You'd be shocked at how many cookies come from facebook across multiple sites. I use an extension called Ghostery (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ghostery/) to block most of them.
I use Ghostery plus RequestPolicy which gives you control over every single external request that a web page makes. It is like a noscript for cross-site references of any kind.
You specified that *all* records were deleted - which means there's no record of it being borrowed. But getting details wrong is typical when you make stuff up.
Lol. Pedantry, the first refuge of the internet idiot.
He's tired of fighting The Man, so he's going to set up a new ISP which will let him fight The Man even more? That doesn't even begin to approach making sense.
Complying with these sorts of requests is costly, particularly for a little guy. So by not collecting the data in the first place they save themselves a lot of work. It is far easier to say flat out, "sorry we don't have that information" than it is to go dig through months or even years of logs.
If more companies would see it as a way to save money, we might actually start to get corporate interests aligned with personal privacy again.
Its actually quite ingenious... He's going to create an ISP where it is much-more-difficult to compromise a users privacy. They're designing it from the ground up to be PATRIOT-Act proof because it will literally be impossible for them to give the feds the data they want. It is fewer fights, but may amount to one HUGE fight with the biggest gorilla on earth, the U.S. Justice Department.
It is not without precedent. After the PATRIOT Act made it legal to for the feds to confiscate book borrowing records from libraries without even a warrant, most libraries switched over to lending software that deleted all records once a book was returned. So, at worst, the feds could find out what a patron currently had checked out, but no borrowing history was available to anyone.
As far as I know, the DOJ hasn't tried, at least in court, to make a library use a less privacy-preserving system.
Because a phone is useless without a contract? Why are you people so obsessed with getting a phone that you can't use to call people on?
Because wifi is ubiquitus in urban areas. Hell, if you are (un)lucky enough to have time-warner cable as your ISP chances are you have "free" city-wide wifi available to you too. Even if you don't have time-warner there is almost always an open wifi you can hop on near by.
You're saying a guy should be fired because he said the same shit blacks say, only he switched the words "black" and "white". That means you support their racist bullshit or else you'd have been screaming for the blacks to be punished as well.
Come on you racist shitlicker. Where is your proof? Ah, you won't be posting anything because you have nothing. All you are is a bitter little coward who can't handle the loss of unearned privilege.
Do you remember when they fired all their knowledgeable long-term floor sales staff because they were "too expensive?"
That was Circuit City not BBY. BBY never had that problem in the first place because they never really paid senior staff much of a premium to begin with and consequently they've pretty much always sucked.
Actually, stores aren't required to take returns - if an item is defective it's the manufacturer's responsibility to honor the warranty.
No. You have that exactly backwards. At least in the USA. That is how companies like Denon get away with refusing warranty service on grey-market goods. They don't have to provide a warranty and they use it as a way to do price-protection for their authorized dealers. (Never mind that it is usually an authorized dealer that is responsible for the units making it out to the grey market it in the first place...)
You know damn well if a black had written that article and it was saying the same thing about whites, people like you would be cheering them for posting their racist comments.
Fuck you. See that sig down there? It doesn't have any exceptions. You want me to be a hypocrite so that you can justify your own bigotry, it calms the cognitive dissonace eating at the edges of your self-condidence. In the long run you'd be a lot better of with a healthy dose of introspection.
No, the emphasis was on the part where he said there was no way to get away from "these facts". He said nothing about his thoughts or emotions there.
Lol. Off you go on some grammar parsing mission completely ignoring the point of the words themselves - that those "facts" are even worth mentioning in a serious conversation. Sure, lets put that paragraph break right in there. It still doesn't change his point - that it is legitimate to fear people simply because you think they are muslim.
But more important is there isn't anyone to 'fire' him. He owns the company. So all his opponents could do was attack his advertisers and the network of stations which carry his program.
And 2 out hundreds of stations, dropped him He got a slap on the wrist.
And yes, I'll go there: If the crazy girl is really going through a thousand dollars a year in contraceptives she has to be f*cking like a porn star.
5-1 against that you listened to what SHE said.
And female contraceptives don't even work that way. Why so oblivious and so proud of it?
You appear to be claiming that "liberals" always get away with murder and "conversavtives" don't. The problem here is the "always" part. Rather is a counter-example as is Limbaugh and his slut-tirade. So what if Roland Martin got a slap on the wrist? NPR fired their head of fund-raising for privately saying he thought the tea party were a bunch of kooks, and then they went on to fire their CEO in the fall-out. Meanwhile Ann Coulter non-ironically says things like "camel jockey" and "raghead" and doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.
What you've got is a case of confirmation bias. Some people get fired, some don't on all sides.
I'll admit to not having the whole context around the statement, but from what I see he never claimed any of those thoughts were fair to the person in question.
Here's the quote in context:
"I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."
Emphasis on the part where he says that those thoughts are fair.
BTW, no one who has ever bombed an american airplane was wearing "muslim garb" which is itself a non-sequitur as there isn't one piece of clothing that a muslim might wear that isn't also worn by non-muslims. Even burqas.
There are many ways to silence someone. Fear and intimidation is one of them, and it's a big deal to lose your job.
Sure, but that's not what happened here. He lost A job, he's clearly got other people willing to pay for his rantings, places like Taki for one.
And it is more than a ltiile hypocritical for a news orginization that champions free speech and enjoys first ammendment protections not to extend those same types of privileges to people working for them.
Baloney. It's called editorial policy. You want to make a stand for free speech? Then go and complain when some place that doesn't actually have a point of view, like youtube or facebook refuses to republish someone's obnoxious bullshit.
Just the same way you claim this man is wrong for speaking his (intolerant) mind, you are wrong to say he should be silenced.
You really are grasping at straws. He wasn't silenced. Nobody is stopping him from expressing his opinion. What happened is that people who don't like his opinion stopped helping him to spread it.
None of us should be totally ok with a man losing his job over an opinion he holds.
When his job is to represent certain opinions there is absolutely no hypocrisy in him losing his job for expressing an opinion that undermines the opnions he is paid to represent.
it's becoming more and more obvious that hybrids are destined to be a short-lived stepping stone and not the long-term solution to our oil and pollution problems
Yes because an electric car can really carry me 150 miles per day on my work commute. (Not.)
What you really mean is "because an electric car can really carry me up the 15 steps from the basement to my mother's kitchen. (Not!)"
I'd buy a diesel again in a heart beat. I get 40 miles to the gallon city in my Volkswagen Sportswagen. And diesel is 30 cents cheaper a gallon than petrol.
People who use the word "petrol" often have a larger size gallon than people who say "gas." If you are one of those people then you are getting closer to 35 miles to the gallon of most slashdot readers.
The reality is you should tolerate some things and not tolerate others. A blanket enthusiasm for tolerance is completely unwarranted and nonsensical. Do you think you should tolerate rape, or murder, or theft, or any number of other things that are almost universally understood as bad? You're simply holding up a principle that makes no sense.
Wow. Just wow.
How could you be so completely ignorant of the context here? After all the entire story is about bigotry. Nobody with a shred of intellectual honesty could read his post and come away with the idea that he's promoting "tolerance" of criminal behaviour.
Just what were you thinking? Were you trying to score points with the pedant police or something?
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be shocked at how many cookies come from facebook across multiple sites. I use an extension called Ghostery (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ghostery/) to block most of them.
I use Ghostery plus RequestPolicy which gives you control over every single external request that a web page makes. It is like a noscript for cross-site references of any kind.
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't everyone do this?
Yep, pretty much every one does do that.
Where they tend to differ is in their particular definitions of "do."
Woah! You totally went meta on his ass.
You specified that *all* records were deleted - which means there's no record of it being borrowed. But getting details wrong is typical when you make stuff up.
Lol. Pedantry, the first refuge of the internet idiot.
Google it yourself.
But I will point out that your objection is specious. Budgeting doesn't depend on who borrowed a book, only that it was borrowed.
He's tired of fighting The Man, so he's going to set up a new ISP which will let him fight The Man even more? That doesn't even begin to approach making sense.
Complying with these sorts of requests is costly, particularly for a little guy.
So by not collecting the data in the first place they save themselves a lot of work.
It is far easier to say flat out, "sorry we don't have that information" than it is to go dig through months or even years of logs.
If more companies would see it as a way to save money, we might actually start to get corporate interests aligned with personal privacy again.
Its actually quite ingenious... He's going to create an ISP where it is much-more-difficult to compromise a users privacy. They're designing it from the ground up to be PATRIOT-Act proof because it will literally be impossible for them to give the feds the data they want. It is fewer fights, but may amount to one HUGE fight with the biggest gorilla on earth, the U.S. Justice Department.
It is not without precedent. After the PATRIOT Act made it legal to for the feds to confiscate book borrowing records from libraries without even a warrant, most libraries switched over to lending software that deleted all records once a book was returned. So, at worst, the feds could find out what a patron currently had checked out, but no borrowing history was available to anyone.
As far as I know, the DOJ hasn't tried, at least in court, to make a library use a less privacy-preserving system.
Because a phone is useless without a contract? Why are you people so obsessed with getting a phone that you can't use to call people on?
Because wifi is ubiquitus in urban areas. Hell, if you are (un)lucky enough to have time-warner cable as your ISP chances are you have "free" city-wide wifi available to you too. Even if you don't have time-warner there is almost always an open wifi you can hop on near by.
You seem incapable of grasping the basic concept that when you are paid for your opinions, then your opinions determine your suitability for the job.
But whatevers dude, you just keep going around in circles since it obviously makes you feel clever.
You're saying a guy should be fired because he said the same shit blacks say, only he switched the words "black" and "white". That means you support their racist bullshit or else you'd have been screaming for the blacks to be punished as well.
Come on you racist shitlicker. Where is your proof?
Ah, you won't be posting anything because you have nothing.
All you are is a bitter little coward who can't handle the loss of unearned privilege.
You realize the OP was talking about BBY losing billions while TFA was talking about multiple companies - probably ALL US companies in fact.
BBY has roughly $50B/yr in revenue, so it just isn't plausible that they were losing 30%+ of that to return fraud.
Do you remember when they fired all their knowledgeable long-term floor sales staff because they were "too expensive?"
That was Circuit City not BBY. BBY never had that problem in the first place because they never really paid senior staff much of a premium to begin with and consequently they've pretty much always sucked.
Actually, stores aren't required to take returns - if an item is defective it's the manufacturer's responsibility to honor the warranty.
No. You have that exactly backwards. At least in the USA.
That is how companies like Denon get away with refusing warranty service on grey-market goods. They don't have to provide a warranty and they use it as a way to do price-protection for their authorized dealers. (Never mind that it is usually an authorized dealer that is responsible for the units making it out to the grey market it in the first place...)
My favorite is still "by the end of this year, Santorum will be on the lips of every young Republican"
If only it were his campaign's real twitter account:
http://favstar.fm/users/RickSantorumPR
That means you support their racist bullshit or else you'd have been screaming for the blacks to be punished as well.
You show me a black writer in a mainstream publication who has said the same thing with the words black and white switched and I'll call him out too.
Go ahead put your money where your mouth is.
Otherwise, fuck off shitball.
You know damn well if a black had written that article and it was saying the same thing about whites, people like you would be cheering them for posting their racist comments.
Fuck you. See that sig down there? It doesn't have any exceptions.
You want me to be a hypocrite so that you can justify your own bigotry, it calms the cognitive dissonace eating at the edges of your self-condidence. In the long run you'd be a lot better of with a healthy dose of introspection.
No, the emphasis was on the part where he said there was no way to get away from "these facts". He said nothing about his thoughts or emotions there.
Lol. Off you go on some grammar parsing mission completely ignoring the point of the words themselves - that those "facts" are even worth mentioning in a serious conversation. Sure, lets put that paragraph break right in there. It still doesn't change his point - that it is legitimate to fear people simply because you think they are muslim.
But more important is there isn't anyone to 'fire' him. He owns the company. So all his opponents could do was attack his advertisers and the network of stations which carry his program.
And 2 out hundreds of stations, dropped him He got a slap on the wrist.
And yes, I'll go there: If the crazy girl is really going through a thousand dollars a year in contraceptives she has to be f*cking like a porn star.
5-1 against that you listened to what SHE said.
And female contraceptives don't even work that way. Why so oblivious and so proud of it?
You appear to be claiming that "liberals" always get away with murder and "conversavtives" don't. The problem here is the "always" part. Rather is a counter-example as is Limbaugh and his slut-tirade. So what if Roland Martin got a slap on the wrist? NPR fired their head of fund-raising for privately saying he thought the tea party were a bunch of kooks, and then they went on to fire their CEO in the fall-out. Meanwhile Ann Coulter non-ironically says things like "camel jockey" and "raghead" and doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.
What you've got is a case of confirmation bias. Some people get fired, some don't on all sides.
I'll admit to not having the whole context around the statement, but from what I see he never claimed any of those thoughts were fair to the person in question.
Here's the quote in context:
"I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."
Emphasis on the part where he says that those thoughts are fair.
BTW, no one who has ever bombed an american airplane was wearing "muslim garb" which is itself a non-sequitur as there isn't one piece of clothing that a muslim might wear that isn't also worn by non-muslims. Even burqas.
There are many ways to silence someone. Fear and intimidation is one of them,
and it's a big deal to lose your job.
Sure, but that's not what happened here. He lost A job, he's clearly got other people willing to pay for his rantings, places like Taki for one.
And it is more than a ltiile hypocritical for a news orginization that champions free speech and enjoys first ammendment protections not to extend those same types of privileges to people working for them.
Baloney. It's called editorial policy. You want to make a stand for free speech? Then go and complain when some place that doesn't actually have a point of view, like youtube or facebook refuses to republish someone's obnoxious bullshit.
Just the same way you claim this man is wrong for speaking his (intolerant) mind, you are wrong to say he should be silenced.
You really are grasping at straws. He wasn't silenced. Nobody is stopping him from expressing his opinion. What happened is that people who don't like his opinion stopped helping him to spread it.
None of us should be totally ok with a man losing his job over an opinion he holds.
When his job is to represent certain opinions there is absolutely no hypocrisy in him losing his job for expressing an opinion that undermines the opnions he is paid to represent.
it's becoming more and more obvious that hybrids are destined to be a short-lived stepping stone and not the long-term solution to our oil and pollution problems
Yes because an electric car can really carry me 150 miles per day on my work commute. (Not.)
What you really mean is "because an electric car can really carry me up the 15 steps from the basement to my mother's kitchen. (Not!)"
I'd buy a diesel again in a heart beat. I get 40 miles to the gallon city in my Volkswagen Sportswagen. And diesel is 30 cents cheaper a gallon than petrol.
People who use the word "petrol" often have a larger size gallon than people who say "gas."
If you are one of those people then you are getting closer to 35 miles to the gallon of most slashdot readers.
The reality is you should tolerate some things and not tolerate others. A blanket enthusiasm for tolerance is completely unwarranted and nonsensical. Do you think you should tolerate rape, or murder, or theft, or any number of other things that are almost universally understood as bad? You're simply holding up a principle that makes no sense.
Wow. Just wow.
How could you be so completely ignorant of the context here? After all the entire story is about bigotry. Nobody with a shred of intellectual honesty could read his post and come away with the idea that he's promoting "tolerance" of criminal behaviour.
Just what were you thinking? Were you trying to score points with the pedant police or something?