The last two times I bought expensive consumer electronics, Pricegrabber and Google Product search wasted hours of my time. Once I ordered from Newegg (a nice 3-CCD videocam, at $200 below competitors' prices) and the other time I ordered a DVD player from Buy.com.
Both times my order was back-ordered indefinitely; I had to cancel my orders and ended up making the purchases in a bigbox store. The nice thing about a site like Ebay is that they are offering the item for sale on that site; if they are out of stock on a listed item, it violates the ToS for Ebay. It's anecdotal, and just my experience, but I feel items on Ebay (from reputable sellers) are more likely to be in stock.
(WHY would they list on eBay instead of their own websites anyway?)
Because it allows them to reach more of their market?
Lots of shoppers prefer like the advantage of having competing products from different retailers available on a single site, since it makes comparison shopping easier.
Now, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has refused (9-5) to hear Warshak's constitutional challenge to the Act (PDF), claiming that the question raised is 'not yet ripe' for adjudication.
Anyone who is going to tartly respond to this inflammatory statement would do well to read the link contained in the statement... 'ripeness' is an important legal concept, and it is clear that the matter is, as yet, unripe.
In order for the 'ripeness' qualification to be met, decision on the claim must affect the outcome. It's clear from reading the link that the outcome would not be affected, since the government is unlikely to perform another ex parte search; and even if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the guy who was indicted knows full well that he is under indictment, and would be even more of a fool to leave any more emails hanging around for the government to search.
As for the other issues, I'll not comment, since I don't think my words would bear the fruit.
Record the call (inform them you are doing so). Have fun asking them what company they are calling on behalf of, and what company they actually work for. Ask them to add you to both their DNC lists.
Do this every time they call.
I've got four of these calls recorded, I'm waiting for the 5th so I can pass go and collect $200. (Actually more than that... though I doubt I have a snowball's chance in hell of ever collecting).
the CEO's promise "to one day sell his gasoline for $1 less than the pump price for regular fuel, no matter what the cost. 'Even if it's $2 per gallon, I'll sell mine for $1,"' he said."
I can't wait until his product comes to maturity -- then demand for gas will be so low that the price will drop below $1.
"Fill her up with regular, please. You can pay me in cash."
This is what concerns me. On face value the idea sounds like a huge step forward for democracy and people who don't really think things through or aren't particularly educated will vote for it.
I agree 100%. In order to work well, there would have to be a competency test for each issue that's voted on, with only those who have sufficient knowledge allowed to vote. And that is a nightmare.
The bigger problem I have with this, that kind of relates to an uneducated population, is the tyranny of the majority. Even if the majority understands an issue, they will likely vote in a manner that overwhelms the needs of the minority. This is the main reason a direct democracy is bad, IMO.
However, it will polarize their base and allow the politicians to sell the message: Anti-Christian sentiment is strong, and liberal, activist judges are attacking our way of life!
And then, when it gets struck down, they'll get it on the November ballot, which will make sure that their base gets out to the polls and votes for McCain. Just like gay marriage in the last election.
Try not to make borad assumptions about people based on a single exchange of posts in a slashdot forum. It only makes you look like a whinging twit.
Things are the way they are for a reason, and if you don't see that reason, you haven't looked hard enough or thought long enough about all the ramifications.
A lot of the time, things are as they are because of inertia, or because of active resistance to a better way. You don't think the fact that their is a HUGE interest in maintaining the status quo in one of the largest industries in the US?
As for the impracticality of the electrical solution I've been discussing, it is no less impractical than our current vehicle fuel distribution system.
As for the "simple" solution, I never said it was simple. OP in the thread raised a bogus simple objection, so I gave him a simple answer. If you think that I believe it's an easy solution, you're way off base.
At any rate, your decision that I'm a naive optimist from a single exchange of posts on slashdot is far from the mark, and tells me that you're rash, as well as obstructionist. You can consider yourself a pragmatist if you wish, but pragmatism involves information gathering before jumping to a negative conclusion. As for:
Things are the way they are for a reason, and if you don't see that reason, you haven't looked hard enough or thought long enough about all the ramifications.
You make the mistake of assuming that I don't see reasons for why thing are as they are. I do, and I chalk it up to shortsightedness, a corruption of the political system, and a vested interest of the powers that be in an oil-based economy. This, my friend, is not idealism. .
But then, what they do is more akin to paying someone you're likely to speak to to secretly record your conversation for them
Sure. And why should I expect that this would never happen? Because it's unprofitable for them. But when the value of my conversations is more than the cost of paying people to eavesdrop, I have no expectation that people won't do so. This is why if you have information worth a lot to you, you don't share it, except with people you trust.
And saying that, basically, if you don't want companies to profile you then surf anonymously is dangerously close to saying that if you don't want to be shot (and injured) by a criminal then wear a bullet-proof vest. Or if you don't want someone creating a voodoo doll in your likeness and dipping you in vaults of various acids in effigy, or perhaps collecting a DNA swipe off of a counter you touched to analyze it on their computer and determine the best pick-up line to give you the next day, then wear a hair net, a veil, gloves, a long-sleeved shirt and pants whenever you go out. Or maybe just a burqa to make it easier. We shouldn't _have_ to hide.. Oh, yeah, and the DNA analyst at his computer is just trying to figure out how to best serve you, right?
I nuderstand what you're saying, but the problem is that legal recourse will not protect your data. Someone with the resources and the desire will be able to get your data if they want it. Your right to privacy means nothing if it can be transgressed at will.
The only solution is a technical one. When you have to depend on your government to protect your privacy, you're fucked. The government has invasion of your privacy in its interests, so you better protect it yourself... in this case, via encryption and anonymization.
I fail to see the point of that argument. You are voluntarily sending data on their network, why should you have to opt in?
The more relevant question would be: Is it ethical for the phone company to record and correlate all conversations going through their lines and sell (summaries of) the recordings to third parties? Without their customers' consent? Without their knowledge?
Were you around when all calls went through a switchboard? And you had to assume that the operator was listening in? Believing your phone calls are private is only two generations old, and I think it's a mistake. One should NEVER assume that information crossing someone else's network, be it via telephone or via the internet, is private. Note that we have a technical solution to eavesdropped phone calls, as well -- VOIP can be encrypted (sure, there's some latency, but that's a small price to pay for privacy).
As far as I'm concerned, there should be no expectation of privacy on any public means of data transmission. We have the technical capability of securing our correspondence, and legislating privacy is a big mistake since it makes us dependent on government to safeguard our privacy, and that is not always in the government's interest.
What I've been taught is irrelevant. What the average user expects is what congress is asking. And just because a mailman has the ability to peruse a postcard doesn't mean he should photocopy it and sell it on eBay.
Then the problem is with the average user. The internet is still a relatively new technology, and it will take time for people to become aware of the implications of their internet use. Until we stop comparing it to older means of communication, people will be confused. It just needs to be made clear to people that internet traffic is not private unless they make it private. We have the means to do so.
So, how do I conceal my slashdot posts, google searches, and online shopping from my ISP?
Use an anonymizer or a proxy. If my paid proxy reveals my info, he's got a breach of contract suit on his docket. I only use it for sensitive info, but it meets my needs.
Why? I use a proxy for sensitive stuff, and I trust it. I pay for that privilege, but at some point, you have to trust someone unless you personally own all the network the packet transverses. I'd rather trust a proxy I pay to safeguard my information (who stands to lose a lot of business if it gets around that they aren't doing their job) than trust someone with a monetary incentive to sniff my information.
As to encryption, it's a sad day when you cannot trust your service provider to provide a service, without eavesdropping for profit. What next, encryption for snailmail? We could always use invisible ink, but that might prove difficult for the mail service to deliver
If you're going to continue the snailmail metaphor, again I have to stress that without encryption, you are sending postcards, not sealed envelopes. And plenty of people have used, and still use, encryption with snailmail, as they deem it necessary to maintain their privacy. The question is, how much do they value their privacy, and how much effort do they have to put in for encryption? When encryption is so easy electronically, why not take advantage of it?
I think it's absolutely absurd to think that when you give a private for-profit organization your correspondence, you don't expect them to try to make money off their own information (after all, they have as much right of ownership to the information of what crosses their network, and from where, as you do).
Privacy cannot be protected by legal recourse. It can only truly be protected by technological recourse. Making something illegal does not prevent it from happening. Making something impossible does.
I went from 25-80 to 50-200 because very few people get 30 mi/gal on their commute, and the average commute is well over 20 miles, IIRC, for workplaces in urban areas. For SUV drivers, especially, the fuel cost can be very high.
Leases- if you lease you're a fucking moron.payment- I'll go with the 150/month
Not so. Leases are cost effective for people who put few miles on their car, since age then overtakes mileage as the major wear factor. $50/mo for maintenance covers it, over the life of a car? Seriously, how long have you been driving? Brakes, tires, oil, tune-ups, belts, eventually the bigger stuff like shocks and/or struts, transmission, etc. If you can get away with $600/yr in maintenance over the life of a car, you are a lucky man. Either that, or you're wasting the money you spent on purchasing the car, you should be leasing instead, since you are getting rid of the car before it needs major maintenance.
I live in NJ, as far out on the NJTransit train lines as you can get from Manhattan:). The railpass (good on all NJ Transit trains and buses) got me to the beach, the inlaws, the gf before we shacked up and got married, the mall (it is NJ, after all), the good grocery store, etc. I'm about 60 miles from NYC. The bike took care of local errands, except for big purchases, which I either rented a van for or took a cab (depending on size).
Also, I could have not gotten the subway pass, and shaved off $80/month. But I was too lazy to walk 15 minutes once I got into the city...
As for assuming that car ownership happens either way... well, it was really nice to not own one and be able to get around via mass transit. Ideally that would be the best situation.
For a while I lived in Hoboken NJ, right across the Hudson from downtown Manhattan. Mass transit only cost me about $60/mo...
But that doesn't mean it's legal, and, more to the point, that there isn't "an expectation of privacy."
Why should it be illegal? Other than things like credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc, why should it be illegal? Is it illegal for me to tell my wife the details of a conversation I had with you?
As for the expectation of privacy, are you kidding me? Were you never taught that emails (or for that matters, any packets) should be considered postcards, not sealed envelopes? The internet is a de facto public space. The quicker you internalize this, the happier you will be.
Why do we have to "take the bad with the good"? Is there some law of quantum physics that says website visitor tracking must be entangled with advertising services?
Is there some law of quantum physics that says that wensite visitor tracking cannot be entangled with advertising services?
I am loathe to ask for a legislative solution to a problem that has a technical solution. Far better to use the technical solution that makes the question moot, than use a legislative solution that *trust* that the law is being followed.
Fully agreed. Hence the right to use anonymization and encryption must be held sacred. A built-in opt-out clause solved through technology, not through legislation (which is bound to have transgressions).
If there is a demand for anonymization and encryption services, someone will provide it. As more people are aware of (and concerned about) privacy issues, they will make use of such services, even if they have to pay for it.
Just because you don't see it happening a ton today doesn't mean it won't be used a lot tomorrow.
What is important is that our *right* to use anonymization services and encryption is not abrogated.
Not only are there people who don't know anything about encryption
If they care about their privacy, that is their problem. If they don't care, no harm, no foul.
but why should I have to do something extra to ensure I have what is already supposed to be mine?
I have tons of problems with this question. Why do you assume that "it" is supposed to be yours? You're transmitting postcards, not sealed envelopes... assuming that by "it" you are referring to privacy, what makes you think that you have any expectation of privacy in a de facto public space if you don't make any efforts to safeguard it?
If I send a postcard to a friend, I assume anyone who handles it could read it. But that's not fair! Why should I have to take the extra step of sealing an envelope in order to maintain the privacy of my letter? And if it's really important info, you can bet your ass I'd encrypt it with a one-time pad. So even if they open my mail, they won't find anything useful without dedicating ridiculous resources to it.
Hence anonymization and encryption. Did you even read my post? Or did you rush to respond to the first line you read to which you could raise an objection?
If all your traffic is encrypted, and goes to an anonymization server, how exactly is the ISP supposed to sniff the traffic? Seriously.
The two-way correspondence refers to the end recipient of your packets, not to the ISP.
Reminds me of a quote (or sig) I saw once, wish I could remember the source: "In the 80s, capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 90s, it triumphed over democracy."
And this will, of course, require a tremendous infusion of capital. Good thing our economy is going strong and we're not blowing all our money in the middle east or with trade surpluses to China.
I can think of a few companies that have ridiculous amounts of capital due to windfall profits the past few years, who are already in the business of energy production.
Slashdot Mirror
To be consistent, that should be "Wii-sure Suit Wari-o".
The character tie-in is as important as the pronunciation.
The last two times I bought expensive consumer electronics, Pricegrabber and Google Product search wasted hours of my time. Once I ordered from Newegg (a nice 3-CCD videocam, at $200 below competitors' prices) and the other time I ordered a DVD player from Buy.com.
Both times my order was back-ordered indefinitely; I had to cancel my orders and ended up making the purchases in a bigbox store. The nice thing about a site like Ebay is that they are offering the item for sale on that site; if they are out of stock on a listed item, it violates the ToS for Ebay. It's anecdotal, and just my experience, but I feel items on Ebay (from reputable sellers) are more likely to be in stock.
Because it allows them to reach more of their market?
Lots of shoppers prefer like the advantage of having competing products from different retailers available on a single site, since it makes comparison shopping easier.
Followed by...
Seems to me that response is turning into two camps with a sliding scale of intensity.
Personally, I must say that I mostly liked it with an undertone of ennui.
And one more thing...
As opposed to wasting it reading a review of a movie you didn't like and then posting comments in the discussion?
Anyone who is going to tartly respond to this inflammatory statement would do well to read the link contained in the statement... 'ripeness' is an important legal concept, and it is clear that the matter is, as yet, unripe.
In order for the 'ripeness' qualification to be met, decision on the claim must affect the outcome. It's clear from reading the link that the outcome would not be affected, since the government is unlikely to perform another ex parte search; and even if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the guy who was indicted knows full well that he is under indictment, and would be even more of a fool to leave any more emails hanging around for the government to search.
As for the other issues, I'll not comment, since I don't think my words would bear the fruit.
I've been getting this one to.
Record the call (inform them you are doing so). Have fun asking them what company they are calling on behalf of, and what company they actually work for. Ask them to add you to both their DNC lists.
Do this every time they call.
I've got four of these calls recorded, I'm waiting for the 5th so I can pass go and collect $200. (Actually more than that... though I doubt I have a snowball's chance in hell of ever collecting).
I am outside and enjoying life, you insensitive clod!
(Gotta love wireless)
Since when does anal leakage not count as a horrific side effect for a food additive?
I can't wait until his product comes to maturity -- then demand for gas will be so low that the price will drop below $1.
"Fill her up with regular, please. You can pay me in cash."
I agree 100%. In order to work well, there would have to be a competency test for each issue that's voted on, with only those who have sufficient knowledge allowed to vote. And that is a nightmare.
The bigger problem I have with this, that kind of relates to an uneducated population, is the tyranny of the majority. Even if the majority understands an issue, they will likely vote in a manner that overwhelms the needs of the minority. This is the main reason a direct democracy is bad, IMO.
And then, when it gets struck down, they'll get it on the November ballot, which will make sure that their base gets out to the polls and votes for McCain. Just like gay marriage in the last election.
Try not to make borad assumptions about people based on a single exchange of posts in a slashdot forum. It only makes you look like a whinging twit.
A lot of the time, things are as they are because of inertia, or because of active resistance to a better way. You don't think the fact that their is a HUGE interest in maintaining the status quo in one of the largest industries in the US?
As for the impracticality of the electrical solution I've been discussing, it is no less impractical than our current vehicle fuel distribution system.
As for the "simple" solution, I never said it was simple. OP in the thread raised a bogus simple objection, so I gave him a simple answer. If you think that I believe it's an easy solution, you're way off base.
At any rate, your decision that I'm a naive optimist from a single exchange of posts on slashdot is far from the mark, and tells me that you're rash, as well as obstructionist. You can consider yourself a pragmatist if you wish, but pragmatism involves information gathering before jumping to a negative conclusion. As for:
You make the mistake of assuming that I don't see reasons for why thing are as they are. I do, and I chalk it up to shortsightedness, a corruption of the political system, and a vested interest of the powers that be in an oil-based economy. This, my friend, is not idealism. .
Sure. And why should I expect that this would never happen? Because it's unprofitable for them. But when the value of my conversations is more than the cost of paying people to eavesdrop, I have no expectation that people won't do so. This is why if you have information worth a lot to you, you don't share it, except with people you trust.
I nuderstand what you're saying, but the problem is that legal recourse will not protect your data. Someone with the resources and the desire will be able to get your data if they want it. Your right to privacy means nothing if it can be transgressed at will.
The only solution is a technical one. When you have to depend on your government to protect your privacy, you're fucked. The government has invasion of your privacy in its interests, so you better protect it yourself... in this case, via encryption and anonymization.
I fail to see the point of that argument. You are voluntarily sending data on their network, why should you have to opt in?
Were you around when all calls went through a switchboard? And you had to assume that the operator was listening in? Believing your phone calls are private is only two generations old, and I think it's a mistake. One should NEVER assume that information crossing someone else's network, be it via telephone or via the internet, is private. Note that we have a technical solution to eavesdropped phone calls, as well -- VOIP can be encrypted (sure, there's some latency, but that's a small price to pay for privacy).
As far as I'm concerned, there should be no expectation of privacy on any public means of data transmission. We have the technical capability of securing our correspondence, and legislating privacy is a big mistake since it makes us dependent on government to safeguard our privacy, and that is not always in the government's interest.
Then the problem is with the average user. The internet is still a relatively new technology, and it will take time for people to become aware of the implications of their internet use. Until we stop comparing it to older means of communication, people will be confused. It just needs to be made clear to people that internet traffic is not private unless they make it private. We have the means to do so.
Use an anonymizer or a proxy. If my paid proxy reveals my info, he's got a breach of contract suit on his docket. I only use it for sensitive info, but it meets my needs.
Why? I use a proxy for sensitive stuff, and I trust it. I pay for that privilege, but at some point, you have to trust someone unless you personally own all the network the packet transverses. I'd rather trust a proxy I pay to safeguard my information (who stands to lose a lot of business if it gets around that they aren't doing their job) than trust someone with a monetary incentive to sniff my information.
If you're going to continue the snailmail metaphor, again I have to stress that without encryption, you are sending postcards, not sealed envelopes. And plenty of people have used, and still use, encryption with snailmail, as they deem it necessary to maintain their privacy. The question is, how much do they value their privacy, and how much effort do they have to put in for encryption? When encryption is so easy electronically, why not take advantage of it?
I think it's absolutely absurd to think that when you give a private for-profit organization your correspondence, you don't expect them to try to make money off their own information (after all, they have as much right of ownership to the information of what crosses their network, and from where, as you do).
Privacy cannot be protected by legal recourse. It can only truly be protected by technological recourse. Making something illegal does not prevent it from happening. Making something impossible does.
Not so. Leases are cost effective for people who put few miles on their car, since age then overtakes mileage as the major wear factor. $50/mo for maintenance covers it, over the life of a car? Seriously, how long have you been driving? Brakes, tires, oil, tune-ups, belts, eventually the bigger stuff like shocks and/or struts, transmission, etc. If you can get away with $600/yr in maintenance over the life of a car, you are a lucky man. Either that, or you're wasting the money you spent on purchasing the car, you should be leasing instead, since you are getting rid of the car before it needs major maintenance.
:). The railpass (good on all NJ Transit trains and buses) got me to the beach, the inlaws, the gf before we shacked up and got married, the mall (it is NJ, after all), the good grocery store, etc. I'm about 60 miles from NYC. The bike took care of local errands, except for big purchases, which I either rented a van for or took a cab (depending on size).
I live in NJ, as far out on the NJTransit train lines as you can get from Manhattan
Also, I could have not gotten the subway pass, and shaved off $80/month. But I was too lazy to walk 15 minutes once I got into the city...
As for assuming that car ownership happens either way... well, it was really nice to not own one and be able to get around via mass transit. Ideally that would be the best situation.
For a while I lived in Hoboken NJ, right across the Hudson from downtown Manhattan. Mass transit only cost me about $60/mo...
Why should it be illegal? Other than things like credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc, why should it be illegal? Is it illegal for me to tell my wife the details of a conversation I had with you?
As for the expectation of privacy, are you kidding me? Were you never taught that emails (or for that matters, any packets) should be considered postcards, not sealed envelopes? The internet is a de facto public space. The quicker you internalize this, the happier you will be.
Is there some law of quantum physics that says that wensite visitor tracking cannot be entangled with advertising services?
I am loathe to ask for a legislative solution to a problem that has a technical solution. Far better to use the technical solution that makes the question moot, than use a legislative solution that *trust* that the law is being followed.
Because it pays for the content you're accessing? Because it helps offset the cost of providing service to you?
Fully agreed. Hence the right to use anonymization and encryption must be held sacred. A built-in opt-out clause solved through technology, not through legislation (which is bound to have transgressions).
If there is a demand for anonymization and encryption services, someone will provide it. As more people are aware of (and concerned about) privacy issues, they will make use of such services, even if they have to pay for it.
Just because you don't see it happening a ton today doesn't mean it won't be used a lot tomorrow.
What is important is that our *right* to use anonymization services and encryption is not abrogated.
If they care about their privacy, that is their problem. If they don't care, no harm, no foul.
I have tons of problems with this question. Why do you assume that "it" is supposed to be yours? You're transmitting postcards, not sealed envelopes... assuming that by "it" you are referring to privacy, what makes you think that you have any expectation of privacy in a de facto public space if you don't make any efforts to safeguard it?
If I send a postcard to a friend, I assume anyone who handles it could read it. But that's not fair! Why should I have to take the extra step of sealing an envelope in order to maintain the privacy of my letter? And if it's really important info, you can bet your ass I'd encrypt it with a one-time pad. So even if they open my mail, they won't find anything useful without dedicating ridiculous resources to it.
Hence anonymization and encryption. Did you even read my post? Or did you rush to respond to the first line you read to which you could raise an objection?
If all your traffic is encrypted, and goes to an anonymization server, how exactly is the ISP supposed to sniff the traffic? Seriously.
The two-way correspondence refers to the end recipient of your packets, not to the ISP.
Reminds me of a quote (or sig) I saw once, wish I could remember the source:
"In the 80s, capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 90s, it triumphed over democracy."
I can think of a few companies that have ridiculous amounts of capital due to windfall profits the past few years, who are already in the business of energy production.