All user's torrent servers should present an NDA and disclaimer to the effect:
"Before connecting with this machine you attest to the fact that you are not downloading anything that you may find that you do not have the legal right to access.
You further more state under oath that any and all activity on this connection is legal as well as private and confidential.
Any and all legal issues arising from your activity are solely your responsibility
Lastly, you indemnify the operator of this torrent server against any and all legal actions for your activity."
a sociopath That is a scientific term with specific meaning. I have seen no evidence that he is.
must be imprisoned for life Why? We let lots of murderers go after only a few years. Hell, you'll get more jail time for selling pot than you will for murder.
Oh, and if you do include yourself amongst those who might even consider killing someone over a spurt of fury or over a great disappointment, then you have serious issues my friend. I recommend a group of good mental health professionals.
Sorry to say it dude, crimes of passion are in the human genome and there is nothing you can do about it. Want proof? Ask any parent if they could kill someone who harms their children. I know I could. If anyone touched my son or daughter, there wouldn't be enough left to identify.
I used to be afraid of big dogs, I was bitten by a german sheppard when I was a kid. So, I generally avoided them. One day, I was with my son in the park and a couple loose dogs were growling, fighting, and coming toward us. Instinctively I put myself between my son and the dogs, I had to kick one in the mouth before they ran away.
This is a true story, and I tell you, it makes no difference if it is dogs or people, if its your children, you'd kill.
Since we all have the capability of murder, we have to gear our prosecution on the motivations. Self defense, perfectly understandable. Fit of rage? not as bad as cold hearted killer.
And still his fans make excuse for him. You really are pathetic.
Actually, I don't even like ReiserFS or care about Hans at all.
Had it coming?
I didn't say that.
Nobody ever has murder coming. In a dry historical sense, a wife who cheats on her husband has pretty much been a death sentence in many cultures for centuries.
Listen, if you want to be impassioned or enraged, good for you. Personally, I don't care. This is just a "thought experiment," sometimes it is useful to think about things, in a purely scientific manner, that most people get emotional about.
A cheating wife and a husband who kills is not news. It happens every day. It is sad and tragic and one can not help thinking about the kids, but, right or wrong, we consider the state of mind of the killer for sentencing.
To me, a guy who kills a specific person because of an egregious injury, i.e. cheating spouse, out of anger or fear is less of a danger to society than a person who will shoot a complete stranger for mere money.
That being said, every human being is capable of murder given the right circumstances. At issue is the circumstances.
What part of "I can't say the woman had it coming" wasn't clear?
A crime of passion is a troubling thing. It has nothing to do with intellect. In the case of a woman having an affair, that has always been a dangerous thing in human history.
Understanding what happened and being sympathetic to a man for infidelity and betrayal by his wife is not the same thing as excusing murder.
'm just curious... what would you accept as proof of a creator? Or rather what would you expect to be different?
LOL, proof is often made up of facts. It can be made up of a coherent theory that both explains current observations and makes verifiable predictions.
There are two possibilities:
(1) God can affect the universe in ways that can not be explained. That would provide proof that there is a "god" or god-like being. "Q" from TNG comes to mind.
(2) God can not affect the universe outside the laws that govern it, and thus there can be no proof of god.
Given these two possibilities "god" or religion is meaningless. If it is #1, there doesn't seem to be any indication of god, so there is no god. If it is #2, it doesn't matter if there is a god or not because it doesn't seem that he/she/it could make a difference.
We nerds and geeks have real issues with interpersonal relationships. We spend so much intellectual focus on concrete matters that the ambiguities and unsolvable problems of relationships seem almost alien and impossible with which to cope.
If the stated facts are true, she was having an affair and embezzled money from the company. People have killed and have been killed for less.
What makes it hard is that Hans didn't watch enough CSI or Columbo to get away with it. The two kids losing their mom is tragic. I can't say the woman had it coming, but everyone knows that sort of behavior triggers primal and violent reactions. How enraged would you be?
I hate making tough decisions.....I'll go with waiting for science to get all the facts right and remove political/personal agendas.
As well reasoned as this opinion may seem, it is either an unconscious or willful tactic to ignore the actual science by discrediting the the perceived personal agendas. It is not really any different from the "Ad Homonem."
Science will *never* get all the facts 100% right at a static point in time, because technology is ever advancing. You will never eliminate personal agendas because we are human beings.
There is a similarity between religious "creationists" and the global warming opponents.
For evolution, the evidence is undeniable. Do we know the exact evolutionary path every species, including ourselves, has taken? No. Does that mean we did not evolved? No. The creationists will target any assumed or exploitable "gap" as hard proof that evolution is false.
The irony is that there is *NO* proof of a god creator. Were the creationists to apply the same logical discipline to their own position, they could not help but discard it.
The same is happening on the global warming issue. It is a proven fact that global warming is happening. There is very strong evidence that it is due to carbon fuels and other activities of man.
What makes it difficult or impossible to argue with someone who wishes not to accept is that there are coincidental natural events like the "carbon cycle," ice ages, and other phenomena. The global warming deniers seize on these to create FUD around the issue.
Like the creationists, if they spend as much intellectual effort trying to understand the issue instead of trying to create plausible loophole arguments, maybe we could make some decisions and fix the problems.
It is not helpful to always re-debate the established facts. What we need to debate and study are the effects. Really try to fully understand the causes of global warming. Is it a natural thing? The evidence suggests otherwise. The anti global warming people have to research the issue and provide as much proof that it is cause by a natural process that the global warming people have provided that it is cause by us.
Even if it is a natural thing, it doesn't mean its something we want to happen.
Re:It makes a lot of sense, surprised people notic
on
Acer Bets Big On Linux
·
· Score: 1
ok so everything the government/courts say is always correct right?
NO, there has been a LONG debate and a LONG history. The issues have long been settled in multiple legal venues under multiple judges with different counsel, as well as by independent parties.
They only one, it seems, that does not think Microsoft is a monopoly, is, of course, Microsoft.
Re:It makes a lot of sense, surprised people notic
on
Acer Bets Big On Linux
·
· Score: 1
well the courts also aquitted OJ.
A Jury acquitted O.J. not the court or the judge.
regardless, i don't care if they legally are a monopoly or not.
This is the fundamental core of the discussion and to disregard it means that no amount of reason will be accepted. The matter is settled, Microsoft has a monopoly and it there is an excessively high barrier for competitors.
There can be no reasonable debate if the facts are ignored. I am sick of endlessly debating established facts, its a waste of time and a distraction from a real discussion.
Sorry Ruby fans, the problem with this is that it is intended to add "distinction" to MSIE. OK, how is that a bad thing?
Microsoft's monopoly control over personal computers allows it to do things that other companies couldn't do.
If they introduce this on their monopoly platform, then web site designers who drink the MS koolaid start using it. Violla! anti-competition, people HAVE to use Windows to use those sites. Unless and until Firefox, Safari, or Opra support this brain dead feature.
Any other company, with REAL competition, would make its support for the standards better, not try to introduce new standards.
The web is supposed to be based on standards by which *everyone* can communicate. Microsoft has been trying to use its monopoly position for too long to stop this and proprietize internet protocols and formats. This is just one more attempt to build even more lock-in to IE.
This time they are using gung-ho Ruby developers to help them. I hope, but am not confident, that the ruby guys see the trap.
Re:It makes a lot of sense, surprised people notic
on
Acer Bets Big On Linux
·
· Score: 1
"Is this your first time here?"
No, but I grow tired of this tactic that has seemed to be perfected that last several years. Never ending debate is a useful tool for slowing or completely halting progress especially when the status quo needs to be corrected. We need to be able to make decisions and move on to action, not eternally debate them and do nothing.
There is no real debate that Microsoft has monopoly control over the commodity PC OS and "office" application market. However, to do anything about it, means that someone is going to try to force the WHOLE debate be reiterated for each and every proposed correction. It is a great way for the criminals to continue what they are doing while the agencies who would do something about it get bogged down in policy.
Re:It makes a lot of sense, surprised people notic
on
Acer Bets Big On Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't care that they've been legally found guilty of being a monopoly. They aren't.
It is not a useful use of anyone's time to debate an issue long decided with a person who does not accept facts.
Nonetheless - it was AdSense that powered 'em to the top. Without AdSense, you wouldn't ever have been Google.
My point was that FAST stopped even before that point. Who can say FAST would not have build on the better functionality of the web search, and built more revenue from ads, which would have necessitated their own add engine, which they would have sold public access.
FAST failed because it didn't see the future. And that goes back to my original assertion, management screwed up.
Re:It makes a lot of sense, surprised people notic
on
Acer Bets Big On Linux
·
· Score: 1
They don't have a monopoly.
Sorry, delusional denial does not count for reason. Microsoft *has* a monopoly.
A *monopoly* in legal terms has never meant 100%, it has always been about having such a large share of a market that a company can exercise control of the market beyond normal capitalistic forces.
We do have real competition. Right now. Oh! cool, I'll go to a store and buy a laptop with BeOS or Linux. But I can't. I have no choice.
It's like buying a TV that only gets HBO. Why does the TV HAVE to come with HBO?
Microsoft has been found, in multiple legal venues, of illegally maintaining their monopoly on commodity personal computer systems. That fact is not up for debate.
Re:It makes a lot of sense, surprised people notic
on
Acer Bets Big On Linux
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft Word has DOC, and it is an undisputed industry standard. And that is one of the main reasons why a lot of people, and therefore a lot of computer manufacturers stick to Windows. An ISO standard is nothing if it is not followed by the industry.
People are waking up to the fact that "their" documents need to be under "their" control, not that of a pay to play monopoly. A lot of business and governments are understandably worried that documents created as recently as 10 to 15 years ago are in a format that is both undocumented and unsupported.
If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to enumerate it.
Google was making money with ads on their search before their "AdSense" system.
Re:It makes a lot of sense, surprised people notic
on
Acer Bets Big On Linux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It might have something to do with..... their customers not wanting it.
I haven't seen any credible study or statistic that indicates that people want windows.
People may be used to it, but they don't *choose* it, per se' People *choose* Macintosh, but since Microsoft has a monopoly, one can only view a windows purchase as acceptance of the default.
When we have real competition in the market place, we can start studying what people really want.
It makes a lot of sense, surprised people noticed
on
Acer Bets Big On Linux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Linux is VERY customizable and can be trimmed down to a very small kernel. The number of utilities installed can be reduced as well. OS features not used, need not run.
On a laptop, Linux makes sense because if it has nothing to do, it sleeps. Windows, like rust, never sleeps. CPUs really do run cooler on Linux with a lower load.
Linux is free. It can be adjusted to fit your hardware. OpenOffice.org has ODF and it is an undisputed ISO standard. Linux plays nice on almost all networks.
It's been years since **any** OS has taken minutes to boot up on modern hardware. My Vista notebook, XP x64 desktop, both are up and running in under 30 seconds.
The thing I notice about Windows is that it *looks* like it is up and running, but it takes another minute or two before it actually does anything.
From a legal point of view, I would say this is clearly something that the source web sites can sue over.
Insertion or replacement of advertising is vandalism, which is a criminal act.
It is probably arguable as product tampering.
I would say that even if the ISP has an agreement with the end user (overlooked in the small print) that allows this, they need to properly compensate the originating web site. These hijacked ads represent an improper interference of lawful business practices of the web site, i.e. providing a service sponsored by advertisement. By hijacking the ads, they deprive the website of earned revenue, which is theft.
bit for bit the best and most relevant search of the time. We went head to head with Google and we *HAD* better results with fewer duplicates.
FAST could have been Google, it was better, but the upper management decided there was no real money to be made in web search.
Alas, no matter how smart the engineers, or how good the technology, stupid management can screw up a free lunch. Unfortunately, win or lose, they *ALWAYS* get the pay off.
I can't help but find it humorous how you just did what you said no one can do. I guess you must have some mighty fine tinfoil.
Yea, it makes for a humorous quip, I'll grant you. There are real issues of free speech being threatened these days that even skeptics can't ignore.
People being arrested or fired from their job for protesting the war on their own time. SLAPP suits by corporations.
Look around, loathsome as she is, Rachael Ray's commercial was pulled because of a scarf. WTF?
Anyone who expresses anything you dislike can be intimidated into shutting up. I said it before, you threaten a man's life, he'll fight you. You threaten his future, he'll acquiesce.
The overlords don't use prisons anymore. Prisons are expensive. They use poverty, because poverty is worse than prison. In prison you get food, shelter, and health care. In poverty you become obscure, powerless, and sick.
Is it no surprise that, as people learn, government and business are monitoring and tracking them they modify their behavior?
It's working. People are afraid to communicate, talk only in closets, and while we claim "free speech" we dare not exercise it because of the terrible consequences of daring to say something unpopular, "anti-government," or "anti-corporation."
We now all live in soviet union where corporate/government kgb punishes you for offenses of opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
First, all torrents should be encrypted.
All user's torrent servers should present an NDA and disclaimer to the effect:
"Before connecting with this machine you attest to the fact that you are not downloading anything that you may find that you do not have the legal right to access.
You further more state under oath that any and all activity on this connection is legal as well as private and confidential.
Any and all legal issues arising from your activity are solely your responsibility
Lastly, you indemnify the operator of this torrent server against any and all legal actions for your activity."
yes or no.
He is a murderer
No disagreement there.
a sociopath
That is a scientific term with specific meaning. I have seen no evidence that he is.
must be imprisoned for life
Why? We let lots of murderers go after only a few years. Hell, you'll get more jail time for selling pot than you will for murder.
Oh, and if you do include yourself amongst those who might even consider killing someone over a spurt of fury or over a great disappointment, then you have serious issues my friend. I recommend a group of good mental health professionals.
Sorry to say it dude, crimes of passion are in the human genome and there is nothing you can do about it. Want proof? Ask any parent if they could kill someone who harms their children. I know I could. If anyone touched my son or daughter, there wouldn't be enough left to identify.
I used to be afraid of big dogs, I was bitten by a german sheppard when I was a kid. So, I generally avoided them. One day, I was with my son in the park and a couple loose dogs were growling, fighting, and coming toward us. Instinctively I put myself between my son and the dogs, I had to kick one in the mouth before they ran away.
This is a true story, and I tell you, it makes no difference if it is dogs or people, if its your children, you'd kill.
Since we all have the capability of murder, we have to gear our prosecution on the motivations. Self defense, perfectly understandable. Fit of rage? not as bad as cold hearted killer.
And still his fans make excuse for him. You really are pathetic.
Actually, I don't even like ReiserFS or care about Hans at all.
Had it coming?
I didn't say that.
Nobody ever has murder coming.
In a dry historical sense, a wife who cheats on her husband has pretty much been a death sentence in many cultures for centuries.
Listen, if you want to be impassioned or enraged, good for you. Personally, I don't care. This is just a "thought experiment," sometimes it is useful to think about things, in a purely scientific manner, that most people get emotional about.
A cheating wife and a husband who kills is not news. It happens every day. It is sad and tragic and one can not help thinking about the kids, but, right or wrong, we consider the state of mind of the killer for sentencing.
To me, a guy who kills a specific person because of an egregious injury, i.e. cheating spouse, out of anger or fear is less of a danger to society than a person who will shoot a complete stranger for mere money.
That being said, every human being is capable of murder given the right circumstances. At issue is the circumstances.
What part of "I can't say the woman had it coming" wasn't clear?
A crime of passion is a troubling thing. It has nothing to do with intellect. In the case of a woman having an affair, that has always been a dangerous thing in human history.
Understanding what happened and being sympathetic to a man for infidelity and betrayal by his wife is not the same thing as excusing murder.
'm just curious ... what would you accept as proof of a creator? Or rather what would you expect to be different?
LOL, proof is often made up of facts. It can be made up of a coherent theory that both explains current observations and makes verifiable predictions.
There are two possibilities:
(1) God can affect the universe in ways that can not be explained. That would provide proof that there is a "god" or god-like being. "Q" from TNG comes to mind.
(2) God can not affect the universe outside the laws that govern it, and thus there can be no proof of god.
Given these two possibilities "god" or religion is meaningless. If it is #1, there doesn't seem to be any indication of god, so there is no god. If it is #2, it doesn't matter if there is a god or not because it doesn't seem that he/she/it could make a difference.
Poor Hans.
We nerds and geeks have real issues with interpersonal relationships. We spend so much intellectual focus on concrete matters that the ambiguities and unsolvable problems of relationships seem almost alien and impossible with which to cope.
If the stated facts are true, she was having an affair and embezzled money from the company. People have killed and have been killed for less.
What makes it hard is that Hans didn't watch enough CSI or Columbo to get away with it. The two kids losing their mom is tragic. I can't say the woman had it coming, but everyone knows that sort of behavior triggers primal and violent reactions. How enraged would you be?
Its certainly murder, but not 1st degree.
I hate making tough decisions.....I'll go with waiting for science to get all the facts right and remove political/personal agendas.
As well reasoned as this opinion may seem, it is either an unconscious or willful tactic to ignore the actual science by discrediting the the perceived personal agendas. It is not really any different from the "Ad Homonem."
Science will *never* get all the facts 100% right at a static point in time, because technology is ever advancing. You will never eliminate personal agendas because we are human beings.
There is a similarity between religious "creationists" and the global warming opponents.
For evolution, the evidence is undeniable. Do we know the exact evolutionary path every species, including ourselves, has taken? No. Does that mean we did not evolved? No. The creationists will target any assumed or exploitable "gap" as hard proof that evolution is false.
The irony is that there is *NO* proof of a god creator. Were the creationists to apply the same logical discipline to their own position, they could not help but discard it.
The same is happening on the global warming issue. It is a proven fact that global warming is happening. There is very strong evidence that it is due to carbon fuels and other activities of man.
What makes it difficult or impossible to argue with someone who wishes not to accept is that there are coincidental natural events like the "carbon cycle," ice ages, and other phenomena. The global warming deniers seize on these to create FUD around the issue.
Like the creationists, if they spend as much intellectual effort trying to understand the issue instead of trying to create plausible loophole arguments, maybe we could make some decisions and fix the problems.
It is not helpful to always re-debate the established facts. What we need to debate and study are the effects. Really try to fully understand the causes of global warming. Is it a natural thing? The evidence suggests otherwise. The anti global warming people have to research the issue and provide as much proof that it is cause by a natural process that the global warming people have provided that it is cause by us.
Even if it is a natural thing, it doesn't mean its something we want to happen.
ok so everything the government/courts say is always correct right?
NO, there has been a LONG debate and a LONG history. The issues have long been settled in multiple legal venues under multiple judges with different counsel, as well as by independent parties.
They only one, it seems, that does not think Microsoft is a monopoly, is, of course, Microsoft.
well the courts also aquitted OJ.
A Jury acquitted O.J. not the court or the judge.
regardless, i don't care if they legally are a monopoly or not.
This is the fundamental core of the discussion and to disregard it means that no amount of reason will be accepted. The matter is settled, Microsoft has a monopoly and it there is an excessively high barrier for competitors.
There can be no reasonable debate if the facts are ignored. I am sick of endlessly debating established facts, its a waste of time and a distraction from a real discussion.
Sorry Ruby fans, the problem with this is that it is intended to add "distinction" to MSIE. OK, how is that a bad thing?
Microsoft's monopoly control over personal computers allows it to do things that other companies couldn't do.
If they introduce this on their monopoly platform, then web site designers who drink the MS koolaid start using it. Violla! anti-competition, people HAVE to use Windows to use those sites. Unless and until Firefox, Safari, or Opra support this brain dead feature.
Any other company, with REAL competition, would make its support for the standards better, not try to introduce new standards.
The web is supposed to be based on standards by which *everyone* can communicate. Microsoft has been trying to use its monopoly position for too long to stop this and proprietize internet protocols and formats. This is just one more attempt to build even more lock-in to IE.
This time they are using gung-ho Ruby developers to help them. I hope, but am not confident, that the ruby guys see the trap.
"Is this your first time here?"
No, but I grow tired of this tactic that has seemed to be perfected that last several years. Never ending debate is a useful tool for slowing or completely halting progress especially when the status quo needs to be corrected. We need to be able to make decisions and move on to action, not eternally debate them and do nothing.
There is no real debate that Microsoft has monopoly control over the commodity PC OS and "office" application market. However, to do anything about it, means that someone is going to try to force the WHOLE debate be reiterated for each and every proposed correction. It is a great way for the criminals to continue what they are doing while the agencies who would do something about it get bogged down in policy.
I don't care that they've been legally found guilty of being a monopoly. They aren't.
It is not a useful use of anyone's time to debate an issue long decided with a person who does not accept facts.
What do you mean?
HLT
Nonetheless - it was AdSense that powered 'em to the top. Without AdSense, you wouldn't ever have been Google.
My point was that FAST stopped even before that point. Who can say FAST would not have build on the better functionality of the web search, and built more revenue from ads, which would have necessitated their own add engine, which they would have sold public access.
FAST failed because it didn't see the future. And that goes back to my original assertion, management screwed up.
They don't have a monopoly.
Sorry, delusional denial does not count for reason. Microsoft *has* a monopoly.
A *monopoly* in legal terms has never meant 100%, it has always been about having such a large share of a market that a company can exercise control of the market beyond normal capitalistic forces.
We do have real competition. Right now.
Oh! cool, I'll go to a store and buy a laptop with BeOS or Linux. But I can't. I have no choice.
It's like buying a TV that only gets HBO. Why does the TV HAVE to come with HBO?
Microsoft has been found, in multiple legal venues, of illegally maintaining their monopoly on commodity personal computer systems. That fact is not up for debate.
Microsoft Word has DOC, and it is an undisputed industry standard. And that is one of the main reasons why a lot of people, and therefore a lot of computer manufacturers stick to Windows. An ISO standard is nothing if it is not followed by the industry.
People are waking up to the fact that "their" documents need to be under "their" control, not that of a pay to play monopoly. A lot of business and governments are understandably worried that documents created as recently as 10 to 15 years ago are in a format that is both undocumented and unsupported.
If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to enumerate it.
Google was making money with ads on their search before their "AdSense" system.
It might have something to do with ..... their customers not wanting it.
I haven't seen any credible study or statistic that indicates that people want windows.
People may be used to it, but they don't *choose* it, per se' People *choose* Macintosh, but since Microsoft has a monopoly, one can only view a windows purchase as acceptance of the default.
When we have real competition in the market place, we can start studying what people really want.
Linux is VERY customizable and can be trimmed down to a very small kernel. The number of utilities installed can be reduced as well. OS features not used, need not run.
On a laptop, Linux makes sense because if it has nothing to do, it sleeps. Windows, like rust, never sleeps. CPUs really do run cooler on Linux with a lower load.
Linux is free. It can be adjusted to fit your hardware. OpenOffice.org has ODF and it is an undisputed ISO standard. Linux plays nice on almost all networks.
Why WOULDN'T a company put this OS on a laptop?
It's been years since **any** OS has taken minutes to boot up on modern hardware. My Vista notebook, XP x64 desktop, both are up and running in under 30 seconds.
The thing I notice about Windows is that it *looks* like it is up and running, but it takes another minute or two before it actually does anything.
When google filed IPO documents people finally understood how HUGE web advertising was.
Agreed, but FAST gave up WAY before then.
From a legal point of view, I would say this is clearly something that the source web sites can sue over.
Insertion or replacement of advertising is vandalism, which is a criminal act.
It is probably arguable as product tampering.
I would say that even if the ISP has an agreement with the end user (overlooked in the small print) that allows this, they need to properly compensate the originating web site. These hijacked ads represent an improper interference of lawful business practices of the web site, i.e. providing a service sponsored by advertisement. By hijacking the ads, they deprive the website of earned revenue, which is theft.
bit for bit the best and most relevant search of the time. We went head to head with Google and we *HAD* better results with fewer duplicates.
FAST could have been Google, it was better, but the upper management decided there was no real money to be made in web search.
Alas, no matter how smart the engineers, or how good the technology, stupid management can screw up a free lunch. Unfortunately, win or lose, they *ALWAYS* get the pay off.
I can't help but find it humorous how you just did what you said no one can do. I guess you must have some mighty fine tinfoil.
Yea, it makes for a humorous quip, I'll grant you. There are real issues of free speech being threatened these days that even skeptics can't ignore.
People being arrested or fired from their job for protesting the war on their own time. SLAPP suits by corporations.
Look around, loathsome as she is, Rachael Ray's commercial was pulled because of a scarf. WTF?
Anyone who expresses anything you dislike can be intimidated into shutting up. I said it before, you threaten a man's life, he'll fight you. You threaten his future, he'll acquiesce.
The overlords don't use prisons anymore. Prisons are expensive. They use poverty, because poverty is worse than prison. In prison you get food, shelter, and health care. In poverty you become obscure, powerless, and sick.
Is it no surprise that, as people learn, government and business are monitoring and tracking them they modify their behavior?
It's working. People are afraid to communicate, talk only in closets, and while we claim "free speech" we dare not exercise it because of the terrible consequences of daring to say something unpopular, "anti-government," or "anti-corporation."
We now all live in soviet union where corporate/government kgb punishes you for offenses of opinion.