It is attitudes like this that encourages treating users like crap.
Yes, Facebook does treat it's users like crap.
Without the users they have zero value of what they have to offer the advertisers
True, but for now they have plenty of users (most of whom probably don't care that their information is being mined/sold). Until that changes, they will continue to treat them like crap.
Currently PKI works by deluding people into thinking that PKI works. A chain of trust is useless if you can't trust the top of the chain. It's all based on the illusion that the CAs are trustworthy.
Since CAs can (and have) been compromised before, then the only thing having multiple CAs will do is make the illusion prettier. What rule says that the "bad guys" only compromise one CA at a time?
When a company is offering you a "free" service, anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out that there is a catch, regardless of how vague the ToS is.
I agree with you, but I think the Post Office would be in serious trouble if they used OCR to read all the post cards going through the system
How do you think automatic mail sorting works?
and tailor junk mail based on them
The real issue here has nothing to do with scanning of the email. Having a business model based on storing information about their customers and selling that service to advertisers is the issue. If customers are going to sign up for "free" services under this business model (Gmail, Facebook, etc) they need to understand that "free" comes with a price. You're signing up for a "free" service with a company who's real paying customer is an advertiser.
Complaining that your email provider is scanning your email is just silly.
but if achieving that drives away customers and gives you a reputation as a pain in the ass that nobody wants to deal with, its not really good business practice is it?
It is if phase two of your plan is to either eliminate or buy out the majority of your competition.
This, I think, is one of the big problems. The easier it is to get something patented, the more money the USPTO makes. So it's in their best interest to allow anyone to patent anything.
Android makers can make phones that adhere to all the standards they do now, but they decided to include patented technology. There are many other phone manufacturers that don't use those patents, so they definitely aren't essential for a phone or a smartphone.
Slashdot Mirror
It is attitudes like this that encourages treating users like crap.
Yes, Facebook does treat it's users like crap.
Without the users they have zero value of what they have to offer the advertisers
True, but for now they have plenty of users (most of whom probably don't care that their information is being mined/sold). Until that changes, they will continue to treat them like crap.
Facebook's customers are the advertisers, not the users. Of course they are mining the user's data, that's the entire point of their business.
I'm hoping that Windows 8 knowledge will prove to be as useful as Microsoft Bob knowledge.
A permanent state of war is not good for any society.
It's good for the people in power. What makes you think that they care whether or not it's good for society.
Isn't the same, because milling is subtractive, and 3D printing is additive.
So a CNC mill is a 3D eraser.
How about a customized bullet with your own name on it. You know how they say "somewhere out there is a bullet with your name on it"?
Wouldn't you feel a lot safer if you owned that bullet?
You're assuming the drones won't be armed.
Everybody is an above average driver, just ask them.
Exactly. It's not a loophole, it's a feature.
There are situations where thinking you're secure when you're not is worse than knowing you're not secure.
Currently PKI works by deluding people into thinking that PKI works. A chain of trust is useless if you can't trust the top of the chain. It's all based on the illusion that the CAs are trustworthy.
Since CAs can (and have) been compromised before, then the only thing having multiple CAs will do is make the illusion prettier. What rule says that the "bad guys" only compromise one CA at a time?
When a company is offering you a "free" service, anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out that there is a catch, regardless of how vague the ToS is.
I agree with you, but I think the Post Office would be in serious trouble if they used OCR to read all the post cards going through the system
How do you think automatic mail sorting works?
and tailor junk mail based on them
The real issue here has nothing to do with scanning of the email. Having a business model based on storing information about their customers and selling that service to advertisers is the issue. If customers are going to sign up for "free" services under this business model (Gmail, Facebook, etc) they need to understand that "free" comes with a price. You're signing up for a "free" service with a company who's real paying customer is an advertiser.
Complaining that your email provider is scanning your email is just silly.
So are the mail servers themselves. It's pretty difficult to deliver the email in the first place without "scanning" at least part of it.
but if achieving that drives away customers and gives you a reputation as a pain in the ass that nobody wants to deal with, its not really good business practice is it?
It is if phase two of your plan is to either eliminate or buy out the majority of your competition.
This, I think, is one of the big problems. The easier it is to get something patented, the more money the USPTO makes. So it's in their best interest to allow anyone to patent anything.
I'm concerned about the implications of storing personal data on Gmail, Facebook, and other social media sites.
Good.
Insights and tips are appreciated.
Don't.
Android makers can make phones that adhere to all the standards they do now, but they decided to include patented technology. There are many other phone manufacturers that don't use those patents, so they definitely aren't essential for a phone or a smartphone.
Which patents?
Purely by accident, I'm sure.
Exactly. The entire point of the DMCA is to bypass the existing legal process. It was designed to be abused.
Those pages may have been the most plagairized works on the internet; folks would take my content, remove my name, put theirs in, and repost.
I'm not sure why you would really care?
He's a politician, what did you expect?
The whole "red team" vs "blue team" thing is just an illusion to keep the sheep distracted.
I've been trying to figure out the message that will ring with him
Try this... $$$
It says a hell of a lot more about the apathy and ignorance of the voters who helped create it.
You're right, Tweedledee is doing a terrible job. If only the voters had elected Tweedledum instead.