Not a crime no, but is still a pretty sleazy move.
I am not sure I agree with people who are saying that turning it on by default is not a 'true indicator of user preference' since, after having tracking explained to them, users generally are against it. So it could be argued that having 'do not track' as a default setting is more representative then having 'tracking is fine with me' be the default.
Getting time on the big telescopes has always been a bit of a trial since they are a limited resource and there are a lot of people who want to use them.
These telescopes do not need some special unique mission/purpose.. just having more capacity and schedule time for a wider group of scientists would be worthwhile right there, at least to the people who get time on them.
The irony, of course, being that the 'world wide web' was invented by people at CERN, which is swiss/french.... so under that logic the EU should regulate the web and the US would regulate routing, I guess.
A lot of that depends on tradition though.. you can not come down on books or newspapers because they have gotten slapped for it in the past (and yeah, when those mediums were new, the government tried to crack down on them then too).. now we have a new medium and tradition isn't there, so we are going through the same cycle of seeing how much power they can exert before people get pissed off enough. That 'fantastic record' came about because when the government oversteeped people got angry, and we need to keep getting angry whenever they try to push those boundaries again.
Even that does not quite work since in this case the legality is in question... so within this analogy the person simply said they were going to drive fast.
I think the idea wasn't just to print a gun, but to test the limits of a particular emergent technology and how it can be applied to the specific domain.
If the goal was just to get guns, there are shops all over the place.
Actually, many scientists want to keep their data hidden for a time. It is kinda like patents and copyrights, gathering data can be time consuming, expensive, and unrewarding. It is the analysis that gets you credit, so generally scientists want a window where they have exclusive access to their data in order to be first to work with it. There have been some nasty events where some research group got a hold of someone else's data before they were done with it and scooped the glory without having done the unglamorous work.
Who are you going to hire to sort through all that, and who will defend me when someone inevitably claims I'm still "hiding" something by keeping research-irrelevant private conversations private?
I think that is one of the big reasons they do stuff like this. The cost of sorting through the emails and redacting personal information is probably significant, so BP is saying 'give us the results we want, or we will make you spend months and maybe millions redacting stuff no one will read'. Pure punishment.
In this case, it sounds like the provided the raw data, but BP is asking for internal and peer review correspondences. Significant difference if accurate.
Fishing expeditions like BP's are not looking for secrets,. they are looking to find sound bytes they can then take to the court of public opinion or regulators in order to convince non-scientists that 'those scientists are up to no good, see, they called it a statistical trick!'. They are not asking for the science, they are asking for the personal conversations between scientists... the same type of thing that the same companies argue would hamper national security or trade secrets if outsiders saw their's.
The 5% goal just means the candidate gets more money. It is a milestone, but mostly symbolic rather then representing actual viability.
The problem with the 'platform' value is it is just a plank, not actual action.
I do not have a simple link handy, it is mostly game theory stuff.
Ahm.. notice you said no 3rd party contender? That is one of the things informing the conclusion. Not only do we have 200+ years of 3rd parties not surviving in this nation, but we have all the other nations that use a similar voting system also failing to develop any viable 3rd parties. Within our country they have come up maybe a dozen or two times, across other counties they have come up hundreds of times. They peek at 10-20% and then dissolve, returning to a two party system.
Yeah, but it dovetails with 'how dare those dang foreigners interfere with the US!' narrative,. so it is getting lots of hyperbolic attention and fear that the US will be under UN control. Exceptional-ism is still a pretty strong meme in the US, and anytime a story comes out that someone other then the US might have power or that the US isn't a unilateral power that can do whatever it wants unquestioned, it gets whipped up into an expletive storm.
Problem is.. it is not one and never has been. What needs to be figured out over the coming decades is, will the US unilaterally regulate it, or will an international organization do so. Neither is a particularly good option, but I doubt we will have much other choice.
Well, it is debatable if the vote is 'wasted' or not since the concept is pretty subjective. As another poster pointed out, significant turnout for a 3rd party can often cause one of the two parties to integrate those issues into its platform, but that really the main 'value' of such votes. Mathematically, our system will pretty much always stabilize on two parties, just like other countries that have similar voting laws. There will never be a 3rd party that is anything other then a sounding board for new planks. There will never be a critical mass that propels us into a 3 party system with a third of the nation (apx) voting for each one because our system just can not stabilize around that configuration.
Keep in mind, this is talking about the advertizing and marketing, not the existence of the product. Children have undeveloped brains, a lot of the mechanisms that work to protect us later in life are not there yet, and advertizes have been getting increasingly good at tapping into that before parents really have an opportunity to instill healthier habits.
I personally do not think regulating such things is a good idea, but I think it is important to at least, as adults, to be aware of the impact it has on our kids so we know what to keep an eye on.
It is not unusual for places to still be using Office97 or have some internal policy of standardizing on the Office97 format since it works pretty much everywhere.
There are also cases where they have some internally developed application that takes Office97 formatted documents and does things with them, for instance electronic paperwork where you submit a filled out form as a doc and the fields are read out into some database. It could be argued that they should upgrade, but some places are slow or do not want to replace systems that already, well, work.
I can recall last time I was job hunting, several companies required you send your resume in specific formats, often.doc since that is the format whatever back end they had knew how to work with... thus in those cases one really had no place to tell them to upgrade and would be SoL if using google docs.
On the other hand, I think people get really uncomfortable with the idea that advertizing has the impact it does.. the idea makes them feel less in control of their lives so they underestimate how much other forces actually do sway them. We like to think we are above influence, but we are not, and marketers know we are not.
This does not absolve us from personal responsibility, but it does mean we need to be more realistic about what effects us so we can take responsibility by working to limit or remove those influences.
Unfortunately, avoiding such things is getting harder and harder, esp at low end grocery stores. With my job in peril I switched from a mid-range grocery store to a 'budget' one and was amazed at how hard it was to find any food that didn't have lots of fat and sugar added. Such things simply were not stocked.... I still have to go to the mid-range store to get things like, for instance, peanutbutter of all things.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a crime no, but is still a pretty sleazy move.
I am not sure I agree with people who are saying that turning it on by default is not a 'true indicator of user preference' since, after having tracking explained to them, users generally are against it. So it could be argued that having 'do not track' as a default setting is more representative then having 'tracking is fine with me' be the default.
But that would involve reading the article! Who has time to that when there are comments to post!
Getting time on the big telescopes has always been a bit of a trial since they are a limited resource and there are a lot of people who want to use them.
These telescopes do not need some special unique mission/purpose.. just having more capacity and schedule time for a wider group of scientists would be worthwhile right there, at least to the people who get time on them.
The irony, of course, being that the 'world wide web' was invented by people at CERN, which is swiss/french.... so under that logic the EU should regulate the web and the US would regulate routing, I guess.
I have known people who, cradle the grave, never traveled outside a 30 mile circle or so.
A lot of that depends on tradition though.. you can not come down on books or newspapers because they have gotten slapped for it in the past (and yeah, when those mediums were new, the government tried to crack down on them then too).. now we have a new medium and tradition isn't there, so we are going through the same cycle of seeing how much power they can exert before people get pissed off enough. That 'fantastic record' came about because when the government oversteeped people got angry, and we need to keep getting angry whenever they try to push those boundaries again.
Keep in mind, this was no desktop makerbot type printer, it was a professional leased one probably on par with most CNCs.
Even that does not quite work since in this case the legality is in question... so within this analogy the person simply said they were going to drive fast.
I think the idea wasn't just to print a gun, but to test the limits of a particular emergent technology and how it can be applied to the specific domain.
If the goal was just to get guns, there are shops all over the place.
Considering part of his goal is to bring attention to the subject, keeping quiet wouldn't make much sense.
Actually, many scientists want to keep their data hidden for a time. It is kinda like patents and copyrights, gathering data can be time consuming, expensive, and unrewarding. It is the analysis that gets you credit, so generally scientists want a window where they have exclusive access to their data in order to be first to work with it. There have been some nasty events where some research group got a hold of someone else's data before they were done with it and scooped the glory without having done the unglamorous work.
Who are you going to hire to sort through all that, and who will defend me when someone inevitably claims I'm still "hiding" something by keeping research-irrelevant private conversations private?
I think that is one of the big reasons they do stuff like this. The cost of sorting through the emails and redacting personal information is probably significant, so BP is saying 'give us the results we want, or we will make you spend months and maybe millions redacting stuff no one will read'. Pure punishment.
In this case, it sounds like the provided the raw data, but BP is asking for internal and peer review correspondences. Significant difference if accurate.
Fishing expeditions like BP's are not looking for secrets,. they are looking to find sound bytes they can then take to the court of public opinion or regulators in order to convince non-scientists that 'those scientists are up to no good, see, they called it a statistical trick!'. They are not asking for the science, they are asking for the personal conversations between scientists... the same type of thing that the same companies argue would hamper national security or trade secrets if outsiders saw their's.
The 5% goal just means the candidate gets more money. It is a milestone, but mostly symbolic rather then representing actual viability.
The problem with the 'platform' value is it is just a plank, not actual action.
I do not have a simple link handy, it is mostly game theory stuff.
Ahm.. notice you said no 3rd party contender? That is one of the things informing the conclusion. Not only do we have 200+ years of 3rd parties not surviving in this nation, but we have all the other nations that use a similar voting system also failing to develop any viable 3rd parties. Within our country they have come up maybe a dozen or two times, across other counties they have come up hundreds of times. They peek at 10-20% and then dissolve, returning to a two party system.
"If you don't like the web, go back to gopher". I like it ^_^
Yeah, but it dovetails with 'how dare those dang foreigners interfere with the US!' narrative,. so it is getting lots of hyperbolic attention and fear that the US will be under UN control. Exceptional-ism is still a pretty strong meme in the US, and anytime a story comes out that someone other then the US might have power or that the US isn't a unilateral power that can do whatever it wants unquestioned, it gets whipped up into an expletive storm.
Problem is.. it is not one and never has been. What needs to be figured out over the coming decades is, will the US unilaterally regulate it, or will an international organization do so. Neither is a particularly good option, but I doubt we will have much other choice.
Well, it is debatable if the vote is 'wasted' or not since the concept is pretty subjective. As another poster pointed out, significant turnout for a 3rd party can often cause one of the two parties to integrate those issues into its platform, but that really the main 'value' of such votes. Mathematically, our system will pretty much always stabilize on two parties, just like other countries that have similar voting laws. There will never be a 3rd party that is anything other then a sounding board for new planks. There will never be a critical mass that propels us into a 3 party system with a third of the nation (apx) voting for each one because our system just can not stabilize around that configuration.
And I guess pre-advertising boom internet just didn't exist or must have really sucked or something.
The loops one must go through when they want to justify why everyone should bend to the model they want...
Keep in mind, this is talking about the advertizing and marketing, not the existence of the product. Children have undeveloped brains, a lot of the mechanisms that work to protect us later in life are not there yet, and advertizes have been getting increasingly good at tapping into that before parents really have an opportunity to instill healthier habits.
I personally do not think regulating such things is a good idea, but I think it is important to at least, as adults, to be aware of the impact it has on our kids so we know what to keep an eye on.
It is not unusual for places to still be using Office97 or have some internal policy of standardizing on the Office97 format since it works pretty much everywhere.
There are also cases where they have some internally developed application that takes Office97 formatted documents and does things with them, for instance electronic paperwork where you submit a filled out form as a doc and the fields are read out into some database. It could be argued that they should upgrade, but some places are slow or do not want to replace systems that already, well, work.
I can recall last time I was job hunting, several companies required you send your resume in specific formats, often .doc since that is the format whatever back end they had knew how to work with... thus in those cases one really had no place to tell them to upgrade and would be SoL if using google docs.
On the other hand, I think people get really uncomfortable with the idea that advertizing has the impact it does.. the idea makes them feel less in control of their lives so they underestimate how much other forces actually do sway them. We like to think we are above influence, but we are not, and marketers know we are not.
This does not absolve us from personal responsibility, but it does mean we need to be more realistic about what effects us so we can take responsibility by working to limit or remove those influences.
Unfortunately, avoiding such things is getting harder and harder, esp at low end grocery stores. With my job in peril I switched from a mid-range grocery store to a 'budget' one and was amazed at how hard it was to find any food that didn't have lots of fat and sugar added. Such things simply were not stocked.... I still have to go to the mid-range store to get things like, for instance, peanutbutter of all things.