacy policy" page doesn't either. Instead it's a wonderful piece of weasel-speak, mixing mealy-mouthed assurances that "your privacy is important to them" with vaguely worded disclosures that, if you read carefully, mean they give themselves free hand on grabbing all your data and doing whatever they want with it.
If you don't want MP tracking some of your data, THEN DON'T SIGN UP FOR THE SERVICE. But stop fucking it up for everyone else.
But Movie Pass doesn't mention tracking when you try to sign up for the service; the deal they sell is 10 bucks per month for one movie a day. Any tracking they do is an abuse of the contract and theft of your privacy. There is absolutely no obligation from the user to provide them any data beyond the absolute minimum necessary for the ticket purchase. On the contrary, stopping them from tracking is a service to the community.
And this is why we can't have nice things.
No. Really, no. YOU're the reason why we can't have good things. By accepting, nay, demanding that people let themselves be tracked and let their privacy be monetized by any thieving company - MP is a small fish, but think many people use Google and Facebook, YOU make those underhanded tactics, this wholesale theft of data acceptable and mainstream.
You local cloud system will be under utilized, because it will be built for peak usage, however there will be long periods of times, where it is under utilized.
That happens only if you go with a naive implementation of your system.
The big advantage of running Azure Stack locally is that your applications can, with a bit of care, run on either your local machines or in the Azure cloud. This gives you a lot of flexibility. You can expand to the cloud if you have unexpected (or even planned) peaks in usage, or fail over to the cloud on catastrophic failures in your local data center. If you need to run occasional tasks that require special hardware (large amounts of memory, support for GPU, etc), you may be able to spin up a specialized machine in the cloud, and avoid purchasing hardware dedicated to this usage - and that remains underutilized the rest of the time.
If you design your apps properly you can then size your data center closer to average load, as opposed to peak usage, and get extra resiliency to boot.
But, USA law also says you can charged for any USA law that you break while outside of the USA as soon as you return to the USA (either under your own will or through extradition).
Fair enough, since corporations are apparently people now - and that's what the DoJ should do. They should charge Microsoft Ireland as soon as it returns to the USA. More than that, they should wait at the airport, and, as soon as Microsoft Ireland steps on American soil, agents should jump in, wrestle him to the ground and read his Miranda rights. I think I'd like to see that.
A license is not a piece of property, it's a contract or in even more layman terms an agreement. And no, you can't just sell your end of an agreement.
And yet mortgages, which are, as far as I can see, also contracts, are bought and sold routinely. My mortgage for example was sold twice, and I was never consulted at my end of the agreement. There are whole industries built around the buying and selling of contracts - futures, insurance, student loans, mortgages.
Yes, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. You're describing some technical aspects of the payment process, and some history. This is irrelevant to the thread's subject, which is Google's tracking of your offline purchases.
I took OP's complaint about Google "inserting" itself into the transaction as a criticism of Google's finding yet another way to get your data, and not as commiseration for the poor Google programmers who had to find a technical solution to implement it. Your message ignores the substance of the thread, but talks about implementation, trying to imply that Google, while not interested in inserting themselves in the transaction, simply had no other possible technical solution. That's not nice: it's an attempt to confuse the issue. In reality, Google wants the data, as proven by the fact they will buy it from third parties when they can't grab it from Google pay. The motivation for inserting themselves into customer's transactions is not technical; it's Google's business model.
If you are paying online with a CC the number is going to be hacked eventually; sure you can get the charges reversed but it is a pain to have to get a new number and deal with the annoyance of having to get a new card.
There are credit cards (for example from Citibank) who let you generate an unique new number, good for a single transaction (and up to a certain limit you can also set). That's what I use for online purchases, if I haven't dealt with the seller before.
Google wanted to insert themselves into every transaction. Apple Pay was a more secure credit card.
Google didn't want to insert themselves; it was the only technically feasible option at the time that wasn't impossible to scale.
Yeah, right. They so much don't want to insert themselves that they're actively buying offline credit card transaction data from third parties.
On the contrary, I think Google salivates at the idea of inserting themselves into your wallet, and the deeper the better. They have a very strong motivation for collecting all your data and tracking all you buy - they can then use your purchases to show ad companies how efficient the ad buy is.
>I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?
Well, I agree it's rather difficult to perceive the difference, but here are a few things that may point towards this conclusion:
- Apple: makes money from selling you hardware; they don't really need your data, since they already made their money off you. Google: makes money from selling your information to ad companies; grabbing as much of your data as they can is the core of their business model. - Apple: blocks trackers from their browser. Google: blocks other companies' ads in their browser, while expanding their tracking of you. - Apple: doesn't track you over multiple web sites, nor does it buy credit card transaction data from banks. Google: does. - Apple: has blocked its own ad team from using customer data collected via iTunes. Google: you got to be kidding me
I mean, are you arguing that language should never change or evolve
Nobody argues this. However many of those changes are politically driven, and used to spin and confuse discussion of various matters. Examples on each side: the right introduced the politically charged term "death tax" to replace the correct "inheritance tax". The left introduced "undocumented immigrants" replacing the more correct "illegal immigrants". The right calls a anti-abortion position "pro-life"; this is spin, because the "pro-life" position doesn't extend for example to being against the death penalty. The left has recently started calling rape victims "survivors" - because, albeit incorrect, it's much more emotionally charged. I would argue this kind of change should stop.
do you just not like respecting someone's wishes about their identity?
There is no absolute rule to respect somebody's wishes on any matter. It's generally nice, but making it the rigid basis of a code of conduct, as seems to happen here, is deeply wrong. That they'll get offended is absolutely not an argument, no matter what some on the left seem to think. For example, many muslims wish women would stay in the home, and only venture out accompanied by a male relative. I have no respect for their wish.
The same applies to identity-related choices: respect depends on context. For example, if somebody changes his name to hide some past acts, they surely don't wish their old name to be known; however, discovering, using and/or making the old name public may be the correct choice.
Even in Norway, a woman can't just walk in and get a breast enlargement anytime she wants, and expect someone else to pay for it.
If I understand you correctly, you say that because - I quote - "any treatment, on demand, at anytime, for free" isn't supported by any country's medical system, therefore no country's medical system is better than the American one. Even with your disclaimer, this is a terrible argument, on many levels.
First, you should really understand the difference between "needed" and "wanted". Nobody ever said a single payer health system would support wants - as you say, "any treatment, on demand, at anytime, for free". Public health care is supposed to cover needs: prevention, medically necessary procedures, cost of catastrophic illness. As an aside, I find it interesting that similarly flawed arguments are brought against UBI: some opponents also (intentionally?) confuse "want" and "need" and argue that UBI is unsustainable because the government would be obliged to give everybody a mansion and a Ferrari, for free.
Second, that any healthcare system in any country can't provide anything and everything doesn't mean they aren't better than the American one. It's a documented fact that on the whole, Americans pay more for healthcare and get less than pretty much any other developed country. Pointing at flaws in Norway or wherever while ignoring the larger issues here looks like a distraction, not an argument.
Once they know everything about you, what's left to innovate?
But this is precisely when real innovation begins: understand that knowledge is power, and once they know everything about you they have power over you. They can use all this knowledge to start influencing you in the directions that make them the most money.
They'll know when you're feeling hungry, so they'll show you an ad from the local restaurant that has a GoogleInfluence account with them. Is your car getting old? Stories about accidents involving the exact model you're driving will somehow start floating up in your Google news feed - and also, positive stories about whichever auto manufacturer pays Google. Are you feeling under the weather? They'll know the precise moment and the precise formulation to use to get you to buy some fake medicine - from somebody who happens to pay them. If you've been searching for TV reviews on Google, next time you drive back home, using Google Maps to avoid traffic, they may reroute you slightly so you drive past a TV store that happens to be one of their clients as well. Or, for a darker possibility, when the personal spy assistant you so kindly planted in your own home lets them know you just had a fight with your wife, they may show you inflammatory social media stories and gun ads - and get their payola from Mrs. Smith and Wesson. And of course, once the politicos get wind of this, expect to be given exactly the right amount of personalized "news" that will maximize the chances to get you to vote in the direction desired by the customer paying Google.
As you see, once they know all your secrets opportunities for innovation become almost boundless.
Slashdot Mirror
In my team, I allow using var in this case; however
is not allowed, because it makes maintaining the code more difficult.
'var' is an item for lazy coders.
'var' is necessary for anonymous types, which can be very useful in some scenarios. I do discourage lazy use of var for declaring instances of known types though.
Only those who choose to be users.
That's not the case though. You CAN NOT choose not to be tracked; not being an user is just a mild inconvenience for the likes of Facebook.
Facebook (and also Google) build shadow profiles on you, and they collect and correlate all kinds of data about you - both online and offline. Facebook slurps data about you from your friends' phone contact lists, from their tagged pictures, from web pages you visit which carry the Facebook tag. Google sucks your phone location data and your web searches. If you use their DNS provider, Google knows which web sites you visit and when. A large percent of web sites you may use also rat you out to Google via links to googleanalytics, googlefonts or gstatic.com. Google is even buying your real world credit card transactions, so they know what you're buying in brick-and-mortar stores, and when. It all goes into their stash.
Really, you have no choice; you'll be watched by either of them (and who knows how many more) whether you sign for their services or not.
Mozilla is also pondering a petition enjoining the pimps of the USA to put even more focus on preserving the chastity of their girls...
Great China please be contended already betterest. When temporary old hand go speak no unripe propaganda. If herein internet bring inconvenience please understanding. From China to World - is the common goal of us!
Haspel took over months after the tortures had ended
Yeah, you appear to be lying - or, to be charitable, just misinformed... The various articles mention the names of two tortured people. It's true that she wasn't there for the first, but she was there for the second. More precisely, she was the chief of the Thailand prison between October and December 2002. The second person in the article was tortured between mid-November and December 2002, so during her tenure.
The thing is, OTA updates can give you material improvements.
No: *updates* can give you material improvements. There is no reason for them to be OTA. OTA, while maybe more convenient for some, opens the gate to a whole slew of abuses and risks. When you car has OTA access you can be tracked by everybody and their dog, you can be hacked, and you have no control over the updates (and if some update proves to be buggy, tough noogies. Just wait for the next one,which will,fix the problem, we promise).
Instead of OTA, updates should be done via a DVD or USB. To me, the mild inconvenience of having to download an update to an USB and stick it in the entertainment system is trivial compared to having the choice to apply the update on my own schedule and being safe from bored teenagers who buy an exploit off the dark Web and think it would be cool to disable your brakes or from criminals who lock your car and ask for a Bitcoin payment to get it unlocked. Add to this the fact that Google, the insurance companies and any number of other nosy outsiders don't get to know every breath I take and every move I make, and the decision is clear.
Enjoy your visit and don't go in the Mended Drum.
What kind of fool would go to the Mended Drum when they can see Dixie "Va Va" Voom's show at the Skunk Club in Brewer Street and riot afterward?
Of course MP tracks user data. THAT'S HOW THEY PAY FOR THE FUCKING TICKETS!!!!
Well, I don't have a Movie Pass, but your post made me curious, so I went to their web site to check, and that's absolutely not what they say. The important thing - and the reason why you're in the wrong - is that there is no informed consent from the customer's part to an exchange of privacy for low prices.
The Movie Pass web site doesn't state anywhere that tracking is the price you pay for low ticket prices. They don't sell you a $10 MP if you consent to full tracking, but raise the price to $15 if you only let them track your location the evening of the movie, or to $20 if you turn off your phone after you bought the movie tickets. Their (I assume ironically) called "privacy policy" page doesn't either. Instead it's a wonderful piece of weasel-speak, mixing mealy-mouthed assurances that "your privacy is important to them" with vaguely worded disclosures that, if you read carefully, mean they give themselves free hand on grabbing all your data and doing whatever they want with it.
If you don't want MP tracking some of your data, THEN DON'T SIGN UP FOR THE SERVICE. But stop fucking it up for everyone else.
But Movie Pass doesn't mention tracking when you try to sign up for the service; the deal they sell is 10 bucks per month for one movie a day. Any tracking they do is an abuse of the contract and theft of your privacy. There is absolutely no obligation from the user to provide them any data beyond the absolute minimum necessary for the ticket purchase. On the contrary, stopping them from tracking is a service to the community.
And this is why we can't have nice things.
No. Really, no. YOU're the reason why we can't have good things. By accepting, nay, demanding that people let themselves be tracked and let their privacy be monetized by any thieving company - MP is a small fish, but think many people use Google and Facebook, YOU make those underhanded tactics, this wholesale theft of data acceptable and mainstream.
You local cloud system will be under utilized, because it will be built for peak usage, however there will be long periods of times, where it is under utilized.
That happens only if you go with a naive implementation of your system.
The big advantage of running Azure Stack locally is that your applications can, with a bit of care, run on either your local machines or in the Azure cloud. This gives you a lot of flexibility. You can expand to the cloud if you have unexpected (or even planned) peaks in usage, or fail over to the cloud on catastrophic failures in your local data center. If you need to run occasional tasks that require special hardware (large amounts of memory, support for GPU, etc), you may be able to spin up a specialized machine in the cloud, and avoid purchasing hardware dedicated to this usage - and that remains underutilized the rest of the time.
If you design your apps properly you can then size your data center closer to average load, as opposed to peak usage, and get extra resiliency to boot.
Google [...] tried to turn a workplace into some utopian college campus where all ideas are free to be debated on company servers.
The firing of James Damore shows that's not the case. Only pre-approved ideas appear to be allowed for debate at Google.
I went one better. I sent the asylum a note letting them know Pelosi, Schumer, and Schiff were loose.
At the asylum they call those notes "applications".
Does Enceladus have chemistry? I heard life needs chemistry.
Well, TF summary mentions it has soup. That's good enough for me.
But, USA law also says you can charged for any USA law that you break while outside of the USA as soon as you return to the USA (either under your own will or through extradition).
Fair enough, since corporations are apparently people now - and that's what the DoJ should do. They should charge Microsoft Ireland as soon as it returns to the USA. More than that, they should wait at the airport, and, as soon as Microsoft Ireland steps on American soil, agents should jump in, wrestle him to the ground and read his Miranda rights. I think I'd like to see that.
A license is not a piece of property, it's a contract or in even more layman terms an agreement. And no, you can't just sell your end of an agreement.
And yet mortgages, which are, as far as I can see, also contracts, are bought and sold routinely. My mortgage for example was sold twice, and I was never consulted at my end of the agreement. There are whole industries built around the buying and selling of contracts - futures, insurance, student loans, mortgages.
Did you even read the rest of the post?
Yes, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. You're describing some technical aspects of the payment process, and some history. This is irrelevant to the thread's subject, which is Google's tracking of your offline purchases.
I took OP's complaint about Google "inserting" itself into the transaction as a criticism of Google's finding yet another way to get your data, and not as commiseration for the poor Google programmers who had to find a technical solution to implement it. Your message ignores the substance of the thread, but talks about implementation, trying to imply that Google, while not interested in inserting themselves in the transaction, simply had no other possible technical solution. That's not nice: it's an attempt to confuse the issue. In reality, Google wants the data, as proven by the fact they will buy it from third parties when they can't grab it from Google pay. The motivation for inserting themselves into customer's transactions is not technical; it's Google's business model.
If you are paying online with a CC the number is going to be hacked eventually; sure you can get the charges reversed but it is a pain to have to get a new number and deal with the annoyance of having to get a new card.
There are credit cards (for example from Citibank) who let you generate an unique new number, good for a single transaction (and up to a certain limit you can also set). That's what I use for online purchases, if I haven't dealt with the seller before.
Google wanted to insert themselves into every transaction. Apple Pay was a more secure credit card.
Google didn't want to insert themselves; it was the only technically feasible option at the time that wasn't impossible to scale.
Yeah, right. They so much don't want to insert themselves that they're actively buying offline credit card transaction data from third parties.
On the contrary, I think Google salivates at the idea of inserting themselves into your wallet, and the deeper the better. They have a very strong motivation for collecting all your data and tracking all you buy - they can then use your purchases to show ad companies how efficient the ad buy is.
>I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?
Well, I agree it's rather difficult to perceive the difference, but here are a few things that may point towards this conclusion:
- Apple: makes money from selling you hardware; they don't really need your data, since they already made their money off you. Google: makes money from selling your information to ad companies; grabbing as much of your data as they can is the core of their business model.
- Apple: blocks trackers from their browser. Google: blocks other companies' ads in their browser, while expanding their tracking of you.
- Apple: doesn't track you over multiple web sites, nor does it buy credit card transaction data from banks. Google: does.
- Apple: has blocked its own ad team from using customer data collected via iTunes. Google: you got to be kidding me
I mean, are you arguing that language should never change or evolve
Nobody argues this. However many of those changes are politically driven, and used to spin and confuse discussion of various matters. Examples on each side: the right introduced the politically charged term "death tax" to replace the correct "inheritance tax". The left introduced "undocumented immigrants" replacing the more correct "illegal immigrants". The right calls a anti-abortion position "pro-life"; this is spin, because the "pro-life" position doesn't extend for example to being against the death penalty. The left has recently started calling rape victims "survivors" - because, albeit incorrect, it's much more emotionally charged. I would argue this kind of change should stop.
do you just not like respecting someone's wishes about their identity?
There is no absolute rule to respect somebody's wishes on any matter. It's generally nice, but making it the rigid basis of a code of conduct, as seems to happen here, is deeply wrong. That they'll get offended is absolutely not an argument, no matter what some on the left seem to think. For example, many muslims wish women would stay in the home, and only venture out accompanied by a male relative. I have no respect for their wish.
The same applies to identity-related choices: respect depends on context. For example, if somebody changes his name to hide some past acts, they surely don't wish their old name to be known; however, discovering, using and/or making the old name public may be the correct choice.
Yeah, in my experience public transportation takes me from places where I'm not to places I don't want to go...
Even in Norway, a woman can't just walk in and get a breast enlargement anytime she wants, and expect someone else to pay for it.
If I understand you correctly, you say that because - I quote - "any treatment, on demand, at anytime, for free" isn't supported by any country's medical system, therefore no country's medical system is better than the American one. Even with your disclaimer, this is a terrible argument, on many levels.
First, you should really understand the difference between "needed" and "wanted". Nobody ever said a single payer health system would support wants - as you say, "any treatment, on demand, at anytime, for free". Public health care is supposed to cover needs: prevention, medically necessary procedures, cost of catastrophic illness. As an aside, I find it interesting that similarly flawed arguments are brought against UBI: some opponents also (intentionally?) confuse "want" and "need" and argue that UBI is unsustainable because the government would be obliged to give everybody a mansion and a Ferrari, for free.
Second, that any healthcare system in any country can't provide anything and everything doesn't mean they aren't better than the American one. It's a documented fact that on the whole, Americans pay more for healthcare and get less than pretty much any other developed country. Pointing at flaws in Norway or wherever while ignoring the larger issues here looks like a distraction, not an argument.
I like having a sports car, in that every time I get in and turn the ignition...I'm ready for an adventure.
And then you drive down to the store for milk and hot dog buns - but dashingly.
There is, much as we ego-centric people dislike it.
If nobody died, the planet would be even more overrun with us than currently. Imagine the population crisis then!
I'm not so much concerned with everyone else, I want ME to live on.
You don't get it. GP is asking you nicely to die so he can breed more. How can you say no to such an altruistic sentiment?
Once they know everything about you, what's left to innovate?
But this is precisely when real innovation begins: understand that knowledge is power, and once they know everything about you they have power over you. They can use all this knowledge to start influencing you in the directions that make them the most money.
They'll know when you're feeling hungry, so they'll show you an ad from the local restaurant that has a GoogleInfluence account with them. Is your car getting old? Stories about accidents involving the exact model you're driving will somehow start floating up in your Google news feed - and also, positive stories about whichever auto manufacturer pays Google. Are you feeling under the weather? They'll know the precise moment and the precise formulation to use to get you to buy some fake medicine - from somebody who happens to pay them. If you've been searching for TV reviews on Google, next time you drive back home, using Google Maps to avoid traffic, they may reroute you slightly so you drive past a TV store that happens to be one of their clients as well. Or, for a darker possibility, when the personal spy assistant you so kindly planted in your own home lets them know you just had a fight with your wife, they may show you inflammatory social media stories and gun ads - and get their payola from Mrs. Smith and Wesson. And of course, once the politicos get wind of this, expect to be given exactly the right amount of personalized "news" that will maximize the chances to get you to vote in the direction desired by the customer paying Google.
As you see, once they know all your secrets opportunities for innovation become almost boundless.