"Brand loyalty" is only beneficial to a company with an inferior product - in this case, that'd be poor or inaccurate reporting. Seeing, say, MSNBC, the NYT and Fox side by side only hurts Fox. There is no good reason for regulators to protect an inferior product from market forces.
Google having to pay a portion of ad revenue for linking to news sites is like newsstands having to pay a portion of their cigarette and snack sales for having newspapers on their shelves, and allowing people to skim the front pages for free.
In theory, Google Wallet, Moneybookers, Amazon Payments, others. In practice, most online stores support only Paypal.
(Heh. I recall making my first internet purchases around 2004-2005, and it was hell to even get Paypal support back then. Even stores that used it often required you to combine it with a credit card rather than using the account balance or debiting a bank account. Since the idea of Paypal was to avoid credit cards, that was kinda self-defeating.)
You can choose to reject this Agreement to Arbitrate ("opt out") by mailing us a written opt-out notice ("Opt-Out Notice"). For new PayPal users, the Opt-Out Notice must be postmarked no later than 30 Days after the date you accept the User Agreement for the first time. If you are already a current PayPal user and previously accepted the User Agreement prior to the introduction of this Agreement to Arbitrate, the Opt-Out Notice must be postmarked no later than December 1, 2012. You must mail the Opt-Out Notice to PayPal, Inc., Attn: Litigation Department, 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131.
The Opt-Out Notice must state that you do not agree to this Agreement to Arbitrate and must include your name, address, phone number, and the email address(es) used to log in to the PayPal account(s) to which the opt-out applies. You must sign the Opt-Out Notice for it to be effective. This procedure is the only way you can opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate. If you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate, all other parts of the User Agreement, including all other provisions of Section 14 (Disputes with PayPal), will continue to apply. Opting out of this Agreement to Arbitrate has no effect on any previous, other, or future arbitration agreements that you may have with us.
... yeah, never mind. I get it.
At least you don't have to deliver your opt-out notice in person and wrestle a grizzly to get inside their offices.
Quick, gather seven intelligent, ruthless leaders with widely disparate ideologies and barely restrained hostility toward each other, then put them on course for the planet.
... in which a gullible public is suddenly dive-bombed - without a formal declaration of war - by inadequate but impressive-sounding metaphors comparing present-day dangers with historical military engagements.
Meanwhile, the German federal consumer protection minister is widely known for criticizing Facebook's poor record on privacy. She's right, mind you, but it's still funny.
People seem to be systematically blind to threats from the public or private sector, depending on political affiliation. Right-wing Americans chiefly fear their own government, not caring what corporations might do with their data. In comparatively liberal Germany, the untechnical mainstream froths at the thought of Google showing a publically taken anonymous photograph of their house, while ignoring police monitoring or hailing internet censorship "for the children".
I suspect that technological advance will eventually allow the mimicry of any biometric identification method, without sensors being able to keep up. In fifteen years, biometric authentication is likely going to be on the way out - possibly replaced by implants that are equally easy to carry but easier to replace when compromised.
(Then again, people will probably use their phones for everything.)
I'll be obscenely rich and working in a senior position in marketing. Gotcha.
But on a serious note, sending a car, which is built for transporting passengers, on a trip to pick up a small packet of medicine? In a world where even your shower water (not drinking water) apparently has a quota, that's an insane waste of fuel. An advanced society would have more efficient delivery systems, either underground channels or aerial drones. Besides, there's probably going to be flu medication where you live (if you're as rich as the article makes out, you'll have a well-stocked personal medicine cabinet, and if you're not your apartment megacomplex will be large enough to make an in-house pharmacy viable).
On the other hand, the prediction that your medical diagnosis will be published on your social feeds in real-time is probably spot-on.
I know that if I were a mad scientist working Google, the first thing I'd do would also be to build an artificial sentience and show it mankind's collection of cat videos. I mean who wouldn't?
Smoking is okay because Hubble, Tolkien and Oppenheimer did it? Yeah, and Hitler ate sugar (but was vehemently opposed to tobacco, amusingly enough).
Shunning the use of tobacco now requires shunning the works of everyone who has ever used tobacco? That's insane troll logic. I intend no pun when I ask what the hell the submitter was smoking.
Yeah, there's nothing better than food contaminated with airborne pollutants. Sure, the color is possibly food dye, but you have no idea what other contamination gets introduced. That's why there's no way this would get past the regulatory agencies...
Slashdot Mirror
In theory? Yes. Without oversight or public code review?
Heh. ...
Wait, you were serious?
First they should use it to locate their conscience.
"Brand loyalty" is only beneficial to a company with an inferior product - in this case, that'd be poor or inaccurate reporting. Seeing, say, MSNBC, the NYT and Fox side by side only hurts Fox. There is no good reason for regulators to protect an inferior product from market forces.
Google having to pay a portion of ad revenue for linking to news sites is like newsstands having to pay a portion of their cigarette and snack sales for having newspapers on their shelves, and allowing people to skim the front pages for free.
Salted with the tears of a bald eagle. Deepfried in light sweet crude.
In theory, Google Wallet, Moneybookers, Amazon Payments, others. In practice, most online stores support only Paypal.
(Heh. I recall making my first internet purchases around 2004-2005, and it was hell to even get Paypal support back then. Even stores that used it often required you to combine it with a credit card rather than using the account balance or debiting a bank account. Since the idea of Paypal was to avoid credit cards, that was kinda self-defeating.)
How is that even considered evil?
Hm, let's check how to do this...
At least you don't have to deliver your opt-out notice in person and wrestle a grizzly to get inside their offices.
Quick, gather seven intelligent, ruthless leaders with widely disparate ideologies and barely restrained hostility toward each other, then put them on course for the planet.
People are constantly worrying about the nuclear reasearch program of a country that doesn't have the technology to print its own currency?
Pretty sure they use this stuff in TARDISes.
I can imagine how this conversation went.
"So, does anyone have any suggestions how we can fuck over the country's college students some more?"
"I don't know, we're already indebting them for most of their adult lives. How do you top that?"
"Hey, I have an idea, but it's kinda far-fetched..."
... in which a gullible public is suddenly dive-bombed - without a formal declaration of war - by inadequate but impressive-sounding metaphors comparing present-day dangers with historical military engagements.
I'm guessing that the only people who would support it are unable to open an email client.
When in actuality, it should have been categorized as Bugs...
Meanwhile, the German federal consumer protection minister is widely known for criticizing Facebook's poor record on privacy.
She's right, mind you, but it's still funny.
People seem to be systematically blind to threats from the public or private sector, depending on political affiliation. Right-wing Americans chiefly fear their own government, not caring what corporations might do with their data. In comparatively liberal Germany, the untechnical mainstream froths at the thought of Google showing a publically taken anonymous photograph of their house, while ignoring police monitoring or hailing internet censorship "for the children".
Easy profit, and dead people don't usually sue. Makes perfect sense.
If you're fucking evil, that is.
I suspect that technological advance will eventually allow the mimicry of any biometric identification method, without sensors being able to keep up. In fifteen years, biometric authentication is likely going to be on the way out - possibly replaced by implants that are equally easy to carry but easier to replace when compromised.
(Then again, people will probably use their phones for everything.)
I'll be obscenely rich and working in a senior position in marketing. Gotcha.
But on a serious note, sending a car, which is built for transporting passengers, on a trip to pick up a small packet of medicine? In a world where even your shower water (not drinking water) apparently has a quota, that's an insane waste of fuel. An advanced society would have more efficient delivery systems, either underground channels or aerial drones. Besides, there's probably going to be flu medication where you live (if you're as rich as the article makes out, you'll have a well-stocked personal medicine cabinet, and if you're not your apartment megacomplex will be large enough to make an in-house pharmacy viable).
On the other hand, the prediction that your medical diagnosis will be published on your social feeds in real-time is probably spot-on.
The country with more firepower than the rest of the world combined is governed by an apocalyptic cult. Does that strike anyone else as scary?
I know that if I were a mad scientist working Google, the first thing I'd do would also be to build an artificial sentience and show it mankind's collection of cat videos. I mean who wouldn't?
Smoking is okay because Hubble, Tolkien and Oppenheimer did it? Yeah, and Hitler ate sugar (but was vehemently opposed to tobacco, amusingly enough).
Shunning the use of tobacco now requires shunning the works of everyone who has ever used tobacco? That's insane troll logic. I intend no pun when I ask what the hell the submitter was smoking.
Yeah, there's nothing better than food contaminated with airborne pollutants. Sure, the color is possibly food dye, but you have no idea what other contamination gets introduced. That's why there's no way this would get past the regulatory agencies...
'be a shame if someone gave it a bad review.
That's impressive.
In other news, my body creates carbon dioxide and water out of oxygen and carbohydrates.
Mind you, if there's one anchor on Fox News who I'd believe when he apologizes, it's Smith. But he wasn't the one who made the decision.
Yeah, that was an awful mistake. Look at these tragic viewing figures and all this devastating publicity.