As far as advertising is concerned, I'm actually GLAD that companies are "invading my privacy" in an attempt to display ads to me that are relevant to my interests.
Good for you. Now what does that have to do with anything?
You do realize that in a world with strong privacy controls you would still be free to give advertisers as much information as you wanted to right?
In a world with strong privacy controls you could opt in to all their collection methods; install as many advertising toolbars as you can find and authorize them to see your online activity, carry around rfid tags and authorize them to track your movements. You can even shove a sensor in your ass that transmits them the composition of your diet, and the frequency and vigor of your sex life.
You are free to opt into as much data collection as you like.
Privacy controls protect people who don't want their data collected and used without their consent. There will be nothing stopping you from handing them your data so that you can get targeted ads about AMD processors and anal lube.
That's completely absurd. If I write my credit card number on the wall of my house, I can't sue people for looking at it because it's my personal information.
You are right. That is completely absurd. Its also completely irrelevant.
Google cannot in any way ever be held responsible for people blatantly revealing their personal information.
Except that using an unencrypted wifi is really entirely nothing like writing something on the wall of your house.
You can't outlaw "seeing things that are plainly visible."
Do you walk down the street seeing and/or hearing wifi transmissions? Of course not. Its not "plainly visible".
They needed to actually connect to the wifi. Its the equivalent of opening a door. Sure its not locked or secured in anyway, but you still had to make a positive action to get "inside". And then once inside, they started recording everything.
Out of curiosity, If the occupant uses an older analog cordless phone (without encryption) do you figure you should be allowed to record all their phone calls too?
Note that this would be considered an illegal phone tap in most jurisdictions. Is that ridiculous too? What is the difference?
May be saving that $10-$20 gives them electricity for 6 months.
Or gets them 2 games instead of 1. I've buy probably 90% of my console games for the Wii used. I don't buy a lot of PC games used anymore, because its gotten to be such a hassle with online keys and activation.
As a result, I buy a lot fewer PC games than I used to.
Maybe he shouldn't make that point in an offensive way? Maybe he should dispute points and present his opinions. Or would he rather just slander everyone to death?
I find your post extremely offensive. You shouldn't be legally allowed to offend me. I've already called the police. I know you'll cooperate and accept your conviction because you clearly agree people shouldn't be allowed to offend other people.
I can appreciate that talking about bombs while going through airport security is not appropriate.
I honestly can't even appreciate that. And honestly the people TALKING about bombs while going through airport security aren't all that likely to be carrying one.
Well, what does MS care if you're Winmodem gets repurposed for Linux?
They were essentially software modems, and were cheaper because the hardware was little more than an rj11 phone jack connected to a speaker and mic.
The reason they were called "winmodems" was because all the actual signal processing was done in software, in the drivers, instead of in dedicated hardware.
They didn't work on linux was because they weren't really modems. It wasn't that they were "crippled", per se.
Aha, I would say - nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant fraction of the population has the equipment necessary to pick up 2.4 GHz signals sitting in their pockets, or in their backpacks.
The problem with saying "you can't look at it without specialized equipment, therefore it should be private" is that in this case, the "specialized equipment" is getting less and less specialized.
That wasn't my argument. That was yours. I said "out of sight" is different than "in plain view".
Its a simple convention of society that we respect other peoples space. Some amount of privacy leakage is unavoidable, and we as a society politely ignore it.
Suppose I leave the curtains open. I can't really then complain if you happen to see into my home as you go about your business because its in plain sight; you can't reasonably be expected not to see anything in that situation. However, even in plain sight its *still* not an invitation to setup a camera and start recording.
When it comes to wifi and anything else that requires specialized equipment... common or not its still out of sight, and you aren't inadvertently stumbling onto the data.
If you are accessing a wifi transmission its because you made an active effort to. Basic common courtesy dictates you don't do that. Purposefully recording it, yeah, that's wrong. Maybe its not actually illegal, but perhaps it should be.
and it's not in the visible spectrum so people don't pay attention to it
I see that as a key distinction actually. That you need to use special equipment to pluck it out the aether is a pretty significant difference if you ask me.
I can use specialized equipment to record the electromagnetic signals passing from your keyboard to your PC. Is that fair game to record too?
I can use a laser listening device to capture sound waves vibrating a window and use that to reproduce what you are saying behind it. Is that fair game to record too?
The fact that non-visible signals leak out of our homes is hardly an open invitation to record them.
Just filthy parasites, and they ought to be treated that way.
The filthy parasites are the ones leeching all the money out of the rest of the system.
Follow the money. Its flowing up to the rich, not the other way around, despite their (and your) complaints to the contrary. The rich are getting richer.
Piss an moan all you like about the parasitic left, but while you flail around whining about them, the real parasites are laughing all the way to the bank.
Note the pathetically childish and uncivil behavior by the left towards the Tea Party candidates and Conservatives in general throughout the last election campaign. It worked out really well.
Anti-cloning makes more sense than anything really. What does microsoft REALLY care if you use a kinect with your Linux PC? Or even your windows PC.
They would, however, want to stop people selling knock-off kinect peripherals. (Whether they should be able to even do that is a separate question, but at least one can see why they'd be motivated to.)
Yeah because mining gold and refining it and the turning it into nano-particles takes zero energy....
Wrong question.
The question is whether it use less energy than mining, refining, manufacturing natural resources into compete LED based solutions, and then deploying and running them.
Why would google need a tracking cookie? They've already got you using their browser. They could just hardware any tracking they want directly into the browser.
And your car analogy is apt. And why I have a 1995 car that still drives fine.
Precisely. The question do Office 2010 or Win7 do anything fundamentally different is essentially a non sequitor.
You can't make a word processor fundamentally different and still have it be a word processor. All word processors are fundamentally the same thing. Ditto for spreadsheets, and even operating systems.
From a users perspective even OSX isn't fundamentally different from Windows 7, especially to end users.
So is facebook still signing up new users faster than old users are abandoning hit? How will we know? I know I never signed up in the first place, but the amount of people in my circle of friends mention facebook is noticeably in decline, former farmville addicts don't log in more than once a week..., I'm not constantly hearing about shit someone or other said on facebook...
In my circle at least, its more relevant than myspace, but its definitely peaked and is fading.
Functionally, usefully, what do Win7 & Office 2010 have that WinXP & Office 2001 didn't have?
Tons of stuff. Serious. The new versions of office are much easier to work with in terms of placing/manipulating images in documents. Charting in excel is both more functional and more attractive. Outlook has the ignore button. Outlook imap support is markedly better. Managing headers and footers is easier. The help tool is markedly better.
As for windows 7, its more secure. A lot more secure. Its not perfect, but its a huge upgrade. At the end of the day its an operating system, you don't use operating systems. You use applications, and ideally the operating system stays out of the way. Win 7 does that pretty well. I like the new ui widgets. I notice the hardware acceleration performance boost. I like gadget/sidebar thing. The new taskbar, with document previews, and so forth is better. Joining wireless networks is better, setting up printers is better. Setting up network shares is better.
How is a new car better than a 30 year old car? Tons of little refinements, but driving hasn't changed much. If you can drive an automatic 1980 Toyota Camry you'll be fine in an automatic 2010 Honda Civic. The fact that driving hasn't been completely reinvented 6 times over the last few decades isn't a bad thing. Cars do tons more than they used to... but its all the little things that are peripheral to the experience. The core of steering/braking/accelrating is still the same.
In no case have you ever seen "C#" written as "see sharp".
"In no case..."??
Of course I have. Thousands of times. Did you even look to see if what you are writing is true? Look at pretty much any musical discussion anywhere on the internet...
Seriously, there is a _huge_ difference in symbolism.
And yet musicians the world over have accepted it as a suitable convenient ascii substitute for sharps to the point that # and b are accepted conventions when discussing music on the web.
Intentions only take you so far when you make an epic screw-up.
The only epic screw up here is insisting that it be called C-pound.
Pay close attention to the symbol names in the index entries part of the table.
Why? I know all that, and you are repeating what I already said. I'm well aware # is not the correct sharp sign. I didn't argue it was.
I argued that it simply didn't matter.
So this: "C#" is "see pound"...
No. Go read any music discussion on the web...here's just one excerpt of millions...
For example, the notes in D Major are:
D E F# G A B C# D
While the notes are the same, you would never say,
D E Gb G A B Db D
They have no problem using # for sharps. And as it happens they also use the lowercase b for flats.
Written language is to convey the intended meaning. When the intended meaning is "sharp", then its "sharp" whether they write the word "sharp", use the "#", or use the proper Unicode sharp symbol.
You have a president who made a promise to the nation to close Gitmo without realizing that there will be complications?
I don't think he realized how *much* opposition there would be to it, or that republicans would be generally as obstructionist as they were to anything and everything he did.
(And don't tell me that McCain was worse. There were other candidates you could have picked, it didn't have to be a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich).
For starters, I still like Obama. He's done things I disagree with, and backed down on issues I'd hoped he'd have fought harder for. But that's politics. I actually disagreed with McCain on far more issues - including his choice of running mate.
And as for 'other candidates' give me a break. One issue candidates with no real policy platform, and lunatics for the most part.
I'm not sure who you are backing, but if it was Ron Paul... while I'm with him on cutting spending, I disagree with him on tons of other stuff. And lets be honest, even if elected he'd be completely castrated in terms of political capital to actually DO anything he promised. The one thing Dems and Republicans would be able to agree on would be to ensure he'd accomplish nothing on his agenda.
I suppose then that would him a manipulative liar too? since he should know this.
To be fair it's not just hijacking the plane that's a concern. Sometime their goal is to just blow up the plane.
Except that if a few hundred people is all they want they can nail a bus at rush hour, a subway, the lineup at airport security, a childrens school christmas concert...
If Chrome does it, Google's more likely to be liable.
I take it you didn't read the EULA.
14.1 SUBJECT TO OVERALL PROVISION IN PARAGRAPH 13.1 ABOVE, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR:
(A) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY.. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFIT (WHETHER INCURRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY), ANY LOSS OF GOODWILL OR BUSINESS REPUTATION, ANY LOSS OF DATA SUFFERED, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSS;...
Granted you can still sue them, and eula might not be worth squat. But Google at least has no intention whatsoever of being held responsible for wiping out your data or anything else for that matter.
Hah.../. won't let me post because of too many caps in google's stupid boilerplate. This is just filler to see how much regular text it takes to fix it. Looks like I need some more. Apparently it needs just about this much.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as advertising is concerned, I'm actually GLAD that companies are "invading my privacy" in an attempt to display ads to me that are relevant to my interests.
Good for you. Now what does that have to do with anything?
You do realize that in a world with strong privacy controls you would still be free to give advertisers as much information as you wanted to right?
In a world with strong privacy controls you could opt in to all their collection methods; install as many advertising toolbars as you can find and authorize them to see your online activity, carry around rfid tags and authorize them to track your movements. You can even shove a sensor in your ass that transmits them the composition of your diet, and the frequency and vigor of your sex life.
You are free to opt into as much data collection as you like.
Privacy controls protect people who don't want their data collected and used without their consent. There will be nothing stopping you from handing them your data so that you can get targeted ads about AMD processors and anal lube.
That's completely absurd. If I write my credit card number on the wall of my house, I can't sue people for looking at it because it's my personal information.
You are right. That is completely absurd. Its also completely irrelevant.
Google cannot in any way ever be held responsible for people blatantly revealing their personal information.
Except that using an unencrypted wifi is really entirely nothing like writing something on the wall of your house.
You can't outlaw "seeing things that are plainly visible."
Do you walk down the street seeing and/or hearing wifi transmissions? Of course not. Its not "plainly visible".
They needed to actually connect to the wifi. Its the equivalent of opening a door. Sure its not locked or secured in anyway, but you still had to make a positive action to get "inside". And then once inside, they started recording everything.
Out of curiosity, If the occupant uses an older analog cordless phone (without encryption) do you figure you should be allowed to record all their phone calls too?
Note that this would be considered an illegal phone tap in most jurisdictions. Is that ridiculous too? What is the difference?
May be saving that $10-$20 gives them electricity for 6 months.
Or gets them 2 games instead of 1. I've buy probably 90% of my console games for the Wii used. I don't buy a lot of PC games used anymore, because its gotten to be such a hassle with online keys and activation.
As a result, I buy a lot fewer PC games than I used to.
Maybe he shouldn't make that point in an offensive way? Maybe he should dispute points and present his opinions. Or would he rather just slander everyone to death?
I find your post extremely offensive. You shouldn't be legally allowed to offend me. I've already called the police. I know you'll cooperate and accept your conviction because you clearly agree people shouldn't be allowed to offend other people.
I can appreciate that talking about bombs while going through airport security is not appropriate.
I honestly can't even appreciate that. And honestly the people TALKING about bombs while going through airport security aren't all that likely to be carrying one.
To be fair, if you want to -respond- to their replies, having access to their account makes that a lot easier.
Well, what does MS care if you're Winmodem gets repurposed for Linux?
They were essentially software modems, and were cheaper because the hardware was little more than an rj11 phone jack connected to a speaker and mic.
The reason they were called "winmodems" was because all the actual signal processing was done in software, in the drivers, instead of in dedicated hardware.
They didn't work on linux was because they weren't really modems. It wasn't that they were "crippled", per se.
Aha, I would say - nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant fraction of the population has the equipment necessary to pick up 2.4 GHz signals sitting in their pockets, or in their backpacks.
The problem with saying "you can't look at it without specialized equipment, therefore it should be private" is that in this case, the "specialized equipment" is getting less and less specialized.
That wasn't my argument. That was yours. I said "out of sight" is different than "in plain view".
Its a simple convention of society that we respect other peoples space. Some amount of privacy leakage is unavoidable, and we as a society politely ignore it.
Suppose I leave the curtains open. I can't really then complain if you happen to see into my home as you go about your business because its in plain sight; you can't reasonably be expected not to see anything in that situation. However, even in plain sight its *still* not an invitation to setup a camera and start recording.
When it comes to wifi and anything else that requires specialized equipment... common or not its still out of sight, and you aren't inadvertently stumbling onto the data.
If you are accessing a wifi transmission its because you made an active effort to. Basic common courtesy dictates you don't do that. Purposefully recording it, yeah, that's wrong. Maybe its not actually illegal, but perhaps it should be.
Deep in your soul you know I am right, else you would have stopped two messages ago...
Right back at ya. You can't let go can you?
and it's not in the visible spectrum so people don't pay attention to it
I see that as a key distinction actually. That you need to use special equipment to pluck it out the aether is a pretty significant difference if you ask me.
I can use specialized equipment to record the electromagnetic signals passing from your keyboard to your PC. Is that fair game to record too?
I can use a laser listening device to capture sound waves vibrating a window and use that to reproduce what you are saying behind it. Is that fair game to record too?
The fact that non-visible signals leak out of our homes is hardly an open invitation to record them.
"out of sight" vs "in plain sight" are different.
Just filthy parasites, and they ought to be treated that way.
The filthy parasites are the ones leeching all the money out of the rest of the system.
Follow the money. Its flowing up to the rich, not the other way around, despite their (and your) complaints to the contrary. The rich are getting richer.
Piss an moan all you like about the parasitic left, but while you flail around whining about them, the real parasites are laughing all the way to the bank.
Note the pathetically childish and uncivil behavior by the left towards the Tea Party candidates and Conservatives in general throughout the last election campaign. It worked out really well.
Childish and uncivil describes the teaparty too.
What was your point?
Anti-cloning makes more sense than anything really. What does microsoft REALLY care if you use a kinect with your Linux PC? Or even your windows PC.
They would, however, want to stop people selling knock-off kinect peripherals. (Whether they should be able to even do that is a separate question, but at least one can see why they'd be motivated to.)
Or cut amazon out of the loop and just tell aunt mildred to send you a cheque in the first place...
Yeah because mining gold and refining it and the turning it into nano-particles takes zero energy....
Wrong question.
The question is whether it use less energy than mining, refining, manufacturing natural resources into compete LED based solutions, and then deploying and running them.
I 'm willing to take that chance; it really is so improbable that its the least of my worries.
Why would google need a tracking cookie? They've already got you using their browser. They could just hardware any tracking they want directly into the browser.
And your car analogy is apt. And why I have a 1995 car that still drives fine.
Precisely. The question do Office 2010 or Win7 do anything fundamentally different is essentially a non sequitor.
You can't make a word processor fundamentally different and still have it be a word processor. All word processors are fundamentally the same thing. Ditto for spreadsheets, and even operating systems.
From a users perspective even OSX isn't fundamentally different from Windows 7, especially to end users.
So is facebook still signing up new users faster than old users are abandoning hit? How will we know? I know I never signed up in the first place, but the amount of people in my circle of friends mention facebook is noticeably in decline, former farmville addicts don't log in more than once a week..., I'm not constantly hearing about shit someone or other said on facebook...
In my circle at least, its more relevant than myspace, but its definitely peaked and is fading.
Functionally, usefully, what do Win7 & Office 2010 have that WinXP & Office 2001 didn't have?
Tons of stuff. Serious. The new versions of office are much easier to work with in terms of placing/manipulating images in documents. Charting in excel is both more functional and more attractive. Outlook has the ignore button. Outlook imap support is markedly better. Managing headers and footers is easier. The help tool is markedly better.
As for windows 7, its more secure. A lot more secure. Its not perfect, but its a huge upgrade. At the end of the day its an operating system, you don't use operating systems. You use applications, and ideally the operating system stays out of the way. Win 7 does that pretty well. I like the new ui widgets. I notice the hardware acceleration performance boost. I like gadget/sidebar thing. The new taskbar, with document previews, and so forth is better. Joining wireless networks is better, setting up printers is better. Setting up network shares is better.
How is a new car better than a 30 year old car? Tons of little refinements, but driving hasn't changed much. If you can drive an automatic 1980 Toyota Camry you'll be fine in an automatic 2010 Honda Civic. The fact that driving hasn't been completely reinvented 6 times over the last few decades isn't a bad thing. Cars do tons more than they used to... but its all the little things that are peripheral to the experience. The core of steering/braking/accelrating is still the same.
In no case have you ever seen "C#" written as "see sharp".
"In no case..."??
Of course I have. Thousands of times. Did you even look to see if what you are writing is true? Look at pretty much any musical discussion anywhere on the internet...
http://www.list-of-chords.com/
http://musiced.about.com/od/lessonsandtips/qt/minosclaes.htm
http://www.guitar-chords.org.uk/chords-key-b-flat-minor.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_5496374_play-adopted-cyclopedia-music-theory.html
http://www.8notes.com/guitar_chord_chart/ax.asp
Seriously, there is a _huge_ difference in symbolism.
And yet musicians the world over have accepted it as a suitable convenient ascii substitute for sharps to the point that # and b are accepted conventions when discussing music on the web.
Intentions only take you so far when you make an epic screw-up.
The only epic screw up here is insisting that it be called C-pound.
Pay close attention to the symbol names in the index entries part of the table.
Why? I know all that, and you are repeating what I already said. I'm well aware # is not the correct sharp sign. I didn't argue it was.
I argued that it simply didn't matter.
So this: "C#" is "see pound"...
No. Go read any music discussion on the web...here's just one excerpt of millions...
They have no problem using # for sharps. And as it happens they also use the lowercase b for flats.
Written language is to convey the intended meaning. When the intended meaning is "sharp", then its "sharp" whether they write the word "sharp", use the "#", or use the proper Unicode sharp symbol.
You have a president who made a promise to the nation to close Gitmo without realizing that there will be complications?
I don't think he realized how *much* opposition there would be to it, or that republicans would be generally as obstructionist as they were to anything and everything he did.
(And don't tell me that McCain was worse. There were other candidates you could have picked, it didn't have to be a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich).
For starters, I still like Obama. He's done things I disagree with, and backed down on issues I'd hoped he'd have fought harder for. But that's politics. I actually disagreed with McCain on far more issues - including his choice of running mate.
And as for 'other candidates' give me a break. One issue candidates with no real policy platform, and lunatics for the most part.
I'm not sure who you are backing, but if it was Ron Paul... while I'm with him on cutting spending, I disagree with him on tons of other stuff. And lets be honest, even if elected he'd be completely castrated in terms of political capital to actually DO anything he promised. The one thing Dems and Republicans would be able to agree on would be to ensure he'd accomplish nothing on his agenda.
I suppose then that would him a manipulative liar too? since he should know this.
To be fair it's not just hijacking the plane that's a concern. Sometime their goal is to just blow up the plane.
Except that if a few hundred people is all they want they can nail a bus at rush hour, a subway, the lineup at airport security, a childrens school christmas concert...
If Chrome does it, Google's more likely to be liable.
I take it you didn't read the EULA.
14.1 SUBJECT TO OVERALL PROVISION IN PARAGRAPH 13.1 ABOVE, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR:
(A) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY.. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFIT (WHETHER INCURRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY), ANY LOSS OF GOODWILL OR BUSINESS REPUTATION, ANY LOSS OF DATA SUFFERED, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSS;...
Granted you can still sue them, and eula might not be worth squat. But Google at least has no intention whatsoever of being held responsible for wiping out your data or anything else for that matter.
Hah... /. won't let me post because of too many caps in google's stupid boilerplate. This is just filler to see how much regular text it takes to fix it. Looks like I need some more. Apparently it needs just about this much.