Unlike government, not one of the firms in the coalition has the power to force you to hand information over to them. If you don't want Google or Microsoft or AT&T to have your information, don't use their services
True, but they do collect it without your knowledge. Every site that uses google analytics collects data for google. Web sites use it because it helps them -- but google provides it for "free" to those sites because it builds *their* database of user activity tracking which applies very broadly and across sites. This isn't to mention the information you're sharing smply by viewing doubleclick.net and direct google ads.
It's not as simple as "don't use it". Consumers provide information to these companies every day, and never even know it.
Okay, time to cue responses about using adblock, noscript, et al -- except that really only works if you're aware of the risk in the first place, and know enough to take those steps.
Here's what's got me confused. You called the posting a dupe -- and they're about two completely different things, and reference two completely different articles. Just because some of the stats in the second half of the summary are not directly related to the article itself (something that's hardly uncommon here) doesn't make it a dupe...
The Article was dated 1st April - so we don't really know it's true.
Which is part of the reason why I object to serious news outlets participating in April Fool's jokes.
The *real* article was dated 3/31. The blog entry in TFA was dated 4/1. Which is part of the reason why I object to slashdot accepting regurgative [poetic license #31825] blog posts.
(my teenage daugheter) texts without looking at the keypad. She only looks at the screen to read the messages. This is not a *good thing* but it is an interesting skill.
Full stop. Looking at the screen means that she's not looking at the road. As any experienced driver can tell you, "it only takes a second for something to go badly wrong" is NOT just an empty phrase when driving, because in reality the time is even lower than that.
On a related note, I fail to understand the people who look at passengers when talking to them. Overcome your social conditioning and recognize that your eyes belong ONLY on the road, no matter what your mouth is doing.
You're not considering the flip side of the coin: The computing needs of a typical consumer are far different from a techie's needs. Most non-technical people would benefit from closed systems. Systems that are essentially immune to their own ignorance. Systems that won't bog down because they "clicked the bunny" and are now unwittingly part of a botnet. Systems that don't require them to think in order to watch a video, manage email, and write reports.
You can't stop people from clicking the bunny. But you can make sure that user stays in a nice comfortable cage, where all of their needs are met -- and where the bunny can't hurt him.
I think the problem here is the submitter's summary, where he writes:
Even though the in-house-designed 1GHz A4 chip got little official comments from Apple; touch screen's instantaneous responses prove that it is outstandingly fast.
He states that the chip is outstandingly fast, as evidenced by the GUI response. The argument wasn't that the device was fast -- because in that you're correct. If responsiveness is there, it's as fast as it needs to be.
Except the few million of us behind corp firewalls who can't use google docs due to info sharing & leakage risks...
In any case, if you don't have PDF files set to automatically open in your browser (which has always been annoying to me anyway - nested UI's are just irritating) your chances of being affected are much reduced. iframe attacks won't work on you, and you'll be more generally safe with PDF files that you are seeking out and opening deliberately.
This is good reason to ensure that no matter *which* PDF reader you use, you disable the "automatic open in browser" behavior and file behavior associations (in FF). It's one extra click to have to manually open the file, and this way you don't have to worry about a hidden iframe containing evil things.
I pretty much agree with you. In fact, I think we're making much the same point. The level of anonymization that is performed -- either by "white hat" hackers, or by the companies who own rights to the data -- isn't sufficient. Removing PII is, as you say, not proper anonymization; and yet that seems to be all that was done with the FB data.
The common theme in the replies here on slashdot is that the data was "anonymized" so surely there is no harm in allowing the researcher to keep and/or disseminate it. My point is that what passes for anonymization in these cases really isn't.
Well the choices are there... mostly. I bet you have a really great whole foods in your neighborhood with all kinds of wholesome food, but go into a poor-ish neighborhood and see what your options are. Or let's say you're at work and you need to take a quick lunch break. If you've packed a lunch in advance, what are your choices? Probably mostly fast food. Or if you pack a lunch, do you pack a sandwich? Most peanut butter, for example, is filled with transfats and hfcs, and almost all jelly has hfcs, so no PB&J. No sandwich meats either, since they have hfcs even if you can deal with the salt content. Unless your very picky and shop it out, you can't even pack a drink because of the hfcs.
The problem I have here is that I don't agree with what seems to be the premise - HFCS is not a horrible ninja of fat. I personally don't think that HFCS needs to be avoided any more than sugar -- only that intake of both (along with fats, etc) should be done in moderation. For this I can only go on my own experience -- which says that if there's no medical reason to prevent it, it is possible to lose weight (and keep it off) without avoiding any of these foods entirely.
To directly answer your question: I usually pack leftovers, and sometimes lunch meat sandwiches. Or sometimes I'll forget and find something nearby. I'm in an odd neighborhood here at work - it's actually a pretty rough area (parking lot muggings a few times a year, stabbings across the street, etc) but due to my employer (a large bank w/ corporate offices here) there are also a lot of restaurants in my immediate vicinity, giving me more choice than I normally would have on those days.
And how long fast food takes depends entirely on how far out of your way it is. I can pick up dinner for 5 at McDonalds in 2 minutes on my way home. I can't cook a full dinner for 5 in 2 minutes. What's more, McDonalds might even be cheaper (partially because of subsidies).
I'll give you this. And that there are meals that can take a full day to cook. But my overall point is that it's possible to cook well for a family of 4 without spending more than 15-45 minutes on it. While that's not the most convenient thing for many people, it's also not outside of the realm of possibility. Let's not confuse "don't feel like cooking" or "want to spend my time watching TV/web surfing/gaming/etc" with "don't have time to cook" as many people seem to do.
I'm not extremely interested in placing blame and figuring out who has valid excuses. I'm much more interested in what the causes of the problems are and how the problems can be solved. I'd rather figure out how to stem and reverse the epidemic of obesity than sit around hating fat people for being fat.
There are very few people I hate, and certainly fat people are not among them. I *do* think that most people [again, excluding specific medical reasons] have it within their capability to not be fat.
I don't want to come across as some kind of new age "healthy living" preacher - I rarely think about this stuff, and almost never talk about it. I don't getting feel-good organic food (are you insane? far too expensive) or yearn for a nearby juice bar. But in the end, it's so bloody simple: moderation. *some* exercise. Being aware of what you're putting into your body and how much. Taking responsibility for your own choices, and realizing that the thousands of "quick fix" options don't fix anything -- it took work to put the weight on, it is not going to be easy to take it off.
I've digressed far too much and am out of time to finish point-by-point discussion (I tend to work both ends toward the middle in replying to quotes...), so I'll try to wrap up.
I agree that it's a particular problem for the poor, and cede (from my own experience) that no, it's not always possible for them to get to a grocery store with a reasonable selection. However, it's *far* from being limited to a 'poor' pr
Removing names isn't necessarily enough. The recent netflix case shows that . I think it's interesting that nobody catches the broader implications of that discussion -namely that whether they're "anonymizing" data for purposes of providing it for research, or selling it for marketing... the ability to reverse engineer patterns to undo it remains a risk. -
the ENTIRE TEXT of my site- copied and recopied to put into a web page that exists only to generate ad-sense revenue by a third party is not.
You mean like google cache? I actually agree with you overall -- it's my data, not yours. You may not publicly exhibit copies of it for your own benefit. It's just that it's a difficult line to draw, in large part because of omnibus monetizing service providers like Google.
I think there should be a Godwin-type law for patent discussions: ""As an online discussion about patents grow longer, the probability of confusion with copyrights, and/or a comparison to (RI|MP)AA approaches 1." Corollary: As an online discussion of copyrights grows longer, the probability of confusion with trademarks approaches 1.
n the other hand, it's a good for people idea to learn about the technology behind websites before browsing them.
I agree it's a good idea - perhaps even foolish not to know this. At the same time, though, the purpose of computers for *most people* is to simplify life. It's not a learning experience, it's a tool to get things done - whether it's watching videos, email, news, blog-gossip, etc.
From that perspective, which I agree that it is ultimately the user's responsibility, I can also understand how a typical user would be disinclined to go to any extra lengths to learn.
I think the car comparison is not apt -- a better one would be something like a microwave. You just press the right buttons and it does its job. You might have to clean it once in a while, but doing so doesn't require you to understand any single part of how it does what it does.
Re: fresh frozen vegetables/meats with HFCS - I'd love to see an example where it wasn't specifically used as part of a dish (like vegetables in sauce, or pre-seasoned meat -- neither of which is what I was talking about).
If you want to take the free-market stance of "it's the consumer's own choice for buying this stuff", then I think before you can even make that argument, you have to first make the following changes:
The problem is that except for point 1 (which I heartily agree with), the rest of it comes from people. The choices *are* there. The information *is* there. Proper labeling *is* there and has been required for years. I do agree that corn subsidies et al should be stopped, there is no good justification for it. I would say the same about *any* government subsidy though, so that probably doesn't mean very much;)
nd keep in mind that obesity is also a problem among poorer people who aren't as well informed, don't have as much time to cook, and often don't even have access to a proper grocery store.
But it's also a problem for people who don't fit that category. And again, cooking usually does not take any more time than required to pick up some take-out or wait for a frozen dinner to cook. As far as access to a proper grocery store - potentially true, though I would say this is the exception rather than the rule. Meaning that for a very small portion of the population, they have less choice. That doesn't excuse the rest of us for being fat though...
Slashdot Mirror
And no, you don't have a right to view the result unless you're a complete fucked-up ghoul.
Unfortunately, the ghouls DO have the right to view. Nobody said free speech was always pretty.
As GP said, the real problem here is that it was police who sent the info out - abusing their positions to do so.
Hm. That was posted by me. No idea why it went up as Anon Coward; the final version showed my name, sig etc, until I refreshed the page...
Unlike government, not one of the firms in the coalition has the power to force you to hand information over to them. If you don't want Google or Microsoft or AT&T to have your information, don't use their services
True, but they do collect it without your knowledge. Every site that uses google analytics collects data for google. Web sites use it because it helps them -- but google provides it for "free" to those sites because it builds *their* database of user activity tracking which applies very broadly and across sites. This isn't to mention the information you're sharing smply by viewing doubleclick.net and direct google ads.
It's not as simple as "don't use it". Consumers provide information to these companies every day, and never even know it.
Okay, time to cue responses about using adblock, noscript, et al -- except that really only works if you're aware of the risk in the first place, and know enough to take those steps.
I wonder how many of those are "* For Dummy" titles.
Might I recommend to those buying these compilation books that instead, they start with this For Dummies book?
Here's what's got me confused. You called the posting a dupe -- and they're about two completely different things, and reference two completely different articles. Just because some of the stats in the second half of the summary are not directly related to the article itself (something that's hardly uncommon here) doesn't make it a dupe...
"No I can't understand you you sound like you have shit in your mouth. Why don't you send that to me in an email?"
I despise voice communications of all types.
So would I, if everyone I spoke to told me that. But then at that point, I wouldn't be blaming the communications medium....
The Article was dated 1st April - so we don't really know it's true.
Which is part of the reason why I object to serious news outlets participating in April Fool's jokes.
The *real* article was dated 3/31. The blog entry in TFA was dated 4/1. Which is part of the reason why I object to slashdot accepting regurgative [poetic license #31825] blog posts.
If John Smith is known as a kiddie fiddler then no amount of innocents will rub that off of him
Nope. If anything, they would make it worse for the poor man by trying.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
That's just evil.
It was worth a shot. I think the best I've seen in my time here is +3 or +4
eh? What are you talking about? GP just wants 1 troll mod, and +5 underrated. I suspect he doesn't care about his karma.
Eh? "Truckers can't text while driving" is the same as "a minor portion of the population can talk on the phone while driving"?
(my teenage daugheter) texts without looking at the keypad. She only looks at the screen to read the messages. This is not a *good thing* but it is an interesting skill.
Full stop. Looking at the screen means that she's not looking at the road. As any experienced driver can tell you, "it only takes a second for something to go badly wrong" is NOT just an empty phrase when driving, because in reality the time is even lower than that.
On a related note, I fail to understand the people who look at passengers when talking to them. Overcome your social conditioning and recognize that your eyes belong ONLY on the road, no matter what your mouth is doing.
You can't stop people from clicking the bunny. But you can make sure that user stays in a nice comfortable cage, where all of their needs are met -- and where the bunny can't hurt him.
What's that sound? It's a low rumbling.. oh now it's getting closer - is it a really big bird? Is it a plane? Oh, no, it's, it's..
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHH!!
GP probably missed the sound due to small speakers.
Even though the in-house-designed 1GHz A4 chip got little official comments from Apple; touch screen's instantaneous responses prove that it is outstandingly fast.
He states that the chip is outstandingly fast, as evidenced by the GUI response. The argument wasn't that the device was fast -- because in that you're correct. If responsiveness is there, it's as fast as it needs to be.
In any case, if you don't have PDF files set to automatically open in your browser (which has always been annoying to me anyway - nested UI's are just irritating) your chances of being affected are much reduced. iframe attacks won't work on you, and you'll be more generally safe with PDF files that you are seeking out and opening deliberately.
This is good reason to ensure that no matter *which* PDF reader you use, you disable the "automatic open in browser" behavior and file behavior associations (in FF). It's one extra click to have to manually open the file, and this way you don't have to worry about a hidden iframe containing evil things.
The common theme in the replies here on slashdot is that the data was "anonymized" so surely there is no harm in allowing the researcher to keep and/or disseminate it. My point is that what passes for anonymization in these cases really isn't.
Well the choices are there... mostly. I bet you have a really great whole foods in your neighborhood with all kinds of wholesome food, but go into a poor-ish neighborhood and see what your options are. Or let's say you're at work and you need to take a quick lunch break. If you've packed a lunch in advance, what are your choices? Probably mostly fast food. Or if you pack a lunch, do you pack a sandwich? Most peanut butter, for example, is filled with transfats and hfcs, and almost all jelly has hfcs, so no PB&J. No sandwich meats either, since they have hfcs even if you can deal with the salt content. Unless your very picky and shop it out, you can't even pack a drink because of the hfcs.
The problem I have here is that I don't agree with what seems to be the premise - HFCS is not a horrible ninja of fat. I personally don't think that HFCS needs to be avoided any more than sugar -- only that intake of both (along with fats, etc) should be done in moderation. For this I can only go on my own experience -- which says that if there's no medical reason to prevent it, it is possible to lose weight (and keep it off) without avoiding any of these foods entirely.
To directly answer your question: I usually pack leftovers, and sometimes lunch meat sandwiches. Or sometimes I'll forget and find something nearby. I'm in an odd neighborhood here at work - it's actually a pretty rough area (parking lot muggings a few times a year, stabbings across the street, etc) but due to my employer (a large bank w/ corporate offices here) there are also a lot of restaurants in my immediate vicinity, giving me more choice than I normally would have on those days.
And how long fast food takes depends entirely on how far out of your way it is. I can pick up dinner for 5 at McDonalds in 2 minutes on my way home. I can't cook a full dinner for 5 in 2 minutes. What's more, McDonalds might even be cheaper (partially because of subsidies).
I'll give you this. And that there are meals that can take a full day to cook. But my overall point is that it's possible to cook well for a family of 4 without spending more than 15-45 minutes on it. While that's not the most convenient thing for many people, it's also not outside of the realm of possibility. Let's not confuse "don't feel like cooking" or "want to spend my time watching TV/web surfing/gaming/etc" with "don't have time to cook" as many people seem to do.
I'm not extremely interested in placing blame and figuring out who has valid excuses. I'm much more interested in what the causes of the problems are and how the problems can be solved. I'd rather figure out how to stem and reverse the epidemic of obesity than sit around hating fat people for being fat.
There are very few people I hate, and certainly fat people are not among them. I *do* think that most people [again, excluding specific medical reasons] have it within their capability to not be fat.
I don't want to come across as some kind of new age "healthy living" preacher - I rarely think about this stuff, and almost never talk about it. I don't getting feel-good organic food (are you insane? far too expensive) or yearn for a nearby juice bar. But in the end, it's so bloody simple: moderation. *some* exercise. Being aware of what you're putting into your body and how much. Taking responsibility for your own choices, and realizing that the thousands of "quick fix" options don't fix anything -- it took work to put the weight on, it is not going to be easy to take it off.
I've digressed far too much and am out of time to finish point-by-point discussion (I tend to work both ends toward the middle in replying to quotes...), so I'll try to wrap up.
I agree that it's a particular problem for the poor, and cede (from my own experience) that no, it's not always possible for them to get to a grocery store with a reasonable selection. However, it's *far* from being limited to a 'poor' pr
Removing names isn't necessarily enough. The recent netflix case shows that . I think it's interesting that nobody catches the broader implications of that discussion -namely that whether they're "anonymizing" data for purposes of providing it for research, or selling it for marketing... the ability to reverse engineer patterns to undo it remains a risk. -
the ENTIRE TEXT of my site- copied and recopied to put into a web page that exists only to generate ad-sense revenue by a third party is not.
You mean like google cache? I actually agree with you overall -- it's my data, not yours. You may not publicly exhibit copies of it for your own benefit. It's just that it's a difficult line to draw, in large part because of omnibus monetizing service providers like Google.
I think there should be a Godwin-type law for patent discussions: ""As an online discussion about patents grow longer, the probability of confusion with copyrights, and/or a comparison to (RI|MP)AA approaches 1." Corollary: As an online discussion of copyrights grows longer, the probability of confusion with trademarks approaches 1.
n the other hand, it's a good for people idea to learn about the technology behind websites before browsing them.
I agree it's a good idea - perhaps even foolish not to know this. At the same time, though, the purpose of computers for *most people* is to simplify life. It's not a learning experience, it's a tool to get things done - whether it's watching videos, email, news, blog-gossip, etc.
From that perspective, which I agree that it is ultimately the user's responsibility, I can also understand how a typical user would be disinclined to go to any extra lengths to learn.
I think the car comparison is not apt -- a better one would be something like a microwave. You just press the right buttons and it does its job. You might have to clean it once in a while, but doing so doesn't require you to understand any single part of how it does what it does.
If you want to take the free-market stance of "it's the consumer's own choice for buying this stuff", then I think before you can even make that argument, you have to first make the following changes:
The problem is that except for point 1 (which I heartily agree with), the rest of it comes from people. The choices *are* there. The information *is* there. Proper labeling *is* there and has been required for years. I do agree that corn subsidies et al should be stopped, there is no good justification for it. I would say the same about *any* government subsidy though, so that probably doesn't mean very much ;)
nd keep in mind that obesity is also a problem among poorer people who aren't as well informed, don't have as much time to cook, and often don't even have access to a proper grocery store.
But it's also a problem for people who don't fit that category. And again, cooking usually does not take any more time than required to pick up some take-out or wait for a frozen dinner to cook. As far as access to a proper grocery store - potentially true, though I would say this is the exception rather than the rule. Meaning that for a very small portion of the population, they have less choice. That doesn't excuse the rest of us for being fat though...