Well, since you are going to be so decent and civil I just can't continue to be confrontational, can I?
I was a math major, but I did do some econ while I was there. We did distinguish between tacit and explicit collusion in mirco 101 without defining them in precise terms (or bringing Nash into the picture). We also did a mini-unit on game theory, although I can't remember now if we covered Nash there or if it's just my own basic familiarity with the concept.
The point is that I do understand that there is an important difference, but in my initial comment I was suggesting that as long as there is no collusive behavior (e.g. I'm concerned with the outcome and not how we get there) then it's good for the consumer. I wasn't suggesting that it's always possible to legislate or in any other way enforce this kind of non-collusive environment, but as others have pointed out there are several examples in the tech world where this is the case (e.g. Intel vs. AMD).
Anyway, I appreciate the polite tone in your response to my sarcastic reply. I guess you're not such a bad fellow after all - just the result of missing emotive cues in a text-only environment, I suppose.
1. I don't own an xbox, but I loved Halo so much I bought it (one and 2) to play on my roomie's xbox (and I figured I'd have my own one day). Now I've moved out of there (married with a house now) and so backwards compatibility on the xbox360 was a must. I don't want to have to buy both. Also, my wife tolerates a game-cube and an xbox360 but would probably be annoyed if there was a third console lurking about.
2. Another thing to realize is that consoles wear out. If you'be had an xbox since the eary days (and play a lot) chances are it's lifespan may be coming to an end. This machines are not always handled gently. In which case the new system serves not only as a new system, but ALSO a replacement model for the old system.
The only thing I would add is the commment that what the Google-phobes really fear is aggregation of information. I suppose they see this is evitable, but I don't. It's no more avoidable than the advent of fossil fuels or the Industrial Revolution. Information is extremely valuable, and will become increasingly commoditized. Period.
The question isn't "will this happen" but "how fast?" and "in what manner?" and "to what extent?". Look, if you were living in the 19th century and seeing the changes starting to take place in England and you didn't like them you could have one of 2 reacions.
1. (Google-phobes) You could totally fail to see the forest for the trees, pick the most successful user of new manufacturing processes, and call them evil/oppose them. At best, you'd bring a company down and slow the Industrial Revolution by what - a year? A month? And the next company that comes along will be bigger and, thanks to your opposition, tougher and meaner. Yay for "progress".
2. You could realize that market forces were going to drive the adoption of machine-aided production, realize the potenitally bad ramifications of that (e.g. child labor, general labor exploitation) and work to fight the actual problem.
It's the same today. Google-phobes don't accomplish any meaningful goals and may actually interfere with rational people who want to work with greater trends to ensure that we don't have to go through a period of ezploitation before a new balance is achieved.
You've obviously been taken in... payment is made.
Kind of like when I sad: "I admit that it is a price".
Yet despite that you state subsequently: naïve users, like you, who think Google's services are free.
Anyone who demonstrates such a pathological inablity to read what another person posts is not truly communicating. Communication is 2-way. If you're just wandering around looking for an opportunity to interject your opinions into a conversation as if you were particapating without actually comprehending anything anyone else says, you're just wasing everyone's time.
You may consider message boards just a fountain for your own egotistical rantings, but luckily you're obvious enough about your unilateral considerations that the rest of us don't have to waste time responding to your long posts with long posts of our own that will only serve further fodder for your sterile and fruitless ongoing monologue.
To put it really simply: if you can't understand what others say, don't bother trying to argue with them.
But for those of us who aren't in Econ 101 I'd say that "colusive prices/practies" ARE colusion (or even collusion). Outside of technical terminology this is just a distinction without a difference.
But maybe you just really felt the need to use the phrase "economic game theory" in a post. Not to mention it just floated your boat to qualify it with the term "basic". Now everyone knows that not only are you the master of elemental economic game theory - but you're probably steeped in the regular - nay, the advanced game theory as well!
Anyone thats seen any "utopian future" type scifi knows all about how great goods like this end up being bad for the individual ona large enough timeline.
I didn't think of that. And you know - you're totally right. Just look at the evil that has been wrought upon our hapless world by such supposed advances as:
running water literacy electricity
Sure enough, the rail roads seemed like a good idea, but left in the hands of monstrous corporations the world was led to suffer! Not to mention the fiasco that public libraries turned out to be. Sure, is sounds good to have books we can all just borrow and read: but they keep records. And you know what that means. Almost as bad as the telephone and email. Now we have no privacy as all and men in tight-fitting black suits read EVERY WORD WE EVER TYPE.
Maybe you shouldn't take all of your worldviews from distopian sci-fi anymore than someone else should take them from utopian sci-fi? Anyone who says Google can do no wrong is probably off their rocker. All I'm saying, is the same is true for those who say that Google can ONLY do wrong. Believe it or not, some powers have been created without being horribly abused.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I buy it. The problem isn't with Google, it's not even (in this example) with the PATRIOT act. You're saying that if a corrupt senator abuses an arguably unconstitutional law THEN, under THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES my privacy is violated. Talk about multiple system-wide failures. That's like saying a spoon isn't safe if some angry man tries to make you eat it.
This whole example is only marginally easier than a corrupt senator skipping google entirely (I think from recent proposed bills we can all agree senators know squat about tech) and just using the PATRIOT act to send some goons to my house to rough me up and search my house for bomb-building materials. Which, if he's really angry, they could bring in the car to plant as evidence. Personally, I'd RATHER the senator go after my GMAIL account then do a warrantless search of my home. I have good ideas and conversations on my GMAIL account; I have a wife and baby at home.
There is a potential for abuse becuase knowledge (information) is powerful and Google is collecting a lot of new information. The question is: is the benefit of this new information (which includes free email, better browsing, possibly universal access to scholarly info, etc.) worth the additional risk? I think the risk is only marginally worse than what we already have, but the potential payoffs include at least partially realizing the internet as the haven for knowledge and innovation that it was always touted to be.
One other thing I want to mention. The most important reason that I trust Google with the information that they collect is that they are accountable (in contradistinction to, say, the NSA - which is marginally accountable at best). Google depends entirely on the goodwill of the people who's information they collect (in the US, at least, it's a different and more troubling matter in China).
If Google were to seriously mistreat the information they collect (and I would argue they haven't done this yet) then it would be easy for a large proportion of their users to - in protest - quit using GMail, google, etc. The result to Google's bottom line would be powerful.
What bothers me about Google is that they offer all of these services for 'free', but as the old adage goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
The very fact that there's an "old adage" should rule out the possibility that Google is actually trying to deceive anyone. It IS free (as in beer) because you pay $0.
There is a price on these services, and it looks to me like the heart of the Google business model is amassing an enormous database of personal information about all of the users of their services, and selectively selling bits to advertisers (perhaps indirectly, eg by targeting advertisements for their customers).
Here's the thing. If you have an issue with this price (and I admit that it is a price): don't use Google. The fact is that at least you now have a CHOICE between privacy issues and MS tax. Sure, you say, two bad choices aren't that great. But we're talking about paying for a service here, so of course you're not going to like paying for it. No one actually likes paying for electricity either, but the fact is that now people who use to have only 1 viable choice now have 2 viable choices.
And the Google choice is viable. I think you're misusing the phrase "personal information". I don't mind if Google has a scanner reading every damn email I ever write. I'm totally fine with that - as long as I feel that my privacy is going to be protected. If an algorithm reads my email and I get an advertisement for product X as a result I'm FINE with that. It's at worst amusing and at best helpful. As long as information isn't linked to me personally, I think the exchange with Google is mutually beneficial. As long as the numbers are significantly large there's no possibility of me being identified by the data they collect, and so not only do I not mind if they collect, I think it's great that they do. If producers can do a better job of making products that actually interest me, and if I get advertisements for things I actually care about - how is this bad?
Some people are insane about their digital privacy online, but some people are also insane about their privacy in the real world and like to live in shacks in the mountains with no running water (and possibly wear tin hats). If that's your thing: then great. But the rest of us think that GMail, etc. are a really good deal.
Final comment: I don't think the Google price is hidden. If you never notice that, for example, the ads you see on Gmail correspond to the subject matter of your email than you just don't care enough to be bothered one way or the other. Besides that, they actually do a good job of explaining their licensing agreements in plain English. There's no secrecy that I can see - it's just that most people don't care enough about the kind of extreme privacy concerns you have for anyone to be making a big fuss of this.
Having two monopolies (one heavy native and one light web based) isn't much better than having one.
You can't have two competing monopolies - it's no longer a monopoly once you have 2. That's kind of what the "mono" in "monopoly" implies. And I'd argue that having two companies, even if they are both evil, competing is WAY better than having one monolothic company with a strangelhold on the market. It's the difference between a monopoly (worst possible scenario) and an oligopoly. As long as you can rule out collusion it's going to be good for consumers. Not as good as lots of smaller, agile, innovating companies - but still a step in the right direction.
As for the whole "Google is evil" thing; I don't see where that comes from. You write: Google is an evil company whose primary objective is to use everyone elses content to generate revenue (hmmm, they launch this service today, coincidence?) As far as I can tell your implication is that Google is somehow parasitic in that they don't actually make content themselves, but they do profit from the content that others make.
I fail to see how this really makes sense. This may be a shock to you, but there's more to the internet than just content. It's kind of like the difference between a product and a service: both can be valuable. How much worth would wikipedia be if all the content was there but instead of being divided into articles and searchable it was one long series of images (so that you couldn't even search for text via a text editor). It's the exact same info, but without the capacity to easily access that info it's not nearly as valuable.
So if Google wants to make it's money by making the information on the web more accessible (and ulimately expanding to making other information e.g. scholarly articles, every book ever written, satellite photos of the earth, maps, etc.) then they deserve to make money from it. Accessibility IS valuable. So what is your issue?
I'm not saying they have never done anything wrong or that they are perfect. They're record with China is morally ambigous at best and they're complicit with the opression of a large chunk of the world's population at worst. Just that I don't have any issues with their core business philosophy. They're even making advertising more relevant and less intrusive. How is this a bad thing?
ZOMG!!! How do you have time to write such long replies?
I believe you knew exactly what you were writing and that you were dismissing people opposed to NSA wiretapping as stupid and naive
Believe what you want. My point was that people opposing it are stupid. Notice that it is not qualified. Not "some people", not "most people", not "all people". You are reading into it "all people". That's your problem. If I say "people opposed to X are dumb" and 99% of the people opposed to X are smart and 1% are dumb - I've still made a true statement.
But really you're wasting everyone's time here. I just wanted to point out that the initial "SEE!!! NO FREEDOM!!! AMERICA IS A POLICE STATE!!!" posters were stupid. A lot of the people who've responded to my post (and attacked the NSA program) were quite intelligent. I'm glad they posted, and I'm glad they're out there. I don't think that ALL people who oppose the NSA wiretap are stupid, just that some are and there are enough of them (and they are loud enough) to really anoy me.
As for my initial argument, it's quite simple.
The following quote was referenced: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." and the conclusion was "this applies to the NSA".
Is privacy an essential liberty? To what extent. Are you saying that the "right" to not have anyone know who you call on the phone is an 'essential liberty"? I don't mind if you are saying this, but if you think it's so obvious that by "essential liberty" Franklin meant "no one can know who I call on the phone" then I think you're an idiot. That's not obvious at all.
See - I don't even have a problem with what you wrote. You say: I am arguing that you should be very very disturbed by this and fully, vehemently opposed. I argue that we are giving up essential liberty If you want to ARGUE that this is an essential liberty, then you may have a great argument. Hell, you might be right. But you are ARGUING. What pissed me off was the people (several of them) who didn't bother to argue.
It seems to me you are not prepared to see cogent arguments. I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, but you have not done a decent job to the present.
Not to be rude, but I could care less with whether or not you think that I am "prepared" to see cogent arguments. I find it silly that you would have any opinion on how I would react to cogent arguments based solely on a post in which I'm ranting that there are not enough of them. If you read my other posts, you'll see that I react with calm civility to those who oppose the NSA wiretaps with good reason. In fact, my CHIEF problem was that if I wanted to oppose the NSA program I was going to be handicapped by idiots who couldn't provide the very "cogent arguments" you're not sure if I'm ready to accept or not.
Whatever, I need to to go home and start my weekend.
Conclusion:
1. I never said (nor believed) that all people who oppose the NSA program are idiots. 2. The main reason that I am pissed off by those idiots who do oppose the NSA program are that I feel that they hamper my ability to effectively oppose it if I decide to do so. 3. I'm not a proponent of the NSA plan. In all honesty - I'm not sure how I feel about it yet.
You suppport rampant data mining, and you're apparently not that bright, therefore, rampant data mining can't be good.
*Sigh* I said that the annoying Slashtrolls were almost enough to make me support the NSA program just out of spite. I thought it was clearly evident that this was NOT an actual argument in favor of the program. Most people responding understood this. A few did not. Welcome to the club of those that didn't get it.
The rest of your post I largely agree with, however. The problem of the fox guarding the coop is exactly what's going on. The only caveat is that I acknowledge a need for operational secrecy in some cases.
What a waste of time. I can't believe you wrote all of this.
You are making a type of argument known as a logical fallacy. In this case the colloquial name is a straw man.
No, I wasn't. I was complaining about the Slashtrolls.
By the same light, you make it sound as though all, or at least the majority of, people who "support" rights erosion, as exemplified by the NSA wiretapping, have cogent arguments.
I said nothing about them whatsoever. The implication you are speaking of is entirely fabricated. By you.
I'm not going to bother to respond blow-by-blow to the rest of your argument. In some cases meta-arguing can be important and enlightening. In this case, however, you are merely demonstrated your ability to state extremely obvious generalities (like explaining what a "straw man" argument is) with your utter inability to distinguish between arguments and rhetoric. In fact, I went so far as to state in my original post that all the stupid arguments were almost enough to make me support the NSA program. This is obviously not a statement about whether or not the NSA program was right or not, but a statement about how frustrating the Slashtrolls are.
I'm not beating up straw men, but you are tilting at windmills. Please spend more time reading what I've written in the future, and less time reading your own ideas into it.
I appreciate the tone of your post, but I feel like you're missing the point. You seem to think that privacy was just this inanimate, unchanging, static value. Along comes the NSA and suddenly they are encroaching on privacy. You think the NSA is the problem.
While I admit that in this isolated case the NSA is certainly proactively requesting information that would not otherwise be publicly available I feel that those are blame loss of privacy on the gov't or believe that it can be stopped are in a fairytale.
To a large degree the loss of privacy in modern society with the advent of the Information Age is simply an inevitable result of the growth of society. Theoretically we could have evolved from wandering hunter-gatherers to living in cities without giving up privacy, but practically this was impossible. How could you think that we could 50's technology (in which mass communication was almost entirely on the broadcast model) to 21st century technology (in which mass communication was shifting dramatically towards a participatory model) without losing privacy?
Privacy is about the flow of information. So is communication. As the flow of publicly available data changes from a trickle to a cascade privacy will erode. To some extent this is no more within our power than that folks know who you are in a small town.
But, to bring this long post to a conclusion, here's what I'm trying to say. People who yearn for the privacy of early 20th century life styles will find it in exactly one place: early 20th century life styles. This does NOT mean that you have to simply accept whatever loss of privacy happens to you when you move into the 21st century. But the only people who are going to be able to influence the new standard of privacy are going to be those who learn that one thing that's just impossible is retaining out-dated standards of privacy.
So here it is in fact: the line moves. No matter how high or low my particular line is, if I think that privacy is a static concept, then I'm just as much an idiot if my line has been crossed yet or not.
1. I wasn't trying to depict everyone who had qualms with the NSA monitoring as stupid. But your response is the first that didn't strike me as outright asinine.
2. You seem to be convinced they're okay because stupid people are opposing them. That was a rhetorical device, not at an actual argument.
3. The information the NSA is getting is illegal. There is a very specific legal process for obtaining wiretaps, and they aren't using it.
I'll give you full credit for being rational, but I don't think the argument really holds water as stated. First of all, they are not wiretaps. Second of all (as has been stated) we don't really know if they are illegal or not yet.
In any case, your post is much better than the vast majority of "OMG BUSH SUXOZ!!!111oneoneoneoneone" that we read here on Slashdot, but it still doesn't seem to be near the open and shut case you think it is.
In point of fact, I find it hypocritical that the same (general) people who think security by secrecy is stupid when MS is doing it think it's great when they are doing it. I think there's a lot of good you can get from programs like the NSA. The problem is not the program - it's the use of it. So rather than tryign to just say "you can't do that" we should concentrate on establishing checks and balances for how it can be done.
The information is already out there. Trying to tell the NSA not to create databases on the public is like trying to tell people not to rip CDs or download from Bit Torrent. The genie is out of the bottle. The RIAA can rant and rave all it wants about "artists rights" but the point is that the time for discussion of whether or not copying should be allowed is over: it happens. Similary I'll let the ACLU scream all it wants - but the fact is that you can (using only public databases) amass a frightening amount of information about indviduals.
Let's concentrate on making sure that we know as much about our gov't's use of these tools rather than on trying to prevent them. That's just the equivalent of shutting down Napster.
I'm am SO sick and tired of this naive argument. The only reason I'm not more against the NSA program is that I'm convinced that if the people arguing against it are this stupid, then maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
The argument goes something like this: the founding fathers would never have sacrificed any degree of privacy for any degree of security. This should strike anyone and everyone that reads it as an utter absurdity. Problem 1: We already have given up privacy. That's an inevitble part of living in human society of any kind. Problem 2: Since we've already given up privacy to gain (among other things) security, the question becomes one of how much privacy for how much security. It's by definition not a question of absolutes, but of degree. Anyone who fails to see this is both utterly incompetent and damaging to the credibility of those who see that we do make trade-offs and would rather not make this particular one.
I'm not arguing that this particular infringement of privacy is worth the security gains. I'm simply pointing out that anyone that thinks they would never sacrifice any amount of privacy for any amount of security is delusional (misunderstood and ill-used Founding Father quotes not-withstanding).
I wish there were people out there who opposed the NSA operations logically and rationally because all you idiots make those of us who are actually interested in the trade-off going on have that much less credibility when we decide we don't want to trade off x amount of privacy for y amount of security in a given situation.
Thanks for providing an example of what real sexism is so the rest of us can continue to question modern feminism (aka "the other sexism") without any body getting confused.
Seriously... what are you trying to prove? You took part 4 of a 6-part series. So right away I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. That girls don't play games because guys make fun of their OMG!!! PONIES!!!111! mods? That girls don't play games because guys think they have OMG!!! PONIES!!!11 mods?
What?
My one question is this: why is it always an assumed premise that if there's a statistic in which girls or boys are over-represented: 1. it's automatially a bad thing 2. it's automatically a bad thing for girls
No no no. You're totally missing the point here. It's not about whether or not making geography is irrelevant for you, it's about whether or not it can make it irrelevant for your grandpa.
There's this constant ongoing discussion. Should computers be as easy to use as dishwashers, cars, and lawnmowers, or should users just learn to operate computers? Personally, I fall decisively in the camp that computers need to be more consumer friendly - or at least that consumers need to have access to the benefits of basic computing (e.g. word processing, spreadsheets) without having to understand how computers work. You don't expect people to go to mechanics school just to drive a car.
Web-based apps are a part of that paradigm shift. It's not about a return to mainframe computing. I understand that it looks like that is what's going on, but it's not. Client-based apps are (usually) OS-specific. They require installation. The require updates (which, even when automatic, necessitate access to the computer and thus create possible security holes), the information is stored locally and thus you have to have a higher degree of expertise to make it available in multiple locations. Sure, plugging in a USB drive isn't rocket science, but neither is chaning your oil.
What we're talking about here is the commiditizing of basic software. It's happening in tandem: web-based apps mean that you no longer have to worry (as much) about OS compatibility. Imagine having to check if your garage was Honda or Toyota compatible before you bought a car! Open-source is separating data from the software the operates on it so that proprietary software doesn't lock you into proprietary data formats. Imagine not being able to pull your CDs, and stuff out of one car when you went to the dealership to buy a new car if they weren't the same brand.
So "making geography irrelevent" was not the best example for me to use because it really didn't clue you in to the fact that what I'm talking about is the commoditization of software. The day you can walk into a store, buy a PC, take it home, plug it in, and have instant access to basic email, word processing, presentation software, and spreadsheet software (not a comprehensive list) without ever having to worry about compatibility, upgrades, maintenance, etc. is the day that PCs have become a truly mature product. Web-based apps are a part of that future. It's that simple.
For clarity - I'm not saying that we should all just use web-based apps. Client-based apps will never go away, and neither will PC enthusiasts. I don't want one of those (imaginary) boxes for myself. But I would want one for my parents, my kids, my kids' school, my local library, etc. Computing is going to become as basic as making phone calls one day (or closer to). This is part of how we get there.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since you are going to be so decent and civil I just can't continue to be confrontational, can I?
I was a math major, but I did do some econ while I was there. We did distinguish between tacit and explicit collusion in mirco 101 without defining them in precise terms (or bringing Nash into the picture). We also did a mini-unit on game theory, although I can't remember now if we covered Nash there or if it's just my own basic familiarity with the concept.
The point is that I do understand that there is an important difference, but in my initial comment I was suggesting that as long as there is no collusive behavior (e.g. I'm concerned with the outcome and not how we get there) then it's good for the consumer. I wasn't suggesting that it's always possible to legislate or in any other way enforce this kind of non-collusive environment, but as others have pointed out there are several examples in the tech world where this is the case (e.g. Intel vs. AMD).
Anyway, I appreciate the polite tone in your response to my sarcastic reply. I guess you're not such a bad fellow after all - just the result of missing emotive cues in a text-only environment, I suppose.
Cheers!
-stormin
1. I don't own an xbox, but I loved Halo so much I bought it (one and 2) to play on my roomie's xbox (and I figured I'd have my own one day). Now I've moved out of there (married with a house now) and so backwards compatibility on the xbox360 was a must. I don't want to have to buy both. Also, my wife tolerates a game-cube and an xbox360 but would probably be annoyed if there was a third console lurking about.
2. Another thing to realize is that consoles wear out. If you'be had an xbox since the eary days (and play a lot) chances are it's lifespan may be coming to an end. This machines are not always handled gently. In which case the new system serves not only as a new system, but ALSO a replacement model for the old system.
-stormin
It's like a girlfriend... only more.
Surely you've heard of the mystic girlfriend creature?
-stormin
Thanks for being a voice of reason.
The only thing I would add is the commment that what the Google-phobes really fear is aggregation of information. I suppose they see this is evitable, but I don't. It's no more avoidable than the advent of fossil fuels or the Industrial Revolution. Information is extremely valuable, and will become increasingly commoditized. Period.
The question isn't "will this happen" but "how fast?" and "in what manner?" and "to what extent?". Look, if you were living in the 19th century and seeing the changes starting to take place in England and you didn't like them you could have one of 2 reacions.
1. (Google-phobes) You could totally fail to see the forest for the trees, pick the most successful user of new manufacturing processes, and call them evil/oppose them. At best, you'd bring a company down and slow the Industrial Revolution by what - a year? A month? And the next company that comes along will be bigger and, thanks to your opposition, tougher and meaner. Yay for "progress".
2. You could realize that market forces were going to drive the adoption of machine-aided production, realize the potenitally bad ramifications of that (e.g. child labor, general labor exploitation) and work to fight the actual problem.
It's the same today. Google-phobes don't accomplish any meaningful goals and may actually interfere with rational people who want to work with greater trends to ensure that we don't have to go through a period of ezploitation before a new balance is achieved.
-stormin
You've obviously been taken in... payment is made.
Kind of like when I sad: "I admit that it is a price".
Yet despite that you state subsequently: naïve users, like you, who think Google's services are free.
Anyone who demonstrates such a pathological inablity to read what another person posts is not truly communicating. Communication is 2-way. If you're just wandering around looking for an opportunity to interject your opinions into a conversation as if you were particapating without actually comprehending anything anyone else says, you're just wasing everyone's time.
You may consider message boards just a fountain for your own egotistical rantings, but luckily you're obvious enough about your unilateral considerations that the rest of us don't have to waste time responding to your long posts with long posts of our own that will only serve further fodder for your sterile and fruitless ongoing monologue.
To put it really simply: if you can't understand what others say, don't bother trying to argue with them.
-stormin
Thanks for that, professor.
But for those of us who aren't in Econ 101 I'd say that "colusive prices/practies" ARE colusion (or even collusion). Outside of technical terminology this is just a distinction without a difference.
But maybe you just really felt the need to use the phrase "economic game theory" in a post. Not to mention it just floated your boat to qualify it with the term "basic". Now everyone knows that not only are you the master of elemental economic game theory - but you're probably steeped in the regular - nay, the advanced game theory as well!
-stormin
Anyone thats seen any "utopian future" type scifi knows all about how great goods like this end up being bad for the individual ona large enough timeline.
I didn't think of that. And you know - you're totally right. Just look at the evil that has been wrought upon our hapless world by such supposed advances as:
running water
literacy
electricity
Sure enough, the rail roads seemed like a good idea, but left in the hands of monstrous corporations the world was led to suffer! Not to mention the fiasco that public libraries turned out to be. Sure, is sounds good to have books we can all just borrow and read: but they keep records. And you know what that means. Almost as bad as the telephone and email. Now we have no privacy as all and men in tight-fitting black suits read EVERY WORD WE EVER TYPE.
Maybe you shouldn't take all of your worldviews from distopian sci-fi anymore than someone else should take them from utopian sci-fi? Anyone who says Google can do no wrong is probably off their rocker. All I'm saying, is the same is true for those who say that Google can ONLY do wrong. Believe it or not, some powers have been created without being horribly abused.
-stormin
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I buy it. The problem isn't with Google, it's not even (in this example) with the PATRIOT act. You're saying that if a corrupt senator abuses an arguably unconstitutional law THEN, under THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES my privacy is violated. Talk about multiple system-wide failures. That's like saying a spoon isn't safe if some angry man tries to make you eat it.
This whole example is only marginally easier than a corrupt senator skipping google entirely (I think from recent proposed bills we can all agree senators know squat about tech) and just using the PATRIOT act to send some goons to my house to rough me up and search my house for bomb-building materials. Which, if he's really angry, they could bring in the car to plant as evidence. Personally, I'd RATHER the senator go after my GMAIL account then do a warrantless search of my home. I have good ideas and conversations on my GMAIL account; I have a wife and baby at home.
There is a potential for abuse becuase knowledge (information) is powerful and Google is collecting a lot of new information. The question is: is the benefit of this new information (which includes free email, better browsing, possibly universal access to scholarly info, etc.) worth the additional risk? I think the risk is only marginally worse than what we already have, but the potential payoffs include at least partially realizing the internet as the haven for knowledge and innovation that it was always touted to be.
I'm OK with that trade-off.
-stormin
Again - you're just giving examples of collusion.
Do you think MS and Google are going to be colluding any time soon?
-stormin
One other thing I want to mention. The most important reason that I trust Google with the information that they collect is that they are accountable (in contradistinction to, say, the NSA - which is marginally accountable at best). Google depends entirely on the goodwill of the people who's information they collect (in the US, at least, it's a different and more troubling matter in China).
If Google were to seriously mistreat the information they collect (and I would argue they haven't done this yet) then it would be easy for a large proportion of their users to - in protest - quit using GMail, google, etc. The result to Google's bottom line would be powerful.
-stormin
Thanks guys, now I don't have to respond to this.
What bothers me about Google is that they offer all of these services for 'free', but as the old adage goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
The very fact that there's an "old adage" should rule out the possibility that Google is actually trying to deceive anyone. It IS free (as in beer) because you pay $0.
There is a price on these services, and it looks to me like the heart of the Google business model is amassing an enormous database of personal information about all of the users of their services, and selectively selling bits to advertisers (perhaps indirectly, eg by targeting advertisements for their customers).
Here's the thing. If you have an issue with this price (and I admit that it is a price): don't use Google. The fact is that at least you now have a CHOICE between privacy issues and MS tax. Sure, you say, two bad choices aren't that great. But we're talking about paying for a service here, so of course you're not going to like paying for it. No one actually likes paying for electricity either, but the fact is that now people who use to have only 1 viable choice now have 2 viable choices.
And the Google choice is viable. I think you're misusing the phrase "personal information". I don't mind if Google has a scanner reading every damn email I ever write. I'm totally fine with that - as long as I feel that my privacy is going to be protected. If an algorithm reads my email and I get an advertisement for product X as a result I'm FINE with that. It's at worst amusing and at best helpful. As long as information isn't linked to me personally, I think the exchange with Google is mutually beneficial. As long as the numbers are significantly large there's no possibility of me being identified by the data they collect, and so not only do I not mind if they collect, I think it's great that they do. If producers can do a better job of making products that actually interest me, and if I get advertisements for things I actually care about - how is this bad?
Some people are insane about their digital privacy online, but some people are also insane about their privacy in the real world and like to live in shacks in the mountains with no running water (and possibly wear tin hats). If that's your thing: then great. But the rest of us think that GMail, etc. are a really good deal.
Final comment: I don't think the Google price is hidden. If you never notice that, for example, the ads you see on Gmail correspond to the subject matter of your email than you just don't care enough to be bothered one way or the other. Besides that, they actually do a good job of explaining their licensing agreements in plain English. There's no secrecy that I can see - it's just that most people don't care enough about the kind of extreme privacy concerns you have for anyone to be making a big fuss of this.
-stormin
Having two monopolies (one heavy native and one light web based) isn't much better than having one.
You can't have two competing monopolies - it's no longer a monopoly once you have 2. That's kind of what the "mono" in "monopoly" implies. And I'd argue that having two companies, even if they are both evil, competing is WAY better than having one monolothic company with a strangelhold on the market. It's the difference between a monopoly (worst possible scenario) and an oligopoly. As long as you can rule out collusion it's going to be good for consumers. Not as good as lots of smaller, agile, innovating companies - but still a step in the right direction.
As for the whole "Google is evil" thing; I don't see where that comes from. You write: Google is an evil company whose primary objective is to use everyone elses content to generate revenue (hmmm, they launch this service today, coincidence?) As far as I can tell your implication is that Google is somehow parasitic in that they don't actually make content themselves, but they do profit from the content that others make.
I fail to see how this really makes sense. This may be a shock to you, but there's more to the internet than just content. It's kind of like the difference between a product and a service: both can be valuable. How much worth would wikipedia be if all the content was there but instead of being divided into articles and searchable it was one long series of images (so that you couldn't even search for text via a text editor). It's the exact same info, but without the capacity to easily access that info it's not nearly as valuable.
So if Google wants to make it's money by making the information on the web more accessible (and ulimately expanding to making other information e.g. scholarly articles, every book ever written, satellite photos of the earth, maps, etc.) then they deserve to make money from it. Accessibility IS valuable. So what is your issue?
I'm not saying they have never done anything wrong or that they are perfect. They're record with China is morally ambigous at best and they're complicit with the opression of a large chunk of the world's population at worst. Just that I don't have any issues with their core business philosophy. They're even making advertising more relevant and less intrusive. How is this a bad thing?
-stormin
You've out-clevered me.
I know when to quit.
-stormin
I, and I alone, decide which values to give my kids.
;-)
So that they can grow up and rebel against them, of course!
-stormin
Agreed.
ZOMG!!! How do you have time to write such long replies?
I believe you knew exactly what you were writing and that you were dismissing people opposed to NSA wiretapping as stupid and naive
Believe what you want. My point was that people opposing it are stupid. Notice that it is not qualified. Not "some people", not "most people", not "all people". You are reading into it "all people". That's your problem. If I say "people opposed to X are dumb" and 99% of the people opposed to X are smart and 1% are dumb - I've still made a true statement.
But really you're wasting everyone's time here. I just wanted to point out that the initial "SEE!!! NO FREEDOM!!! AMERICA IS A POLICE STATE!!!" posters were stupid. A lot of the people who've responded to my post (and attacked the NSA program) were quite intelligent. I'm glad they posted, and I'm glad they're out there. I don't think that ALL people who oppose the NSA wiretap are stupid, just that some are and there are enough of them (and they are loud enough) to really anoy me.
As for my initial argument, it's quite simple.
The following quote was referenced: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." and the conclusion was "this applies to the NSA".
Is privacy an essential liberty? To what extent. Are you saying that the "right" to not have anyone know who you call on the phone is an 'essential liberty"? I don't mind if you are saying this, but if you think it's so obvious that by "essential liberty" Franklin meant "no one can know who I call on the phone" then I think you're an idiot. That's not obvious at all.
See - I don't even have a problem with what you wrote. You say: I am arguing that you should be very very disturbed by this and fully, vehemently opposed. I argue that we are giving up essential liberty If you want to ARGUE that this is an essential liberty, then you may have a great argument. Hell, you might be right. But you are ARGUING. What pissed me off was the people (several of them) who didn't bother to argue.
It seems to me you are not prepared to see cogent arguments. I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, but you have not done a decent job to the present.
Not to be rude, but I could care less with whether or not you think that I am "prepared" to see cogent arguments. I find it silly that you would have any opinion on how I would react to cogent arguments based solely on a post in which I'm ranting that there are not enough of them. If you read my other posts, you'll see that I react with calm civility to those who oppose the NSA wiretaps with good reason. In fact, my CHIEF problem was that if I wanted to oppose the NSA program I was going to be handicapped by idiots who couldn't provide the very "cogent arguments" you're not sure if I'm ready to accept or not.
Whatever, I need to to go home and start my weekend.
Conclusion:
1. I never said (nor believed) that all people who oppose the NSA program are idiots.
2. The main reason that I am pissed off by those idiots who do oppose the NSA program are that I feel that they hamper my ability to effectively oppose it if I decide to do so.
3. I'm not a proponent of the NSA plan. In all honesty - I'm not sure how I feel about it yet.
-stormin
You suppport rampant data mining, and you're apparently not that bright, therefore, rampant data mining can't be good.
*Sigh* I said that the annoying Slashtrolls were almost enough to make me support the NSA program just out of spite. I thought it was clearly evident that this was NOT an actual argument in favor of the program. Most people responding understood this. A few did not. Welcome to the club of those that didn't get it.
The rest of your post I largely agree with, however. The problem of the fox guarding the coop is exactly what's going on. The only caveat is that I acknowledge a need for operational secrecy in some cases.
-stormin
What a waste of time. I can't believe you wrote all of this.
You are making a type of argument known as a logical fallacy. In this case the colloquial name is a straw man.
No, I wasn't. I was complaining about the Slashtrolls.
By the same light, you make it sound as though all, or at least the majority of, people who "support" rights erosion, as exemplified by the NSA wiretapping, have cogent arguments.
I said nothing about them whatsoever. The implication you are speaking of is entirely fabricated. By you.
I'm not going to bother to respond blow-by-blow to the rest of your argument. In some cases meta-arguing can be important and enlightening. In this case, however, you are merely demonstrated your ability to state extremely obvious generalities (like explaining what a "straw man" argument is) with your utter inability to distinguish between arguments and rhetoric. In fact, I went so far as to state in my original post that all the stupid arguments were almost enough to make me support the NSA program. This is obviously not a statement about whether or not the NSA program was right or not, but a statement about how frustrating the Slashtrolls are.
I'm not beating up straw men, but you are tilting at windmills. Please spend more time reading what I've written in the future, and less time reading your own ideas into it.
-stormin
I appreciate the tone of your post, but I feel like you're missing the point. You seem to think that privacy was just this inanimate, unchanging, static value. Along comes the NSA and suddenly they are encroaching on privacy. You think the NSA is the problem.
While I admit that in this isolated case the NSA is certainly proactively requesting information that would not otherwise be publicly available I feel that those are blame loss of privacy on the gov't or believe that it can be stopped are in a fairytale.
To a large degree the loss of privacy in modern society with the advent of the Information Age is simply an inevitable result of the growth of society. Theoretically we could have evolved from wandering hunter-gatherers to living in cities without giving up privacy, but practically this was impossible. How could you think that we could 50's technology (in which mass communication was almost entirely on the broadcast model) to 21st century technology (in which mass communication was shifting dramatically towards a participatory model) without losing privacy?
Privacy is about the flow of information. So is communication. As the flow of publicly available data changes from a trickle to a cascade privacy will erode. To some extent this is no more within our power than that folks know who you are in a small town.
But, to bring this long post to a conclusion, here's what I'm trying to say. People who yearn for the privacy of early 20th century life styles will find it in exactly one place: early 20th century life styles. This does NOT mean that you have to simply accept whatever loss of privacy happens to you when you move into the 21st century. But the only people who are going to be able to influence the new standard of privacy are going to be those who learn that one thing that's just impossible is retaining out-dated standards of privacy.
So here it is in fact: the line moves. No matter how high or low my particular line is, if I think that privacy is a static concept, then I'm just as much an idiot if my line has been crossed yet or not.
-stormin
1. I wasn't trying to depict everyone who had qualms with the NSA monitoring as stupid. But your response is the first that didn't strike me as outright asinine.
2. You seem to be convinced they're okay because stupid people are opposing them. That was a rhetorical device, not at an actual argument.
3. The information the NSA is getting is illegal. There is a very specific legal process for obtaining wiretaps, and they aren't using it.
I'll give you full credit for being rational, but I don't think the argument really holds water as stated. First of all, they are not wiretaps. Second of all (as has been stated) we don't really know if they are illegal or not yet.
In any case, your post is much better than the vast majority of "OMG BUSH SUXOZ!!!111oneoneoneoneone" that we read here on Slashdot, but it still doesn't seem to be near the open and shut case you think it is.
In point of fact, I find it hypocritical that the same (general) people who think security by secrecy is stupid when MS is doing it think it's great when they are doing it. I think there's a lot of good you can get from programs like the NSA. The problem is not the program - it's the use of it. So rather than tryign to just say "you can't do that" we should concentrate on establishing checks and balances for how it can be done.
The information is already out there. Trying to tell the NSA not to create databases on the public is like trying to tell people not to rip CDs or download from Bit Torrent. The genie is out of the bottle. The RIAA can rant and rave all it wants about "artists rights" but the point is that the time for discussion of whether or not copying should be allowed is over: it happens. Similary I'll let the ACLU scream all it wants - but the fact is that you can (using only public databases) amass a frightening amount of information about indviduals.
Let's concentrate on making sure that we know as much about our gov't's use of these tools rather than on trying to prevent them. That's just the equivalent of shutting down Napster.
-stormin
I'm am SO sick and tired of this naive argument. The only reason I'm not more against the NSA program is that I'm convinced that if the people arguing against it are this stupid, then maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
The argument goes something like this: the founding fathers would never have sacrificed any degree of privacy for any degree of security. This should strike anyone and everyone that reads it as an utter absurdity. Problem 1: We already have given up privacy. That's an inevitble part of living in human society of any kind. Problem 2: Since we've already given up privacy to gain (among other things) security, the question becomes one of how much privacy for how much security. It's by definition not a question of absolutes, but of degree. Anyone who fails to see this is both utterly incompetent and damaging to the credibility of those who see that we do make trade-offs and would rather not make this particular one.
I'm not arguing that this particular infringement of privacy is worth the security gains. I'm simply pointing out that anyone that thinks they would never sacrifice any amount of privacy for any amount of security is delusional (misunderstood and ill-used Founding Father quotes not-withstanding).
I wish there were people out there who opposed the NSA operations logically and rationally because all you idiots make those of us who are actually interested in the trade-off going on have that much less credibility when we decide we don't want to trade off x amount of privacy for y amount of security in a given situation.
-stormin
Thanks for providing an example of what real sexism is so the rest of us can continue to question modern feminism (aka "the other sexism") without any body getting confused.
-stormin
Seriously... what are you trying to prove? You took part 4 of a 6-part series. So right away I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. That girls don't play games because guys make fun of their OMG!!! PONIES!!!111! mods? That girls don't play games because guys think they have OMG!!! PONIES!!!11 mods?
What?
My one question is this: why is it always an assumed premise that if there's a statistic in which girls or boys are over-represented:
1. it's automatially a bad thing
2. it's automatically a bad thing for girls
Am I allowed to ask that question?
-stormin
No no no. You're totally missing the point here. It's not about whether or not making geography is irrelevant for you, it's about whether or not it can make it irrelevant for your grandpa.
There's this constant ongoing discussion. Should computers be as easy to use as dishwashers, cars, and lawnmowers, or should users just learn to operate computers? Personally, I fall decisively in the camp that computers need to be more consumer friendly - or at least that consumers need to have access to the benefits of basic computing (e.g. word processing, spreadsheets) without having to understand how computers work. You don't expect people to go to mechanics school just to drive a car.
Web-based apps are a part of that paradigm shift. It's not about a return to mainframe computing. I understand that it looks like that is what's going on, but it's not. Client-based apps are (usually) OS-specific. They require installation. The require updates (which, even when automatic, necessitate access to the computer and thus create possible security holes), the information is stored locally and thus you have to have a higher degree of expertise to make it available in multiple locations. Sure, plugging in a USB drive isn't rocket science, but neither is chaning your oil.
What we're talking about here is the commiditizing of basic software. It's happening in tandem: web-based apps mean that you no longer have to worry (as much) about OS compatibility. Imagine having to check if your garage was Honda or Toyota compatible before you bought a car! Open-source is separating data from the software the operates on it so that proprietary software doesn't lock you into proprietary data formats. Imagine not being able to pull your CDs, and stuff out of one car when you went to the dealership to buy a new car if they weren't the same brand.
So "making geography irrelevent" was not the best example for me to use because it really didn't clue you in to the fact that what I'm talking about is the commoditization of software. The day you can walk into a store, buy a PC, take it home, plug it in, and have instant access to basic email, word processing, presentation software, and spreadsheet software (not a comprehensive list) without ever having to worry about compatibility, upgrades, maintenance, etc. is the day that PCs have become a truly mature product. Web-based apps are a part of that future. It's that simple.
For clarity - I'm not saying that we should all just use web-based apps. Client-based apps will never go away, and neither will PC enthusiasts. I don't want one of those (imaginary) boxes for myself. But I would want one for my parents, my kids, my kids' school, my local library, etc. Computing is going to become as basic as making phone calls one day (or closer to). This is part of how we get there.
-stormin