I missed the part where Home Depot and Target announced that they will knowingly and intentionally selling your credit card numbers to hackers. If they had such notice posted by the cash register, would people still swipe?
Nope. It's actually you that are paying for all that advertising and snooping and whatnot. When you buy about any product. The advertising cost is included in the price.
And sitting in a boring classroom for hours on end enhances their ability to learn?
At a minimum it trains them into being capable to perform a given, needed activity even when its not perceived as greatly entertaining. Something that computers/tablets/consoles will never do.
Not really. When you buy the products you also pay for the price of their ads. Buying a box of cereals? It will cost you the cereals (+profit) + the price of the ad (+profit of ad agency) + the price of distributing said ad (+Google profit). Yes, they apparently generates more profits and a larger variety of jobs (thus the "economists" will declare them to be "good for the economy"), but they're not free at all.
Fully agree, but wasn't it the legislative/government's role to curb activities that are perceived as obnoxious by a large segment of the society? I am aware that advertising is touted as being "good for the economy" and thus "useful/needed", but once you deconstruct the slogan (i.e. you define "good" and "economy"), one may realize that it doesn't hold any water?
You're correct that various "wardrobe malfunctions" are in high demand, however may I point out that:
-there's a specific Internet sector servicing this at a higher resolution and extent
-Super Bowl ads have little to do with Google (other than surfacing some time later on youtube)
Then you'll see only the same old built-in ads forever.
Re:Why only partial encryption?
on
eBay Compromised
·
· Score: 1
Why do these companies repeatedly store only *some* of my personal information encrypted?
Because cowboy attitude. We just had here the story on the EU law about deleting older links to personal data from search engines. Where most US contributors insisted that this data is "facts" and it would be "free speech" to disseminate it as businesses see fit. Combine this with EULA practices where businesses (many in monopoly position) will not service you unless you agree that they collect your personal data and share it freely with various "partners". When such practice is questioned they always justify it through "it's good for the economy". Case closed. Unless we take the time to question what exactly "economy" is. But we never do.
Cinavia. Except its effect is rather bizarre. While it doesn't prevent you from "making copies", it prevents you from playing audio of said copies on a PS3 and selected Blu-Ray players. Guess it didn't help increase Blu-Ray disk sales, but it surely helped decrease PS3 and Blu-Ray player sales.
Looks like the difference between censorship of ideas or scientific theories/facts and practicing restraint in publishing personal data is too subtle for you.
The question here is the lifespan of he "news", not how you classify their support (paper vs. internet, search vs. non-search etc). Traditionally this lifespan was limited to a few days while the said newspaper was on the stands. After that, access to those news was becoming cumbersome, i.e. like in having to go to the library and manually scroll through miles of archived microfiche. This 2 tiers system (news stands vs. microfiche) was ensuring that, while the information was still retained, you were practically "forgotten" and "out of the news" for the purpose of daily life. Obviously a newspaper could have elected to later regurgitate the same news and publish them again on the front page; however, they couldn't do this forever (you being on the front page for months for exactly the same news may have ended in a harassment lawsuit).
With the advent of internet, there's only one tier of "archiving", i.e. those news are always one search/click away from the public, making them "front page" for ever.
Because of the nature of their work. They make public appearances, where they address the public. Any news related to these are of public importance. OTOH what they do in their backyard is not addressed to the public and shouldn't be in the news unless they're doing something illegal.
Corrected for you: "some newspapers publish intensely personal information about public servants and celebrities". The average guy (like the one in the OP) does not expect that "intensely personal information" is published on internet and made searchable by a popular engine. If you're not a public figure, a rock start or on FBI/Interpol 10 most wanted list, you shouldn't be on internet without your knowledge and approval.
Otherwise as far as I am aware the only way to stop "mischief" is to turn the Internet into a trusted network.
Not this won't really work, what would you do, after verifying the identity of the other party and comparing with your whitelist you would assume that it's "trusted" and thus well behaved citizen. Which may not be true (compromised host with a trojan sending malformed packets etc).
The only robust method would be to assume at protocol design phase that the stack would be connected to a hostile environment where every single packet could be mischievous. "Trust no one" and design to not crash in such conditions.
Still a valid point. Why should personal info appear on internet when it was never your intention to put it there? And on top of it being searchable by name?
How about a minimal protection like the search engine eliminating all names from the searchable index, unless, of course, at indexing time they were found to be enclosed in special HTML tags saying "this name should be indexed"? If the information gets unintentionally on the net, most likely the tags won't be there. On the other hand if you create a page that you intentionally want to come up when searching for "Joe Doe", then you enclose the Joe Doe name within the appropriate tags. Google has for example mechanisms to not let you search for credit card numbers (or something resembling them), how about the same protection for names?
So, what do you think should happen if, for example, you're searching for your name and find that the engine provides a link to some (hacked/stolen) database, complete with address, SSN, credit history, credit card numbers, medical records or similar data? Sure, it was the hackers that initially broke the law by stealing and then "making available" that data, but how about the search engine owners responsibility? Since they now provide an easy, direct path to the data, wouldn't it be "aiding and abetting" the public dissemination of such data? Combined with their refusal to remove the link ("we don't have such process"), how would it look like?
How about starting with TCP & UDP? They were somehow designed on the assumption that all participating machines are well behaved good citizens. In practice this ain't happening (see SYN flood for example, there are "mitigation" measure but none is a definitive "fix"). These need to be replaced with something that would be resistant to mischief by design.
Apparently economists are aware that the emperor has no clothes, the problem is that only very few of them dare to say it in public.
The fact that Steve is a PhD level economist actually strengthens the argument. Non-economist critics are usually dismissed by the economists defending their "science" with an "economics is a very smart and complex thing; you can't possibly understand it unless you formally study it; since you haven't any degree in economics then we assume that you didn't understand it; thou shalt not speak of what you can't possibly understand". The keyword (and fallacy) is the word "assume". Read Steve's book, it has plenty of examples on how the whole dismal science is based on unproven or invalid assumptions.
What are the bankruptcy laws there? If the project goes wrong (like in poor crop due to inclement/extreme weather), can they declare insolvency, or do they have to commit suicide to clear the family from debt?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, tell me about how it helped developing a burgeoning semiconductors industry in the Bahamas.....
Unfortunately all these laptops you mentioned come with Windows 10.
Any chance he would be leading by example?
Guess Tim Worstall (the Forbes article author) never heard of patents.
I missed the part where Home Depot and Target announced that they will knowingly and intentionally selling your credit card numbers to hackers. If they had such notice posted by the cash register, would people still swipe?
Nope. It's actually you that are paying for all that advertising and snooping and whatnot. When you buy about any product. The advertising cost is included in the price.
At a minimum it trains them into being capable to perform a given, needed activity even when its not perceived as greatly entertaining. Something that computers/tablets/consoles will never do.
Not really. When you buy the products you also pay for the price of their ads. Buying a box of cereals? It will cost you the cereals (+profit) + the price of the ad (+profit of ad agency) + the price of distributing said ad (+Google profit). Yes, they apparently generates more profits and a larger variety of jobs (thus the "economists" will declare them to be "good for the economy"), but they're not free at all.
Fully agree, but wasn't it the legislative/government's role to curb activities that are perceived as obnoxious by a large segment of the society? I am aware that advertising is touted as being "good for the economy" and thus "useful/needed", but once you deconstruct the slogan (i.e. you define "good" and "economy"), one may realize that it doesn't hold any water?
You're correct that various "wardrobe malfunctions" are in high demand, however may I point out that:
-there's a specific Internet sector servicing this at a higher resolution and extent
-Super Bowl ads have little to do with Google (other than surfacing some time later on youtube)
Can you elaborate on society's demand for ads?
Then you'll see only the same old built-in ads forever.
Because cowboy attitude. We just had here the story on the EU law about deleting older links to personal data from search engines. Where most US contributors insisted that this data is "facts" and it would be "free speech" to disseminate it as businesses see fit. Combine this with EULA practices where businesses (many in monopoly position) will not service you unless you agree that they collect your personal data and share it freely with various "partners". When such practice is questioned they always justify it through "it's good for the economy". Case closed. Unless we take the time to question what exactly "economy" is. But we never do.
Cinavia. Except its effect is rather bizarre. While it doesn't prevent you from "making copies", it prevents you from playing audio of said copies on a PS3 and selected Blu-Ray players. Guess it didn't help increase Blu-Ray disk sales, but it surely helped decrease PS3 and Blu-Ray player sales.
Looks like the difference between censorship of ideas or scientific theories/facts and practicing restraint in publishing personal data is too subtle for you.
The question here is the lifespan of he "news", not how you classify their support (paper vs. internet, search vs. non-search etc). Traditionally this lifespan was limited to a few days while the said newspaper was on the stands. After that, access to those news was becoming cumbersome, i.e. like in having to go to the library and manually scroll through miles of archived microfiche. This 2 tiers system (news stands vs. microfiche) was ensuring that, while the information was still retained, you were practically "forgotten" and "out of the news" for the purpose of daily life. Obviously a newspaper could have elected to later regurgitate the same news and publish them again on the front page; however, they couldn't do this forever (you being on the front page for months for exactly the same news may have ended in a harassment lawsuit).
With the advent of internet, there's only one tier of "archiving", i.e. those news are always one search/click away from the public, making them "front page" for ever.
Because of the nature of their work. They make public appearances, where they address the public. Any news related to these are of public importance. OTOH what they do in their backyard is not addressed to the public and shouldn't be in the news unless they're doing something illegal.
Corrected for you: "some newspapers publish intensely personal information about public servants and celebrities". The average guy (like the one in the OP) does not expect that "intensely personal information" is published on internet and made searchable by a popular engine. If you're not a public figure, a rock start or on FBI/Interpol 10 most wanted list, you shouldn't be on internet without your knowledge and approval.
Not this won't really work, what would you do, after verifying the identity of the other party and comparing with your whitelist you would assume that it's "trusted" and thus well behaved citizen. Which may not be true (compromised host with a trojan sending malformed packets etc).
The only robust method would be to assume at protocol design phase that the stack would be connected to a hostile environment where every single packet could be mischievous. "Trust no one" and design to not crash in such conditions.
Still a valid point. Why should personal info appear on internet when it was never your intention to put it there? And on top of it being searchable by name?
How about a minimal protection like the search engine eliminating all names from the searchable index, unless, of course, at indexing time they were found to be enclosed in special HTML tags saying "this name should be indexed"? If the information gets unintentionally on the net, most likely the tags won't be there. On the other hand if you create a page that you intentionally want to come up when searching for "Joe Doe", then you enclose the Joe Doe name within the appropriate tags. Google has for example mechanisms to not let you search for credit card numbers (or something resembling them), how about the same protection for names?
So, what do you think should happen if, for example, you're searching for your name and find that the engine provides a link to some (hacked/stolen) database, complete with address, SSN, credit history, credit card numbers, medical records or similar data? Sure, it was the hackers that initially broke the law by stealing and then "making available" that data, but how about the search engine owners responsibility? Since they now provide an easy, direct path to the data, wouldn't it be "aiding and abetting" the public dissemination of such data? Combined with their refusal to remove the link ("we don't have such process"), how would it look like?
How about starting with TCP & UDP? They were somehow designed on the assumption that all participating machines are well behaved good citizens. In practice this ain't happening (see SYN flood for example, there are "mitigation" measure but none is a definitive "fix"). These need to be replaced with something that would be resistant to mischief by design.
Apparently economists are aware that the emperor has no clothes, the problem is that only very few of them dare to say it in public.
The fact that Steve is a PhD level economist actually strengthens the argument. Non-economist critics are usually dismissed by the economists defending their "science" with an "economics is a very smart and complex thing; you can't possibly understand it unless you formally study it; since you haven't any degree in economics then we assume that you didn't understand it; thou shalt not speak of what you can't possibly understand". The keyword (and fallacy) is the word "assume". Read Steve's book, it has plenty of examples on how the whole dismal science is based on unproven or invalid assumptions.
What are the bankruptcy laws there? If the project goes wrong (like in poor crop due to inclement/extreme weather), can they declare insolvency, or do they have to commit suicide to clear the family from debt?
4.625 MHz