Aggregating public information doesn't suddenly create privacy violations.
So if a stranger snaps your photo with a phone, and from that is able to almost instantly determine your name, home address, employer, career history, significant other's name, automobile registration, and police record, you don't consider that a privacy concern?
What if you decide to attend a protest rally and the police are able to do the same thing without a warrant?
All of that information is public, so perhaps you don't think it's anything to worry about, but I venture that many people would disagree.
But to provide a good user experience, you need unique UIs for each device type.
Yes, but device type != platform, at least the way I read it.
To clarify, the "right thing" according to me would be to develop a "phone" UI that works on both Android phones and iPhones; a "tablet" UI that works on Android tablets and iPads; a "desktop UI" that works on Windows, Mac, and Linux, etc. Contrast with a different implementation for each platform, which I took to mean one UI for iOS phones, one UI for Android phones, etc.
The reality is that a different UI is probably needed for each non-desktop OS/device type pair, due to market fragmentation and lack of open standards. But that's far from a desirable state of affairs.
The implications of this look big enough to concern even the apathetic, non-technical majority. Perhaps this will finally motivate the long-needed policy reform on privacy in the digital age.
If more than one platform needs to be targeted, use a truly portable programming language like Python, or do the right thing and create separate implementations for each platform.
If you seriously advocate creating separate implementations for each platform, then you and I have very different definitions of "the right thing."
Abraham's decision to take Issac to the altar should be universally condemned - killing your own child to appease a powerful figure in your life is never justifiable.
I think your point is good and thought-provoking.
There is a lot of complexity to the story of Abraham, but consider that (in the context of the story), God was not just a powerful figure in Abraham's life, He was a powerful figure in everyone's life, and He was cranky -- later on (in the story) he unleashed the plagues of Egypt, nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So by appeasing the wrath of such a god, could it be that Abraham was trying to save others?
Would you sacrifice your own child to save a hundred of your neighbors? To save a thousand? Where is the tipping point? To call Abraham evil seems a bit facile considering the weight of his decision.
I am not exactly a Biblical scholar, but I believe this is the only instance in the Bible where God calls on someone to kill an innocent. And the whole point of the story is "God does not really want you to kill an innocent person, period."
So if an angel were to appear to me and say "go kill this innocent person," I would be able to reply, "fuck you, you're either an hallucination or the devil in disguise, there is a well-established Biblical precedent that what you're ordering is contrary to God's will." And I could go on to say, if this Abraham story really happened, that may be why God sent Abraham to the mountain in the first place -- to send a message to future generations.
First of all, I have to correct myself. According to Wolfram Alpha, the U.S. poverty rate in 2010 was 12%, with "poverty" defined as annual income at or below $11,139 for a single person. I think we can agree, no matter where you are in the U.S., it is tough to get by on $11K per year.
So I took a look at the poverty level in 1980, and it was $4,190, again for a single person. Adjusting for inflation to 2010 dollars, Wolfram Alpha gives me $11,237. So I disagree with respect to adjusting the definition of poverty: the definition does get adjusted upward, but in fact is increasing a tiny bit slower than inflation, with the net effect that it's basically stable when viewed in inflation-adjusted dollars.
I think where we disagree is that I would support a Constitutional amendment to allow nationalized health care, and I will hazard a guess that you wouldn't. Call me a socialist if you think that fits. But I think also think that lacking a Constitutional amendment, any form of national health care is a violation of the Tenth Amendment and should be thrown out. So we end up in the same place -- wishing bad luck to the Obama administration on this particular court case.
There are things my wishful thinking would like to happen, but I know it cannot due to the nature of the country and the Constitution. I accept that. Too many don't, and think their wishful thinking overrides the Constitution.
Yeah. That mainly becomes a problem when the ones who think their wishful thinking overrides the Constitution belong to the majority party in Congress.:-(
However, if you consider your relationship with the government to be consensual, and individual taxes as being consented to, then there is no theft. But in our current system the individual taxes really don't have much to do with the consent of the people.
Oh, I disagree with that! While I admit that few people carry placards saying "raise taxes now" or words to that effect, the people pretty strongly favor social programs like Social Security and Medicare -- and (less strongly) Obamacare, which brings us back to the original subject. Those programs in turn require a higher tax rate.
So here's a hypothetical question. If a strong majority of the population, say 75%, says we want X for a tax rate, and you want less than X, which is more important: the will of the people, or your individual preference? The upside of a democracy is that you get to influence policy. The downside of a democracy is that your fellow citizens also get to influence policy. It is all well and good to try to sway your fellow citizens around to your point of view, but at the end of the day, if you don't acknowledge their right to impose certain taxes, obligations, and constraints on you, then I have a hard time accepting you as a fellow citizen. Case in point: I think the drinking age is stupid, but I obeyed it when I was underage, because I respect the duly enacted laws passed by the people's representatives. Even when the people are wrong, which, let's face it, is pretty often.
In order for democracy to be tolerable, there have to be limits on what "they the (often-wrong) people" can foist upon you. That, I submit, is what the U.S. Constitution is for.
Taxes are definitely permitted in the Constitution, so I think anyone who disputes the authority of the government to collect taxes is basically undemocratic, a whiner, and a freeloader at heart. Health insurance is not in the Constitution, so as much as I want to fix the mess we call health "care" in this country, I think it's a clear-cut overreach by Obama and the Democrats.
They sound about right. For reference, the total population of the U.S. is ~300 million. Despite decades of social programs we have not been able to get the poverty rate below about 15%.
Wanting less government is a legitimate and defensible, even sensible, position. I want less government, and I am a Northeast urban latte-drinking liberal.
However, I believe the traditional trigger for the Somalia comparison is the polemical (I daresay inflammatory) assertion that "taxes are theft." That sure looks like a call for anarchy to someone who can think through the implications. If there is some nuance in the message that people are missing, maybe try toning down the rhetoric and explaining it.
Libertarianism requires a framework of laws to protect the rights of all parties, and provide for legal recourse should the rights of one party be infringed by another.
And how is that framework achievable, without taxes and police and stuff?
Yeah, I was being snarky and perhaps overly unkind to Microsoft. I never expected to be modded "insightful--" I was hoping for "funny." Often the line between the two is blurry... Anyway, I think the merits of MS Word are debatable (die, ribbon bar, die! die! die!) but PowerPoint is the best software I never want to use. If your boss makes you produce slideware (and mine does), basically, everything else is garbage compared to PowerPoint for features and usability.
I seem to remember the Java thread pool libraries came from the State University of New York at Oswego; now I see that were written by prog. Doug Lea and it looks like they have been absorbed into the Java standard library (java.util.concurrent).
Somehow the idea of international cooperation seems to make sense in the modern era. Although we Americans rightly take pride in the Apollo program, the space race was really a product of the Cold War. It ruled out multilateral efforts because the whole point was a race to beat the Russians. That doesn't make sense today; nation-states don't have the same kind of rivalries. The spirit of "advancement of human civilization" I associate with space exploration does seem more fitting as an international enterprise. It gives me a warm fuzzy.
That said, the reality of international undertakings tends to fall short of what I consider ideal.
The first sentence of TFA says this is a plan for "coordinated human and robotic exploration." The summary makes it sound like this is a plan for manned exploration only.
Perhaps a study or two needs to be done on the real cost of education,
There are lots of studies. Here is a whole think tank that does nothing but study higher education in the U.S.: http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/
It's probably only one of many.
So if they change the policy to something I no longer find acceptable, I can demand they purge all my data, right? No? Then I fail to see how simply notifying me I've been screwed somehow makes it fair.
IANAL, but that is only there so they can update it via the website without specifically telling you what the changes are or that changes occurred.
That's what they want you to think, and they may have even meant it at the time. IANAL either, but since the clause does not specify the nature or extent of changes they make, it seems to me they can change it completely, even reversing the entire spirit of the thing, and all they have to do is "post" (read, bury) a notice on their Web site somewhere.
The final clause in all privacy policies are words to the effect, "this policy is subject to change at any time, with or without notice to you." Now we have an example of what that means.
I have always regarded that a license to defraud the consumer, as they can initially offer privacy terms that are acceptable, then collect your data, then revoke the privacy protections without giving you a chance to change or delete your data.
That's true today, but the entire public library system is under assault and I would not be surprised to see it dismantled within a decade. Slashdotters routinely make remarks like "who needs libraries when we have Google Books!" Libraries are trying hard to remain relevant. Free, public internet access is one of their real services to the community... but now on Slashdot, and at town budget meetings, people can stand up and shout "who needs libraries when Comcast offers free^H^H^H^H cheap(er) internet access to (some) poor people (in select markets)!"
Slashdot Mirror
So if a stranger snaps your photo with a phone, and from that is able to almost instantly determine your name, home address, employer, career history, significant other's name, automobile registration, and police record, you don't consider that a privacy concern?
What if you decide to attend a protest rally and the police are able to do the same thing without a warrant?
All of that information is public, so perhaps you don't think it's anything to worry about, but I venture that many people would disagree.
Yes, but device type != platform, at least the way I read it.
To clarify, the "right thing" according to me would be to develop a "phone" UI that works on both Android phones and iPhones; a "tablet" UI that works on Android tablets and iPads; a "desktop UI" that works on Windows, Mac, and Linux, etc. Contrast with a different implementation for each platform, which I took to mean one UI for iOS phones, one UI for Android phones, etc.
The reality is that a different UI is probably needed for each non-desktop OS/device type pair, due to market fragmentation and lack of open standards. But that's far from a desirable state of affairs.
The implications of this look big enough to concern even the apathetic, non-technical majority. Perhaps this will finally motivate the long-needed policy reform on privacy in the digital age.
If you seriously advocate creating separate implementations for each platform, then you and I have very different definitions of "the right thing."
I think your point is good and thought-provoking.
There is a lot of complexity to the story of Abraham, but consider that (in the context of the story), God was not just a powerful figure in Abraham's life, He was a powerful figure in everyone's life, and He was cranky -- later on (in the story) he unleashed the plagues of Egypt, nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So by appeasing the wrath of such a god, could it be that Abraham was trying to save others?
Would you sacrifice your own child to save a hundred of your neighbors? To save a thousand? Where is the tipping point? To call Abraham evil seems a bit facile considering the weight of his decision.
I am not exactly a Biblical scholar, but I believe this is the only instance in the Bible where God calls on someone to kill an innocent. And the whole point of the story is "God does not really want you to kill an innocent person, period."
So if an angel were to appear to me and say "go kill this innocent person," I would be able to reply, "fuck you, you're either an hallucination or the devil in disguise, there is a well-established Biblical precedent that what you're ordering is contrary to God's will." And I could go on to say, if this Abraham story really happened, that may be why God sent Abraham to the mountain in the first place -- to send a message to future generations.
First of all, I have to correct myself. According to Wolfram Alpha, the U.S. poverty rate in 2010 was 12%, with "poverty" defined as annual income at or below $11,139 for a single person. I think we can agree, no matter where you are in the U.S., it is tough to get by on $11K per year.
So I took a look at the poverty level in 1980, and it was $4,190, again for a single person. Adjusting for inflation to 2010 dollars, Wolfram Alpha gives me $11,237. So I disagree with respect to adjusting the definition of poverty: the definition does get adjusted upward, but in fact is increasing a tiny bit slower than inflation, with the net effect that it's basically stable when viewed in inflation-adjusted dollars.
So in other words, you feel your atheism gives you superior morality.
I think where we disagree is that I would support a Constitutional amendment to allow nationalized health care, and I will hazard a guess that you wouldn't. Call me a socialist if you think that fits. But I think also think that lacking a Constitutional amendment, any form of national health care is a violation of the Tenth Amendment and should be thrown out. So we end up in the same place -- wishing bad luck to the Obama administration on this particular court case.
Yeah. That mainly becomes a problem when the ones who think their wishful thinking overrides the Constitution belong to the majority party in Congress. :-(
Oh, I disagree with that! While I admit that few people carry placards saying "raise taxes now" or words to that effect, the people pretty strongly favor social programs like Social Security and Medicare -- and (less strongly) Obamacare, which brings us back to the original subject. Those programs in turn require a higher tax rate.
So here's a hypothetical question. If a strong majority of the population, say 75%, says we want X for a tax rate, and you want less than X, which is more important: the will of the people, or your individual preference? The upside of a democracy is that you get to influence policy. The downside of a democracy is that your fellow citizens also get to influence policy. It is all well and good to try to sway your fellow citizens around to your point of view, but at the end of the day, if you don't acknowledge their right to impose certain taxes, obligations, and constraints on you, then I have a hard time accepting you as a fellow citizen. Case in point: I think the drinking age is stupid, but I obeyed it when I was underage, because I respect the duly enacted laws passed by the people's representatives. Even when the people are wrong, which, let's face it, is pretty often.
In order for democracy to be tolerable, there have to be limits on what "they the (often-wrong) people" can foist upon you. That, I submit, is what the U.S. Constitution is for.
Taxes are definitely permitted in the Constitution, so I think anyone who disputes the authority of the government to collect taxes is basically undemocratic, a whiner, and a freeloader at heart. Health insurance is not in the Constitution, so as much as I want to fix the mess we call health "care" in this country, I think it's a clear-cut overreach by Obama and the Democrats.
Taxes are admitted to be required to maintain the basic level of services necessary to secure the rights of the people.
In that case I think it's the people who say "taxes are theft" who don't understand libertarianism.
Are these figures accurate?
They sound about right. For reference, the total population of the U.S. is ~300 million. Despite decades of social programs we have not been able to get the poverty rate below about 15%.
Wanting less government is a legitimate and defensible, even sensible, position. I want less government, and I am a Northeast urban latte-drinking liberal.
However, I believe the traditional trigger for the Somalia comparison is the polemical (I daresay inflammatory) assertion that "taxes are theft." That sure looks like a call for anarchy to someone who can think through the implications. If there is some nuance in the message that people are missing, maybe try toning down the rhetoric and explaining it.
Libertarianism requires a framework of laws to protect the rights of all parties, and provide for legal recourse should the rights of one party be infringed by another.
And how is that framework achievable, without taxes and police and stuff?
Yeah, I was being snarky and perhaps overly unkind to Microsoft. I never expected to be modded "insightful--" I was hoping for "funny." Often the line between the two is blurry... Anyway, I think the merits of MS Word are debatable (die, ribbon bar, die! die! die!) but PowerPoint is the best software I never want to use. If your boss makes you produce slideware (and mine does), basically, everything else is garbage compared to PowerPoint for features and usability.
We're talking about Microsoft Office, not productivity tools. ;-)
I seem to remember the Java thread pool libraries came from the State University of New York at Oswego; now I see that were written by prog. Doug Lea and it looks like they have been absorbed into the Java standard library (java.util.concurrent).
Somehow the idea of international cooperation seems to make sense in the modern era. Although we Americans rightly take pride in the Apollo program, the space race was really a product of the Cold War. It ruled out multilateral efforts because the whole point was a race to beat the Russians. That doesn't make sense today; nation-states don't have the same kind of rivalries. The spirit of "advancement of human civilization" I associate with space exploration does seem more fitting as an international enterprise. It gives me a warm fuzzy.
That said, the reality of international undertakings tends to fall short of what I consider ideal.
The first sentence of TFA says this is a plan for "coordinated human and robotic exploration." The summary makes it sound like this is a plan for manned exploration only.
There are lots of studies. Here is a whole think tank that does nothing but study higher education in the U.S.: http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/ It's probably only one of many.
So if they change the policy to something I no longer find acceptable, I can demand they purge all my data, right? No? Then I fail to see how simply notifying me I've been screwed somehow makes it fair.
That's what they want you to think, and they may have even meant it at the time. IANAL either, but since the clause does not specify the nature or extent of changes they make, it seems to me they can change it completely, even reversing the entire spirit of the thing, and all they have to do is "post" (read, bury) a notice on their Web site somewhere.
The final clause in all privacy policies are words to the effect, "this policy is subject to change at any time, with or without notice to you." Now we have an example of what that means.
I have always regarded that a license to defraud the consumer, as they can initially offer privacy terms that are acceptable, then collect your data, then revoke the privacy protections without giving you a chance to change or delete your data.
It's not charity to entice people to buy Comcast's services.
That's true today, but the entire public library system is under assault and I would not be surprised to see it dismantled within a decade. Slashdotters routinely make remarks like "who needs libraries when we have Google Books!" Libraries are trying hard to remain relevant. Free, public internet access is one of their real services to the community ... but now on Slashdot, and at town budget meetings, people can stand up and shout "who needs libraries when Comcast offers free^H^H^H^H cheap(er) internet access to (some) poor people (in select markets)!"