Re: The failure to recognize that massive difference...
"...surely what Google is doing would be the equivalent of your phone company listening to your phone calls and then selling information about what you're talking about to third-party companies, that then call you up and pitch their products/services based on your phone calls? "
Google's ads barely register in my head. They certainly don't ring me up when I'm trying to eat my dinner and then ask if they can call back later. So no, it's nowhere near an equivalent because the impact on my activities is almost zero.
"Presumably most people would agree that they don't want their phone company listening to or recording their actual conversations and messages..."
Correct, but an algorithm scanning text for keywords is quite different to a person actively listening to a phone call, both in effect and feasability.
Re: The only question is: does Google SNOOP OR SPY? Discuss.
Spying by definition is covert. What Google does is well-known and understood. Obviously most people don't find what they do creepy based on the fact that Google are a bit beyond being called a "non-starter", and those that do think they're creepy are welcome you use somebody else's less creepy services if they want.
It's amusing how you call Google Mike's "precious when it's clearly you who has the Google obsesion, not Mike.
"...the X1 Kinect increased the chances of motion sensor games actually extending beyond the fucking dance craze demographic."
This argument regularly gets trotted out, but I've yet to hear and possible useful features motion sensing can offer me. Where's all the speculation on the amazing new uses for this product that was simply never that appealing to many people? Personally I think the people bleating about the people bleating about Kinect have done a terrible job convincing anyone of the possible benefits.
"Seriously though, why can't Microsoft stick to its fucking guns on this? Listening to your customers is good and all, but they shouldn't be bending over backwards to appease the most vocal critics on the Internet. You can't please everyone, so stop trying."
Perhaps it's not the "most vocal critics" they're listening to, but the less vocal people like myself who simply decided I would not buy this console if it came to the 'features' announced at launch? I think they realised they faced the very real possibility of loosing too many customers.
If you spend money curating taxpayer-funded documents for purely educational purposes, you should not feel you're entitled to make a profit from it. Neither MIT or JSTOR seem to agree with you on this point.
"I can't believe you and Mike are stilling claiming this. Neither MIT nor JSTOR permit scraping of the database, and both went out of their way to revoke Swartz's privileges."
Are you deliberately trying to conflate two different issues, or did you just lose your train of thought in between the two sentences? Yes, Mike and Ninja are still claiming is was available for free, because it was. Any efforts to prevent scraping had nothing to do with cost of access or lack thereof.
"The question isn't what have they done historically- that's a false statistic in the Black Swan sense. The question to ask is- given what is technically feasible, what COULD they do in the near future?"
Let's imagine a pretty horrific scenario where terrorists become ten times more effective at killing Americans than they currently are. I can't imagine how that could possibly happen, but anyway...
Using the top four examples in the link provided in the post, you would still be 1760 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack, 1257 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack, 1100 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane,and 105 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack.
in other words, terrorism would need to increase by several orders of magnitude before they could be reasonably compared to things that kill people by the thousands every day. But the actual point of the post was not the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist, but the cost of trying to prevent these deaths, which is grossly out of proportion to the risks even in the extremely unlikely situation that those risks increase dramatically in the future.
"Oh the 'writers' at TD are SO Desperate to be considered journalists..."
Nobody at TF has ever claimed such a thing. Feel free to prove otherwise.
"But I cant see a basic code of ethics being employed here, things like 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'freedom from bias' and terms not generally known here."
Stating something you don't agree with does not make it untruthful or inaccurate. Constantly making such accusations without a shred of evidence kinda clashes with your demand for ethical behavior. And freedom from bias has nothing all all to do with ethics, and only an idiot would expect such a thing from an opinion blog.
"Censoring from IP addresses now ??? Really ethical.."
Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
"First a howler: "technicality's" when you mean the plural "technicalities"."
If that's all it takes to make you howl, you must have a very low excitement threshold. Your life must be a riot. And I wouldn't be criticising anyone else's spelling and grammar; yours is often shocking.
"Anyhoo, it's been established that Pandora is nothing but new gatekeepers getting filthy rich while paying artists even less of pittance than the old gang."
No, this has been claimed by you. It's been established by nobody.
"Of course grifters want to get lower rates."
I don't think anyone wanting the same rates as comparable services can be called a grifter (a word you truly don�t know the meaning of).
"This is just a cynical stunt to pretend that Pandora can't pay the rates demanded."
Well at their current rates they're running at a loss. So yes, they obviously can't pay the rates demanded forever. Not rocket science.
"And as for the rates difference, well, I'd bet ASCAP charges differently (more) for television use than radio, based on obvious audience numbers."
WTF has television got to do with this discussion?
On the post: When Even Totally Bogus Copyright Threats Over Court Documents Comes Close To Shutting Down A Site, Something's Broken
Re: Wrote this short retort YESTERDAY, knowing you'd go with this, regardless.
And you believe them? Seriously?!
On the post: German Supreme Court Confirms RapidShare Must Police The Internet And Restrict Anonymous Use
Re:
And even if you take the comment seriously, how about you compare RapidShare's budget to the NSA's.
On the post: Press Suckered By Anti-Google Group's Bogus Claim That Gmail Users Can't Expect Privacy
Re:
On the post: Press Suckered By Anti-Google Group's Bogus Claim That Gmail Users Can't Expect Privacy
Re: The failure to recognize that massive difference...
Google's ads barely register in my head. They certainly don't ring me up when I'm trying to eat my dinner and then ask if they can call back later. So no, it's nowhere near an equivalent because the impact on my activities is almost zero.
"Presumably most people would agree that they don't want their phone company listening to or recording their actual conversations and messages..."
Correct, but an algorithm scanning text for keywords is quite different to a person actively listening to a phone call, both in effect and feasability.
On the post: Press Suckered By Anti-Google Group's Bogus Claim That Gmail Users Can't Expect Privacy
Re: The only question is: does Google SNOOP OR SPY? Discuss.
It's amusing how you call Google Mike's "precious when it's clearly you who has the Google obsesion, not Mike.
On the post: Microsoft Folds Again: Xbox One Will Now Work Without Kinect Enabled
Re: Damn it Microsoft
This argument regularly gets trotted out, but I've yet to hear and possible useful features motion sensing can offer me. Where's all the speculation on the amazing new uses for this product that was simply never that appealing to many people? Personally I think the people bleating about the people bleating about Kinect have done a terrible job convincing anyone of the possible benefits.
"Seriously though, why can't Microsoft stick to its fucking guns on this? Listening to your customers is good and all, but they shouldn't be bending over backwards to appease the most vocal critics on the Internet. You can't please everyone, so stop trying."
Perhaps it's not the "most vocal critics" they're listening to, but the less vocal people like myself who simply decided I would not buy this console if it came to the 'features' announced at launch? I think they realised they faced the very real possibility of loosing too many customers.
On the post: DOJ Decided To Ratchet Up Case Against Aaron Swartz Because He Spoke Out Publicly About Being Innocent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Decided To Ratchet Up Case Against Aaron Swartz Because He Spoke Out Publicly About Being Innocent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody has refuted this, or even claimed otherwise. Well done 'proving' the obvious.
"Mike is pretending like they don't."
Mike has said no such thing. Why must you lie?
On the post: DOJ Decided To Ratchet Up Case Against Aaron Swartz Because He Spoke Out Publicly About Being Innocent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Decided To Ratchet Up Case Against Aaron Swartz Because He Spoke Out Publicly About Being Innocent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you deliberately trying to conflate two different issues, or did you just lose your train of thought in between the two sentences? Yes, Mike and Ninja are still claiming is was available for free, because it was. Any efforts to prevent scraping had nothing to do with cost of access or lack thereof.
On the post: Cost-Benefit Analysis Of NSA Surveillance Says It's Simply Not Worth It
Re: Your analysis is wrong-headed
Let's imagine a pretty horrific scenario where terrorists become ten times more effective at killing Americans than they currently are. I can't imagine how that could possibly happen, but anyway...
Using the top four examples in the link provided in the post, you would still be 1760 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack, 1257 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack, 1100 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane,and 105 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack.
in other words, terrorism would need to increase by several orders of magnitude before they could be reasonably compared to things that kill people by the thousands every day. But the actual point of the post was not the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist, but the cost of trying to prevent these deaths, which is grossly out of proportion to the risks even in the extremely unlikely situation that those risks increase dramatically in the future.
On the post: Sen. Feinstein During 'Shield' Law Debate: 'Real' Journalists Draw Salaries
Re:
Nobody at TF has ever claimed such a thing. Feel free to prove otherwise.
"But I cant see a basic code of ethics being employed here, things like 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'freedom from bias' and terms not generally known here."
Stating something you don't agree with does not make it untruthful or inaccurate. Constantly making such accusations without a shred of evidence kinda clashes with your demand for ethical behavior. And freedom from bias has nothing all all to do with ethics, and only an idiot would expect such a thing from an opinion blog.
"Censoring from IP addresses now ??? Really ethical.."
Please back up your fantasies with proof.
On the post: Time Warner CEO Says Having Game Of Thrones As 'Most Pirated' Is 'Better Than An Emmy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY WHILE MONEY IS ROLLING IN!
Now that is cultural ignorance at its finest.
On the post: Writer of 'Daredevil' Comics: Equating Piracy With Lost Sales Is 'Baloney'
Re: Facts are stubborn things
On the post: Former NSA Lawyers Attack Senator Wyden For Hinting At NSA Surveillance Excesses That Are Now Confirmed
Re: Re: Re: Do you respect Stewart Baker's opinion, or not?
On the post: Telco Astroturfing Tries To Bring Down Reviews Of Susan Crawford's Book
Re: Re: Re: No immoral equivalence
In other words, "Oh shit, you're right..."
On the post: Former NSA Lawyers Attack Senator Wyden For Hinting At NSA Surveillance Excesses That Are Now Confirmed
Re: Do you respect Stewart Baker's opinion, or not?
On the post: Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty Of Aiding The Enemy But Convicted On Other Charges
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
On the post: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
Re: This is again Mike merely favoring NEW gatekeepers.
If that's all it takes to make you howl, you must have a very low excitement threshold. Your life must be a riot. And I wouldn't be criticising anyone else's spelling and grammar; yours is often shocking.
"Anyhoo, it's been established that Pandora is nothing but new gatekeepers getting filthy rich while paying artists even less of pittance than the old gang."
No, this has been claimed by you. It's been established by nobody.
"Of course grifters want to get lower rates."
I don't think anyone wanting the same rates as comparable services can be called a grifter (a word you truly don�t know the meaning of).
"This is just a cynical stunt to pretend that Pandora can't pay the rates demanded."
Well at their current rates they're running at a loss. So yes, they obviously can't pay the rates demanded forever. Not rocket science.
"And as for the rates difference, well, I'd bet ASCAP charges differently (more) for television use than radio, based on obvious audience numbers."
WTF has television got to do with this discussion?
On the post: Alyssa Milano Claiming Trademark And Copyright On 'Hacktivist'
Re:
Next >>