What you're talking about is domestic violence and yes it is a very big deal. It's up to you to decide where exactly the line is that you're not willing to cross, but that is domestic violence and you don't have to tolerate it.
Women get a free pass to engage in that sort of behavior in the US, in fact just yesterday there was an article on it in our local paper.Male victims get lost in domestic-abuse data
Well, he did access a computer that he bought for his wife and that he had often used, possibly while exceeding valid authorization, but he used the password that his wife had written down in a book next to the computer, so from the provider's viewpoint, he was authorized.
That's not the same thing as being authorized. I could probably find a key under a fake rock or door mat for at least one house in my neighborhood. But it's not really reasonable for me to conclude that by virtue of having the key that I'm authorized to use it. Likewise, when I was a kid, my mother had several keys to neighbors' houses for the purpose of letting them in if they got locked out. She wasn't authorized to use it for any other purpose unless agreed upon before doing it.
I'm not sure why this would be any different. If she hadn't given him the authorization to use the password then he shouldn't have used it. The only part of this which makes me uncomfortable is that it becomes rather like a he said she said thing as to whether or not he had permission to use the password.
It's somewhat more complicated than that. If you leave the emails up on screen and they see it or they leave the account logged in then there isn't much reason to expect privacy, but if you have to type the password in to read the emails, that's different. The analogy would be sort of like leaving a spare key under the door mat. You're not authorizing any random Tom, Dick or Harry to use the key to gain access to your home just by leaving a key out. But you are greatly increasing the likelihood that somebody will do it.
Likewise, anybody that controls the mail servers that the email travels through en route can view the emails, but that doesn't mean that one can't expect that random other parties not involved in the infrastructure can request a copy without a court order.
That's horse shit. Reading a spouses email without permission is a very serious violation and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It might not be obvious, but in abusive marriages, the abuser will control and isolated the abused individual, and it pretty much requires access to all or a good portion of the channels of communication. Allowing a spouse the right to access the information without being specifically authorized to do it would go a long ways in terms of undermining efforts to stop domestic violence and child abuse.
In cases where there's a concern of child abuse or cheating there are ways of dealing with that. If there's a genuine enough concern to warrant looking at the emails without permission then there's enough concern to warrant going to the police for advice.
But at what cost? Email is great because you don't have to know somebody in order to send one. Requiring me to jump through those hoops in order to send and receive email just means that I won't be able to use email because it won't be particularly useful.
The real reason it exists is because a small fraction of the people who receive them buy the advertised products. Companies turn a blind eye to spam that's being sent by an affiliate on their behalf.
In short, you're advocating something that's rather ridiculous, when you could just focus on shutting down the financial resources and holding companies responsible for spam that advertises their products whether or not they directly sent the materials.
Google largely has it figured out. I'm not sure how exactly they do it, but it appears to be a combination of black lists, white lists, bayesian filter and putting any emails that are identical to ones identified by other users as spam into the spam folder unless already whitelisted. The results are pretty impressive, although for best results, you do need to whitelist things from time to time.
What's nice about it is that I rarely get any spam at all into my email account. I think it's less than a fifty or so over the last like 5 years or so.
Which makes me wonder how long it is until we get a complete revamp of the system. I regularly get messages from companies I do business with notifying me that they're changing the terms and that the only way to reject the change is by canceling my account.
Seems to me that unless they can demonstrate that I saw the notification and agreed that they shouldn't be able to change the ToS for me.
I agree, on the upside though, a lot of this, cartoonish as it seems, is common practice amongst many businesses. We reserve the right to change our terms and will assume that you're agreeing to them if we don't hear from you within a certain period when we change them.
With any luck, perhaps that contract will be thrown out along with all the other ones that rely upon that sort of gibberish.
Thing is, I'm pretty detail oriented (what most people call "weird") and I actually read the terms of use.
That's not weird just pointless. Unless you're an attorney it's not realistic to expect to understand the ToS to the extent necessary to consent. The language will frequently include a phrase acknowledging that some or all of it isn't binding if you're jurisdiction doesn't allow it. But there's no indication as to what it is and without a good resource for case law and the knowledge to interpret it properly you're never going to understand what you're being asked to agree to.
Interestingly enough, that other technology that he pans in the article has taken off in recent years. Albeit not quite as implemented at that point. Now that many smartphones have a camera and the ability to process images you get all sorts of things like those clever barcode scanners.
As much as I hate to admit it, that really solves the main market problem that the:CueCat had.
Tracking? Why would i care about that? Maybe i want to have an image of my personality created since i don't care for golf, i don't want to buy Shitney Spears new album, nor do i care much for the latest and greatest sports cars.
I actually want ads to be tailored for me. Any sites where i sign up to, i instantly check settings for things that the site will show me based on my interests.
When is the last time they gave you the choice of whether or not to be tracked or by whom? Which is the problem, you have these people tracking people without permission or any sort of notification. You've got no way of knowing who they are or what they're doing and with the number of security breeches involving supposedly confidential data by corporations too lazy and incompetent to properly secure it.
Yeah, it's your right to not care about that, but you're a dumb ass for suggesting that it isn't any sort of big deal.
Indeed. That's a challenging one to solve. I personally try to use documented file formats where possible, but that really only solves the easy portion of the problem. The other portion is accessing those files later on, assuming they're not wiped out in some fashion at a future time.
Actually, the real problem is that these changes tend to be made in lock step with similar changes in other companies. At this point contracts have gotten to the point where you really shouldn't assume consent just because they've been agreed to.
Unfortunately, the legal system still relies on the antiquated notion that people have a choice unless they're under duress. The problem is that if you don't agree to the terms of service for a bank, you're locked out of a lot of things. Probably won't be able to rent an apartment, won't be able to borrow money for a car or home loan and might not be able to get a job.
That's frequently the case. The patents are the result of research, much of which never sees the light of day. Creating a really good mobile phone is more than just having a list of patents, it requires putting them together in a way which makes sense and results in a quality product. And that part isn't easy.
Online popularity is not the same as real life popularity. Online I can have a hot chixxor avatar and become popular quickly without having to really work for it. Occasionally, I can post hot pictures of women and talk about things that appeal to everybody.
Do that for a while and word of mouth grows. As opposed to in real life where I'd be expected to meet most of those people, or at least notice that they exist.
Doing that is almost certain to guarantee a huge number of "friends" but really once the number of friends hits about 5 or so, some of those relationships are going to suffer if they're genuine friendships.
No evidence required. It was a response to the GGP's assertion that there was a positive correlation between number of facebook friends and number of real world friends. There is no reasonable basis for the assumption that there was a connection.
It's rather clever of you to turn it into a false dilemma, given that there could be a positive correlation, a negative correlation or no correlation at all. Rather deft of you to ignore that last one.
Slashdot isn't a social networking site. I'd hazard that only a small portion of the people here actually use the journal, and those that do use it as a way of submitting a short article.
Slashdot is essentially a blog with user submitted articles that people comment on. The only reason why there's a karma sytsem at all is to help filter out the known trolls and crap posters, and it does an alright job of that.
Or in other words, apart from a very superficial, community of people posting on a subject there isn't really a whole lot of similarity.
You must not have gotten the memo. Anytime that a government agency does something which might theoretically affect a business in some indirect, but negative, way, it's an unwarranted abuse of government power and an example of Nazism, Fascism and probably Socialism.
Not to mention that it makes Jesus cry, kills puppies and forces ceiling cat to urinate from on high.
The problem is that they've made a likeness which doesn't appear to differ from the original enough to qualify as satire, it uses his name and the Apple logo.
That last bit is probably what's going to cause most of the problem. The rest of it isn't as cut and dry as that is.
Why should your desire to profit off my visage impede my right to privacy? If the concept is confusing, we're lucky to have a common-law system so our system evolves with our society.
He's not a private citizen he's the CEO of a well known company. If he sued over privacy rights for things he does in public he might get as much as $1 as an award assuming he won.
I see no evidence that the dolls were made using information that wasn't publicly available to damn near everybody. And considering that he goes out to publicly announce new products dressed like that, I really don't think he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
But ultimately I would like them to win this just because I do think that a person should have reasonable control over items that use both the name and likeness of an individual. Although it does get a bit insane sometimes like that Zoe Renault suit in France.
The 1st amendment protections for the press are, in my view, overly generous. A lot of that personal information that the press loves to report on isn't any of our business. It's one thing when they report on things which are sort of grey area such as when politicians have affairs, and quite another when they report on other celebrities engaging in that same behavior.
And the only reason why it is our business with politicians is that they frequently run for office on the suggestion that they represent us and can do so in an appropriate way and with reasonable integrity.
Report on conflicts of interest and things which we really need to know, but leave all that crap about what happens behind closed doors of celebrities out of it. Unless there's a legitimate and compelling reason for the people to know. We don't have a right to know everything about a person just because they're a celebrity.
Precisely. Typing in code isn't the same thing as typing an article or a comment on a blog. The language used isn't optimized for that, it's designed typically to be compiled or interpreted in a specific way.
Consequently, while it might be nice to type really fast, the reality is that you can't do it because you simultaneously need to be making sure you're typing the correct code. A similar problem to computer processors, they could do a lot more calculations if we were OK with the calculations not being checked for precision and errors. But because we demand that consistency and reliability the engineers designing them have to spend that extra processing time ensuring that it works right.
But, despite the bleeting of those damned grammer nazis, those typos back there hardly change the meaning of the sentence in any meaningful way, anybody with half a mind knows what I just said.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're talking about is domestic violence and yes it is a very big deal. It's up to you to decide where exactly the line is that you're not willing to cross, but that is domestic violence and you don't have to tolerate it.
Women get a free pass to engage in that sort of behavior in the US, in fact just yesterday there was an article on it in our local paper.Male victims get lost in domestic-abuse data
Well, he did access a computer that he bought for his wife and that he had often used, possibly while exceeding valid authorization, but he used the password that his wife had written down in a book next to the computer, so from the provider's viewpoint, he was authorized.
That's not the same thing as being authorized. I could probably find a key under a fake rock or door mat for at least one house in my neighborhood. But it's not really reasonable for me to conclude that by virtue of having the key that I'm authorized to use it. Likewise, when I was a kid, my mother had several keys to neighbors' houses for the purpose of letting them in if they got locked out. She wasn't authorized to use it for any other purpose unless agreed upon before doing it.
I'm not sure why this would be any different. If she hadn't given him the authorization to use the password then he shouldn't have used it. The only part of this which makes me uncomfortable is that it becomes rather like a he said she said thing as to whether or not he had permission to use the password.
It's somewhat more complicated than that. If you leave the emails up on screen and they see it or they leave the account logged in then there isn't much reason to expect privacy, but if you have to type the password in to read the emails, that's different. The analogy would be sort of like leaving a spare key under the door mat. You're not authorizing any random Tom, Dick or Harry to use the key to gain access to your home just by leaving a key out. But you are greatly increasing the likelihood that somebody will do it.
Likewise, anybody that controls the mail servers that the email travels through en route can view the emails, but that doesn't mean that one can't expect that random other parties not involved in the infrastructure can request a copy without a court order.
That's horse shit. Reading a spouses email without permission is a very serious violation and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It might not be obvious, but in abusive marriages, the abuser will control and isolated the abused individual, and it pretty much requires access to all or a good portion of the channels of communication. Allowing a spouse the right to access the information without being specifically authorized to do it would go a long ways in terms of undermining efforts to stop domestic violence and child abuse.
In cases where there's a concern of child abuse or cheating there are ways of dealing with that. If there's a genuine enough concern to warrant looking at the emails without permission then there's enough concern to warrant going to the police for advice.
But at what cost? Email is great because you don't have to know somebody in order to send one. Requiring me to jump through those hoops in order to send and receive email just means that I won't be able to use email because it won't be particularly useful.
The real reason it exists is because a small fraction of the people who receive them buy the advertised products. Companies turn a blind eye to spam that's being sent by an affiliate on their behalf.
In short, you're advocating something that's rather ridiculous, when you could just focus on shutting down the financial resources and holding companies responsible for spam that advertises their products whether or not they directly sent the materials.
Google largely has it figured out. I'm not sure how exactly they do it, but it appears to be a combination of black lists, white lists, bayesian filter and putting any emails that are identical to ones identified by other users as spam into the spam folder unless already whitelisted. The results are pretty impressive, although for best results, you do need to whitelist things from time to time.
What's nice about it is that I rarely get any spam at all into my email account. I think it's less than a fifty or so over the last like 5 years or so.
Which makes me wonder how long it is until we get a complete revamp of the system. I regularly get messages from companies I do business with notifying me that they're changing the terms and that the only way to reject the change is by canceling my account.
Seems to me that unless they can demonstrate that I saw the notification and agreed that they shouldn't be able to change the ToS for me.
I agree, on the upside though, a lot of this, cartoonish as it seems, is common practice amongst many businesses. We reserve the right to change our terms and will assume that you're agreeing to them if we don't hear from you within a certain period when we change them.
With any luck, perhaps that contract will be thrown out along with all the other ones that rely upon that sort of gibberish.
Thing is, I'm pretty detail oriented (what most people call "weird") and I actually read the terms of use.
That's not weird just pointless. Unless you're an attorney it's not realistic to expect to understand the ToS to the extent necessary to consent. The language will frequently include a phrase acknowledging that some or all of it isn't binding if you're jurisdiction doesn't allow it. But there's no indication as to what it is and without a good resource for case law and the knowledge to interpret it properly you're never going to understand what you're being asked to agree to.
Interestingly enough, that other technology that he pans in the article has taken off in recent years. Albeit not quite as implemented at that point. Now that many smartphones have a camera and the ability to process images you get all sorts of things like those clever barcode scanners.
:CueCat had.
As much as I hate to admit it, that really solves the main market problem that the
Already exists. Well, not quite, but there are a few where each time you click on something somebody donates a couple grains of rice.
Tracking? Why would i care about that? Maybe i want to have an image of my personality created since i don't care for golf, i don't want to buy Shitney Spears new album, nor do i care much for the latest and greatest sports cars. I actually want ads to be tailored for me. Any sites where i sign up to, i instantly check settings for things that the site will show me based on my interests.
When is the last time they gave you the choice of whether or not to be tracked or by whom? Which is the problem, you have these people tracking people without permission or any sort of notification. You've got no way of knowing who they are or what they're doing and with the number of security breeches involving supposedly confidential data by corporations too lazy and incompetent to properly secure it.
Yeah, it's your right to not care about that, but you're a dumb ass for suggesting that it isn't any sort of big deal.
I'm guessing that there's at least one person on /. that has one from yesterday that they need but can't for some reason restore.
Indeed. That's a challenging one to solve. I personally try to use documented file formats where possible, but that really only solves the easy portion of the problem. The other portion is accessing those files later on, assuming they're not wiped out in some fashion at a future time.
Actually, the real problem is that these changes tend to be made in lock step with similar changes in other companies. At this point contracts have gotten to the point where you really shouldn't assume consent just because they've been agreed to.
Unfortunately, the legal system still relies on the antiquated notion that people have a choice unless they're under duress. The problem is that if you don't agree to the terms of service for a bank, you're locked out of a lot of things. Probably won't be able to rent an apartment, won't be able to borrow money for a car or home loan and might not be able to get a job.
That's frequently the case. The patents are the result of research, much of which never sees the light of day. Creating a really good mobile phone is more than just having a list of patents, it requires putting them together in a way which makes sense and results in a quality product. And that part isn't easy.
Online popularity is not the same as real life popularity. Online I can have a hot chixxor avatar and become popular quickly without having to really work for it. Occasionally, I can post hot pictures of women and talk about things that appeal to everybody.
Do that for a while and word of mouth grows. As opposed to in real life where I'd be expected to meet most of those people, or at least notice that they exist.
Doing that is almost certain to guarantee a huge number of "friends" but really once the number of friends hits about 5 or so, some of those relationships are going to suffer if they're genuine friendships.
No evidence required. It was a response to the GGP's assertion that there was a positive correlation between number of facebook friends and number of real world friends. There is no reasonable basis for the assumption that there was a connection.
It's rather clever of you to turn it into a false dilemma, given that there could be a positive correlation, a negative correlation or no correlation at all. Rather deft of you to ignore that last one.
Slashdot isn't a social networking site. I'd hazard that only a small portion of the people here actually use the journal, and those that do use it as a way of submitting a short article.
Slashdot is essentially a blog with user submitted articles that people comment on. The only reason why there's a karma sytsem at all is to help filter out the known trolls and crap posters, and it does an alright job of that.
Or in other words, apart from a very superficial, community of people posting on a subject there isn't really a whole lot of similarity.
You must not have gotten the memo. Anytime that a government agency does something which might theoretically affect a business in some indirect, but negative, way, it's an unwarranted abuse of government power and an example of Nazism, Fascism and probably Socialism.
Not to mention that it makes Jesus cry, kills puppies and forces ceiling cat to urinate from on high.
The problem is that they've made a likeness which doesn't appear to differ from the original enough to qualify as satire, it uses his name and the Apple logo.
That last bit is probably what's going to cause most of the problem. The rest of it isn't as cut and dry as that is.
Why should your desire to profit off my visage impede my right to privacy? If the concept is confusing, we're lucky to have a common-law system so our system evolves with our society.
He's not a private citizen he's the CEO of a well known company. If he sued over privacy rights for things he does in public he might get as much as $1 as an award assuming he won.
I see no evidence that the dolls were made using information that wasn't publicly available to damn near everybody. And considering that he goes out to publicly announce new products dressed like that, I really don't think he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
But ultimately I would like them to win this just because I do think that a person should have reasonable control over items that use both the name and likeness of an individual. Although it does get a bit insane sometimes like that Zoe Renault suit in France.
The 1st amendment protections for the press are, in my view, overly generous. A lot of that personal information that the press loves to report on isn't any of our business. It's one thing when they report on things which are sort of grey area such as when politicians have affairs, and quite another when they report on other celebrities engaging in that same behavior.
And the only reason why it is our business with politicians is that they frequently run for office on the suggestion that they represent us and can do so in an appropriate way and with reasonable integrity.
Report on conflicts of interest and things which we really need to know, but leave all that crap about what happens behind closed doors of celebrities out of it. Unless there's a legitimate and compelling reason for the people to know. We don't have a right to know everything about a person just because they're a celebrity.
It's perfectly legitimate. Take out the section between the commas and the sentence reads the same. It's the way that folks make an aside.
Precisely. Typing in code isn't the same thing as typing an article or a comment on a blog. The language used isn't optimized for that, it's designed typically to be compiled or interpreted in a specific way.
Consequently, while it might be nice to type really fast, the reality is that you can't do it because you simultaneously need to be making sure you're typing the correct code. A similar problem to computer processors, they could do a lot more calculations if we were OK with the calculations not being checked for precision and errors. But because we demand that consistency and reliability the engineers designing them have to spend that extra processing time ensuring that it works right.
But, despite the bleeting of those damned grammer nazis, those typos back there hardly change the meaning of the sentence in any meaningful way, anybody with half a mind knows what I just said.