I know that it can be done and that is good enough for me. Whatever you wish to believe is up to you. I've seen the way you argue a point and it certainly aint worth my while.
... and I never said anything about collecting personal information by cable companies.
Yeah, it's not worth while arguing the way you do - all blather and no evidence. Glad you finally understood that.
Jr, I proved all my original claims beyond a reasonable doubt. You on the other hand went from saying I was wrong and the cable company couldn't possibly know what your're watching, to saying those-shows-they-can't-possibly-know-you're watching are only shared anonymously (it's not anonymous to the cable provider). Of course that's a made-up disagreement in the first place as no one but you was discussing how sharing was done with third-parties. The real discussion was whether your viewing habits were being tracked, which they are as proven by my links. At least in the process you've acknowledged the cable and satellite providers must be tracking your viewing habits to have anything to anonymously share with 3rd parties in the first place.
You didn't prove anything. All you showed is that there are research firms that provide AGGREGATE data. There is still absolutely no evidence at all that the cable company keeps your private data - and, in fact, they specifically state that they only collect anonymous data. So if you're going to continue to claim that the cable company violates your privacy, you'll need evidence.
And even if you do, there's nothing at all that supports your implication that the cable company is as big a threat to your privacy as Google.
Does the US actually have any anti-trust laws anymore, or has auctioning Congresswhores off to the highest bidder pretty much put paid to all that?
Congress seems to pass vague legislation and leave it up to the regulators to fill in the blanks, which they don't because they're scared of losing their cushy jobs and benefits, so the laws are effectively meaningless.
You didn't prove anything. All you showed is that there are research firms that provide AGGREGATE data. There is still absolutely no evidence at all that the cable company keeps your private data - and, in fact, they specifically state that they only collect anonymous data. So if you're going to continue to claim that the cable company violates your privacy, you'll need evidence.
And I'm sure that, if legally requested, these firms would cease collecting said data, unlike Google who's been caught with their hand in the data cookie jar a little too often for comfort.*
* Please note that the above post may not be genuine in nature and may, in fact, have been posted, not by the username GTR, but instead by a rogue software engineer 'collecting' data on a wifi network.
Business is global. Apple, for example, has more than 1/2 of its business outside of the U.S. The fact that you are a U.S. company does not give you the right to violate local laws. You need to ensure compliance with countries where you do a significant amount of business.
Well said and prime example is the iPad 4G fiasco.... It didnt stop me from buying one but they still broke the law, in Australia anyway.
You didn't prove anything. All you showed is that there are research firms that provide AGGREGATE data. There is still absolutely no evidence at all that the cable company keeps your private data - and, in fact, they specifically state that they only collect anonymous data. So if you're going to continue to claim that the cable company violates your privacy, you'll need evidence.
And even if you do, there's nothing at all that supports your implication that the cable company is as big a threat to your privacy as Google.
Really? What citation are you offering for your claim the cable company only has anonymous data, not that it matters to the original argument? You're still making stuff up I think and hoping no one notices. That also extends to your new imaginary claim that I've accused the cable company of violating my privacy. On the contrary, I've no doubt I've given them permission to do a whole lot of data gathering and sharing, as have you. Read your contract along with the provider's privacy policy.
While the Cable Act of 1984 restricts the sharing of personally identifiable information with 3rd parties, it doesn't restrict the collection of that data by cable providers, nor keep them from using that data themselves to "better serve it's customers", nor sharing personal data if they have "permission". In addition there's questions whether phone companies who also provide TV services fall under those rules. There's no question that a company like TiVo or Hulu isn't controlled by the Cable Act.
Oh, don't worry. I'm a racist for wanting an impartial judge (redundant phrase?) in the Apple v. Samsung trial.
Words can mean what people want them to mean.
You're not being called racist for wanting an impartial judge. You're being called racist for implying that the judge in question can't be impartial based solely on her Korean heritage.
You're not being called racist for wanting an impartial judge. You're being called racist for implying that the judge in question can't be impartial based solely on her Korean heritage.
It seems to me he's being called a racist for wanting an impartial judge, which seems a little unusual considering that juries are selected using the exact same process.
I'd highly advise you guys to watch exactly who you're accusing of what on this forum.
Using the racism card as a weapon to attempt to win an argument is not appreciated here.
It seems to me he's being called a racist for wanting an impartial judge, which seems a little unusual considering that juries are selected using the exact same process.
I'd highly advise you guys to watch exactly who you're accusing of what on this forum.
Using the racism card as a weapon to attempt to win an argument is not appreciated here.
It's ironic that two posters, who know very little about another's opinions or beliefs, are claiming that he's racist based upon his statement that he would like to ensure that there are impartial judges.
It's ironic that two posters, who know very little about another's opinions or beliefs, are claiming that he's racist based upon his statement that he would like to ensure that there are impartial judges.
Aren't you being racist yourselves?
Only in some bizarro world logic you seem to be using.
It seems to me he's being called a racist for wanting an impartial judge, which seems a little unusual considering that juries are selected using the exact same process.
I'd highly advise you guys to watch exactly who you're accusing of what on this forum.
Using the racism card as a weapon to attempt to win an argument is not appreciated here.
And what is his basis for believing that Koh isn't impartial?
Comments
Yeah, it's not worth while arguing the way you do - all blather and no evidence. Glad you finally understood that.
You didn't prove anything. All you showed is that there are research firms that provide AGGREGATE data. There is still absolutely no evidence at all that the cable company keeps your private data - and, in fact, they specifically state that they only collect anonymous data. So if you're going to continue to claim that the cable company violates your privacy, you'll need evidence.
And even if you do, there's nothing at all that supports your implication that the cable company is as big a threat to your privacy as Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh
Does the US actually have any anti-trust laws anymore, or has auctioning Congresswhores off to the highest bidder pretty much put paid to all that?
Congress seems to pass vague legislation and leave it up to the regulators to fill in the blanks, which they don't because they're scared of losing their cushy jobs and benefits, so the laws are effectively meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
I think I learned the meaning of this word about 40 years ago, so I'm pretty certain I used it correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You didn't prove anything. All you showed is that there are research firms that provide AGGREGATE data. There is still absolutely no evidence at all that the cable company keeps your private data - and, in fact, they specifically state that they only collect anonymous data. So if you're going to continue to claim that the cable company violates your privacy, you'll need evidence.
And I'm sure that, if legally requested, these firms would cease collecting said data, unlike Google who's been caught with their hand in the data cookie jar a little too often for comfort.*
* Please note that the above post may not be genuine in nature and may, in fact, have been posted, not by the username GTR, but instead by a rogue software engineer 'collecting' data on a wifi network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You really need to get past the 1960s.
Business is global. Apple, for example, has more than 1/2 of its business outside of the U.S. The fact that you are a U.S. company does not give you the right to violate local laws. You need to ensure compliance with countries where you do a significant amount of business.
Well said and prime example is the iPad 4G fiasco.... It didnt stop me from buying one but they still broke the law, in Australia anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, don't worry. I'm a racist for wanting an impartial judge (redundant phrase?) in the Apple v. Samsung trial.
Words can mean what people want them to mean.
Correct, yes you are and since you are a Moderator it makes it even more appalling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You didn't prove anything. All you showed is that there are research firms that provide AGGREGATE data. There is still absolutely no evidence at all that the cable company keeps your private data - and, in fact, they specifically state that they only collect anonymous data. So if you're going to continue to claim that the cable company violates your privacy, you'll need evidence.
And even if you do, there's nothing at all that supports your implication that the cable company is as big a threat to your privacy as Google.
Really? What citation are you offering for your claim the cable company only has anonymous data, not that it matters to the original argument? You're still making stuff up I think and hoping no one notices. That also extends to your new imaginary claim that I've accused the cable company of violating my privacy. On the contrary, I've no doubt I've given them permission to do a whole lot of data gathering and sharing, as have you. Read your contract along with the provider's privacy policy.
While the Cable Act of 1984 restricts the sharing of personally identifiable information with 3rd parties, it doesn't restrict the collection of that data by cable providers, nor keep them from using that data themselves to "better serve it's customers", nor sharing personal data if they have "permission". In addition there's questions whether phone companies who also provide TV services fall under those rules. There's no question that a company like TiVo or Hulu isn't controlled by the Cable Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Well said and prime example is the iPad 4G fiasco.... It didnt stop me from buying one but they still broke the law, in Australia anyway.
You're in Australia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, don't worry. I'm a racist for wanting an impartial judge (redundant phrase?) in the Apple v. Samsung trial.
Words can mean what people want them to mean.
You're not being called racist for wanting an impartial judge. You're being called racist for implying that the judge in question can't be impartial based solely on her Korean heritage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
You're not being called racist for wanting an impartial judge. You're being called racist for implying that the judge in question can't be impartial based solely on her Korean heritage.
It seems to me he's being called a racist for wanting an impartial judge, which seems a little unusual considering that juries are selected using the exact same process.
I'd highly advise you guys to watch exactly who you're accusing of what on this forum.
Using the racism card as a weapon to attempt to win an argument is not appreciated here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
You're in Australia?
Yep, Sydney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
It seems to me he's being called a racist for wanting an impartial judge, which seems a little unusual considering that juries are selected using the exact same process.
I'd highly advise you guys to watch exactly who you're accusing of what on this forum.
Using the racism card as a weapon to attempt to win an argument is not appreciated here.
Why? He was being racist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Yep, Sydney.
How embarrassing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
How embarrassing.
Yes, I agree its embarrassing for you to support a racist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Why? He was being racist.
No, he was not.
It's ironic that two posters, who know very little about another's opinions or beliefs, are claiming that he's racist based upon his statement that he would like to ensure that there are impartial judges.
Aren't you being racist yourselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Yes, I agree its embarrassing for you to support a racist.
Don't tell me. I'm racist now? (>_<)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
No, he was not.
It's ironic that two posters, who know very little about another's opinions or beliefs, are claiming that he's racist based upon his statement that he would like to ensure that there are impartial judges.
Aren't you being racist yourselves?
Only in some bizarro world logic you seem to be using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Don't tell me. I'm racist now? (>_<)
Who knows...since you are supporting racists comments then maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
It seems to me he's being called a racist for wanting an impartial judge, which seems a little unusual considering that juries are selected using the exact same process.
I'd highly advise you guys to watch exactly who you're accusing of what on this forum.
Using the racism card as a weapon to attempt to win an argument is not appreciated here.
And what is his basis for believing that Koh isn't impartial?
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
And what is his basis for believing that Koh isn't impartial?
Exactly, that's the the whole point.