Posts by tom dial

Re: I don't trust Google or even use their Search these days ...

I found a similar result until I selected the option to stop discarding duplicates. The initial count seems to contain a lot of duplicates, as does Bing, although its number is about 85% lower.

Re: What's the evidence of abuse?

"... evidence of Google blacklisting services more popular than theirs ..."

Please identify one such site, along with the corresponding Google site or service.

Re: I must be missing something

The "problem", for Foundem, is that you do not receive a nondescript page with a block for each distinct brand of left handed underpants which, if you click it, leads to a price comparison page containing large numbers of duplicates, each one showing a vendor and price for the specific brand of left handed underwear. If you want to get a list of various vendors for various brands of something, it is better to use Google, or probably DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, or Bing (in some order)

The Foundem site, for "tablets", returns in order two graphics tablets, followed by Acai, Dishwasher, Spirulina, Cleansing Herb, Tomato Lycopene, and Dishwash tablets before a Techair Neoprene Universal Tablet Sleeve.

To be fair, it also shows a link for "Sony TABLETS" with a price range of 35 -525 GBP; following the link provides a list, extending for 6 pages, of 89 links for Xperia charging docks, all identical. The other three at least zero in on the most likely item, tablet computers. DuckDuckGo arguably is the best of the lot as it provides a link to information about tablets in general as well as places to buy one.

Re: @dz 015

I always thought of iTunes as malware in slight disguise, at least as provided for Windows.

Re: the only certain thing...

Yep. Just checked it for "Lenovo laptop", an item for which I never have searched. Foundem returned a panel showing 19 items,

- 6 various monitors (e. g., ThinkPad T2220),

- 5 or more batteries (e. g., Thinkpad T400)

Those that actually linked to lists with a lot of apparent duplication for comparison of a single Lenovo laptop model.

Search of google.co.uk for the same argument returned, in order, Lenovo's site, webuy.com, which did not appear especially useful, and a computer retailer in Sandy UT, USA, about 7 miles from my house. All three were clearly identified as ads. The search results included, in order, two Lenovo direct sales outlets for the UK, Currys, and John Lewis.

A search for "Laptops" was worse, if possible for Foundem, which returned a great panel allowing me to compare price for any one of more than a hundred specific make/model devices, most of which actually appeared likely to be laptops. The couple I looked at had a lot of duplicates (easy to spot because of the default presentation order). Google.co.uk, on the other hand, returned, after the ads, links to sellers that in many cases appear to provide information to guide choice of make and model based on such things as intended use.

Summary: Foundem is pretty much rubbish unless you already have decided upon a specific make and model, in which case your shopping quite likely is finished anyhow, although some will consult a comparison site to try to shave a few pennies from the cost.

As I thought, it is fairly clear that Foundem's complaint, and probably others, is little more than classical rent seeking that ought to be disregarded if not punished. Such sites may have a place, but probably never will be more than secondary or tertiary sources of shopping information in their present form.

Re: Competition Violation?

When you access a site that includes Google Analytics, is it you, or the site, that is using them/

Just asking.

Re: More anonymity for criminals and terrorists

The security of financial transactions and cat pictures are inseparable. Law enforcement officials do not have a much greater problem with good encryption, in reality, than they have with physical mail and opaque envelopes. The fact that they can obtain court orders that allow them to open and examine the mail still does not give them access to the contents if it is encrypted or encoded.

As others doubtless have mentioned, if communications are to be secure from criminals they will, necessarily, be secure as well from governments. The "master key" proposed by some would be a target of enormous value to a great many people, some of them quite nasty and willing to go to great expense and effort to obtain it, even if split. If it exists, the probability and costs of compromise are unacceptable.

Re: And how long...

Probably not effective in Iceland, and very unlikely to pass the US Congress. They can propose what they want but are very unlikely to succeed in suppressing cryptography in the US. I can't judge about the UK, where general surveillance seems to be a bit more advanced. However, there seems to be little indication in either country that existing government surveillance activities are connected to interference with civil liberties. It might be pertinent to examine countries where cryptography already is regulated by the government.

The Indiana (and Arkansas) RFRAs did not as originally passed, and do not as amended, authorize anyone to discriminate on any basis against anyone else. Nor did either of them lean toward or away from any religion or set of doctrines. They were equally applicable to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others. While they certainly were passed largely on the initiative and with support of Christians, that mainly is because Christians far outnumber adherents to other religious doctrines; it is quite likely that they would have been supported by members of a number of others.

Citing the Bible, apart from the fact that it has enough contradictions to "prove" nearly anything, may be relevant to the particular establishment and comment, but is not relevant to those who do not accept it as authoritative and of reduced relevance to those, Muslims for instance, or Mormons, whose scriptures have been expanded to include additional guidance.

Re: No

For the US DNC application see

https://www.donotcall.gov/

It has been available for over a decade. Telemarketers who call numbers on the list, or who do not subscribe to the list and call numbers either on the list or not are subject to a fine that can go as high as $16,000 per call made.

The meaning of the DNT signal is ambiguous if Microsoft makes it the default: it may mean that the user or whoever set up the system consciously selected that, or it may mean the PC was set up using the Microsoft default. If the default (for all browsers) is to not set the DNT switch, it is an unambiguous signal when it is present.

I also had a knee-jerk reaction that no tracking should be the default, but see the point of the recommended default, especially as it is only a request and gives web sites a slightly plausible excuse to ignore it.

I never bothered to enable it because my browsing activity is pretty innocuous and I don't care too much one way or the other about tracking. AdBlock+ seems to deal reasonably with ads, including the 3 it is blocking now.

Re: disinformation

At the 5 - 15 kv or higher voltages being mentioned it might make little difference how the meter is coupled to the power line, and at the current capabilities of the distribution lines it might be a bit difficult to protect the meter irrespective of whether it is magnetic or electronic.

The examples were not "straw men", but rather responses to the immediately previous AC comment (maybe yours) in which they were offered as what appeared to be intended to represent absurd consequences of the law. I intended the expansion to suggest a bit about how the law might actually work in practice, as opposed to the uninformed opinions of those who seem not to have read and thought about the Constitution, the applicable amendments, the legal environment in which the law in question will operate, and finally, the law itself.

A clear majority of the comments appear to be made based on emotional reaction and an unanalyzed and somewhat restricted and somewhat absolutist moral position. It is important to be mindful of the fact that democratic regimes tend to get into trouble when various groups, however identified, can reasonably think they are being subjected to demands with which they cannot comply or some degree of punishment for things they cannot change. While that certainly applies to blacks, who cannot become unblack, and gays or lesbians, who cannot change their innate characteristics, it also applies to sincerely religious people who believe some types of behavior to be sinful. It is appropriate in a highly diverse democratic republic to be equally considerate of all and to avoid as much as reasonably possible coopting of the government by one group to enforce its rights upon others.

The degree to which an enterprise would allow individual employees to discriminate based on sexual orientation would depend on company policy, as limited by the law. Indiana's new law does not change that. In fact, it changes almost nothing beyond giving those who choose to discriminate for religious reasons a legal defense and recourse they may not previously have had available. In particular, it does not legalize discrimination going forward that before was illegal.

For example, a public school teacher's refusal to teach evolution may be a violation of Indiana law. If so, and if the teacher is punished she may offer the defense that it "substantially burdens" her exercise of religion. The school board, in turn, may argue that teaching evolution fulfills the "compelling government interest" of properly educating the students and that requiring the teacher to provide the instruction is "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest". The outcome would depend on whether there is a compelling government interest and whether, if so, requiring the particular teacher to provide the instruction against her religious belief is the least restrictive way to fulfill it (as against, say, reassignment to a different position).

Again, corporal punishment in schools is covered most places by laws, and states could be expected to argue that forbidding it - compelling teachers and administrators to spare the rod - furthers the compelling government interest of ensuring child safety in schools. It is likely that laws restricting corporal punishment contained such a statement when drafted.

What you say appears correct, but is overridden by the fact that federal civil rights law supersedes Indiana law in the matter of discrimination against black people and women. I am not, however, a lawyer.

Re: It's just the hallmark of a Good Employer

While I am not in the least religious I am (especially in Utah) aware that there are a great many people who, for whatever reason, sincerely believe things I and others may think quite absurd. However, the first clause of the US Bill of Rights reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extends that limitation on legislative action to the states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and continues: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Irrespective of the motivation, the government of Indiana enacted a law that is consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments and with existing federal and probably Indiana civil rights law. It also would be consistent with a law, should they (or the federal government) choose to enact it, that deemed it a compelling government interest to require that any business offering services to the public do so without consideration of sexual orientation. This law about which there is so much indignation almost certainly does not permit, in Indiana, anything that was not entirely legal before it was enacted. Its actual legal effect probably is nearly nonexistent.

Re: Indiana, WTF?

If my business were making signs I would cheerfully offer both options.

Re: Indiana, WTF?

There is, of course, a considerable difference between public shaming on one hand and implicit application of the government's lawful monopoly on the use of force. It is logically consistent, especially for those in the US who incline to first amendment absolutism, to favor one and oppose the other.

Re: It's just the hallmark of a Good Employer

The law, as written, does not establish or endorse any discriminatory action by the State of Indiana. It does permit a probably quite small number of people or businesses to discriminate on the basis that serving some customers (by assumption those who are gay, lesbian, or transgendered) is a religious conflict. It also is worth noting that the law covers only actions taken by Indiana government entities or by individuals based on Indiana government action. In particular, it does not apply to protections established by the federal government.

Re: Pehaps

The words 'Gay' 'Lesbian' and 'transgender' do not occur in the enacted Indiana law. In essence, the law prohibits, within Indiana, any government action that burdens an individual's free exercise of religion unless the government can demonstrate that the burden is the least restrictive way to further a compelling state interest. It could equally be used as defense by a business whose owner followed a religion that dictated that Blacks or Jews or Muslims or Christians were not to be dealt with.

The law likely will be used by a small number of businesses to discriminate against gay, lesbian, or transgender customers by declining service to them. Most businesses are conducted for the purpose of earning money, however, and will not concern themselves with the sexual orientation of their customers as long as the latter pay promptly. Some will announce, as an earlier poster noted, that they proudly serve all. They are likely to gain business at the expense of the discriminators but may lose some who are offended by that. The net effect, but for decisions by angry convention organizers and non-Indiana businesses to punish the state and its people, probably would be all but invisible.

Re: Indiana, WTF?

According to the linked Wikipedia article, while the Indiana House of Representatives passed the act, the Senate ridiculed and deferred it forever, so that it never became law.

Re: A difficult balancing act.

A sample of US internet service: I've lived in two US places, Cleveland, Ohio (Cox) and Salt Lake City, Utah (Comcast). Both places, the service, although arguably a bit pricey, was/is nearly always at least the "up to" speed for the contract. Cox was a bit more reliably so, and suffered fewer unplanned interruptions (1 in 10 years vs 2 (but shorter ones) in 2 years); all were fairly brief. Cox had one major problem with their email servers, in which I believe some users lost messages; I did not, maybe due to downloading every few minutes. Cox upgraded their network, and speed, and maintained equal or lower prices over the period. My Comcast experience is too short to judge that.

I am sure that service is poorer, and speedier connections costlier in less urban areas, but I can't see that the recent FCC action offers much to solve the problem of covering costlier facilities with lower payments by fewer customers.

The matter of monopolistic ISPs was being addressed already. I had the option in Cleveland of at&t and Cox. I sampled at&t, found it wanting (but still decent), and reverted to Cox. In the Salt Lake valley there are offerings from Comcast, CenturyLink, UTOPIA (a home-grown municipal consortium), a local radio based provider, and in the future, Google. Not all are available in all cities, but my impression is that all or most subscribers have the option of at least two offerings of 50 megabits or more.

The order seems to a significant degree to be the result of successful rent seeking by certain large users, abetted by stirring up considerable popular alarm based on the threat of possibilities that, for the most part, do not seem to exist. The two I can remember are Comcast ditching torrent connections and, more recently, Comcast throttling of Netflix to pressure them to collocate some servers. The first was found out fairly quickly and they were shamed out of it; it seems unlikely that something like that will be repeated any time soon. The second was resolved sensibly by a commercial arrangement, which resulted in a small rise in my Netflix rate. I don't consider that outcome unreasonable: the customers (and government subsidies, presently lacking) need to cover the operating and maintenance costs of the infrastructure, and it strikes me as fairer to allocate the marginal cost of supporting intensive users like Netflix to their customers rather than to the ISP subscriber base as a whole.

Interesting idea, but probably ineffective or counterproductive. The authorities will be using the "illicit" web site's URL and backtracking to (IP addresses of) those who accessed it, causing the random users to be caught up along with the targets. If they are serious, or if the data returned is too voluminous, they then will try to refine the search, and those whose web-site-contacted list is very large will be eliminated or assigned a low priority.

The procedure would not proved plausible deniability for anything on your computer once investigators, based on the metadata search, gain access to it. It might result in avoidance as long as they are busy picking the low-hanging fruit represented by those who only or mostly accessed the site used as the original selector. Plausible deniability might better be obtained by running an open or WEP wifi setup on the outside of your firewall and ensuring that the logs are purged daily "for efficiency".

Re: Good times, good times, they are a-coming.

While there are reports of cities (mostly small, I think) having fielded ISPs, Provo, Utah had one that by my understanding worked out rather badly, and a consortium - "UTOPIA" - in the Salt Lake valley has not worked out too well either. Google took over Provo's and an Australian company is angling to take over UTOPIA. I'm fairly new to the area, but think the issues had to do with a combination of insufficient revenue for maintenance and upgrade (Provo) and unwillingness of some of the UTOPIA communities to make the initial investment.

That said, if the Chattanooga voters want the city to run an ISP it should be up to them, but that really should be a Tennessee issue, as regulation of local telephone service, before 1984, was a state regulation issue for the 50 states. Except for the District of Columbia, cities are corporations established by the states.

Re: The Dream Nightmare, but not as you may know it or how IT tells you the Realities are

Thank you! I haven't had as entertaining a read (in this genre) since trying to thrash through some of the OWS literature back in the day. This one is better written than most of the OWS pieces, though.

For some reason it reminded me of Lyndon LaRouche and also of the Natural Law Party.

Re: Fair trial

"The US government has refused [a trial by jury.]"

Citation please, that's a basic sixth amendment right, and Snowden does not lack for qualified US lawyers.

And for those imagining Snowden's transfer to the Guantanamo Bay facility: other than Yassir Hamzi (and the prison staff) did any US citizen do time there?

Re: @Tom

There are legally approved procedures for whistle blowers. While those available to Snowden were more limited than those available to civilian and military employees, there is no evidence that he tried to use them beyond his claim, which might reasonably be discounted somewhat based on the dishonesty of some of his other actions. Beyond that, a number of senators and representatives probably would have been open to information about infringement on US civil rights and liberties and interested in initiating legislation to curb NSA excesses. That would not have prevented executive branch harassment any more than it did for J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Thomas Drake, or Russell Tice. Without deprecating their treatment, it is not obvious that it is in the long run worse that what Edward Snowden will experience.

From the range of material that Snowden collected and the way he chose to release it, it appears he may have intended to inflict damage to US and allied intelligence activities beyond simply blowing the whistle on what he thought violations of US law and Constitutional rights of US citizens..