or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by rcfa

 That's a naive point of view. A single cookie, from a single website isn't a danger per se, because it's restricted to that web site.However, we now have tons of "pagelets", i.e. HMTL code snippets loaded from other places, e.g, FB like buttons, etc. which allow a central site to collect a massive crosssection of your browsing habits, even if you're not directly accessing their...
 I fully understand your point. My point however is, that the failure of the judge and/or US Legal system, is that it defines harm simply as monetary loss or loss of property.IF the judge makes that assumption, THEN of course it's hard to show/prove harm, after all, likely you're not poorer (monetarily) because of that, unless of course targeted ads made you foolishly spend money on things you don't need that you otherwise would have been wise enough not to spend. HOWEVER...
 The point of using cookies is to track user's behavior. In other words, Google collects my private web usage habits and preferences, my likes and dislikes being my personal secrets and information, which by means of my preferences I clearly stated that I have no intention sharing with a third party.Their algorithms thus find a way to steal the information from me, which is the information about my likes, dislikes and browsing habits.Them having information I don't want...
 The problem with your reasoning is simple: in civilized countries, privacy is considered a good in itself, and personal information and identity are considered property. Therefore someone who has possession of private information without consent stole something from you.  Therefore the loss of privacy automatically, without further proof, constitutes harm. Privacy should be treated like a civil right. I mean, what "harm" is done to some person when they denied the right...
 If the reasoning for the decision is faulty, the decision is faulty, even if different and potentially correct reasoning could have led to the same conclusion which then would potentially be a correct conclusion. In particular anglo-saxon common law is MASSIVELY dependent on case law and legal precedent. In other words a judgement like that, which essentially seems to establish that no harm is done, unless it results in loss of money or property, sets precedents for...
Two words:Revenue stream!Just like "software as service" (e.g. Adobe) the next step is "hardware as service",In the end you will own nothing and everything you use will require a meter or a subscription; welcome to the new slavery...
Redarded judgement, if only "loss of money or property" constitutes harm. I guess under this judge's view, the only reason you can't kill someone or beat them into a pulp is because hospital and funeral costs constitute "loss of money"...
No, what this says is there are two kind of 'droid customers: those who want cheap stuff, and those who for some reason need/want a big screen.Nobody wants a premium 'droid phone, which is why the HTC One sell poorly, despite excellent hardware.By and large people who can afford it want an iPhone. If they can't afford it they go for a cheap Android phone, and if they need a big screen, they buy the big-screened top-end Android phones for lack of a better alternative.Should...
 Depends what definition of "electable" you mean. Of course they are technically speaking electable, which is why they are sitting in Congress right now. But there's also another meaning of the word, as in "no sane person would consider casting their vote for them". That should give you an idea what I think of the mental state of the people who vote for these lunatics. (It's worth pointing out, that the Republican party wasn't always a collection of lunatics. Reagan (as...
 You have one thing right in that above paragraph: I don't believe in anything. - Believing is for stupid people.People with brains know, don't know, hypothesize, theorize, conjecture, deliberate, but they don't "believe", because that entails accepting as true something of which you should know that you don't have sufficient evidence to prove it or know it; and only stupid people would do such a thing. Among the things I don't believe in, is loyalty to any concept that...
New Posts  All Forums: