211–220 of 293 posts
Ironically, I also view this as potentially helping Google with Chromebook sales... the more prevalent WiFi becomes, the more useful a Chromebook becomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that it is wrong to argue for something that you think would make the world a better place? Suppose I offered free drinking water that had radon in it, would it be wrong for you to argue for getting rid of the radon because it's free, and my terms are that there is radon in it?
If those are your terms, it's up to the customer to decide whether they would accept those terms in exchange for the water. I don't see the problem
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the sense that it violates a social contract? That is, WIFI access in exchange for repping this spot to your friends in however minor a fashion? In the sense of behavior that you as a service provider wish to prevent? Yeah, in all those senses, it is "abuse."
I think you overlooked that they violated the social contract first by requiring you to submit to surveillance, so all I am doing is to protect me from their abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you overlooked that they violated the social contract first by requiring you to submit to surveillance, so all I am doing is to protect me from their abuse.
The "social contract" now includes wifi?
This will be abused, they will overstep massively at some point, people will complain, then they'll take a cosmetic baby step backwards, and possibly provide their users with a pixelated cow icon to make up for it... then continue on their way.
I'm guessing everyone has already forgotten about the "we read your posts, even if you don't post them" thing recently? http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The thing that really irks me is the assumption that nowadays everyone has facebook With over a billion users, you'll have that. My POV is... look, you get to be as contrarian as you want. Feel free to never jump on the FB band wagon. But understand you're in the minority. Facebook is that big, and is that established in our culture. So, feel free, choose your own path, but then stop whining about the hassle of bei…
My POV is... look, you get to be as contrarian as you want. Feel free to never jump on the Dictatorship band wagon. But understand you're in the minority. The Dictator is that big, and is that established in our culture. So, feel free, choose your own path, but then stop whining about the hassle of being in the minority. Nobody cares about your freedom concerns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of the things that really saddens me about the world we live in - we can't have nice things, because everything is being optimized for the average use case, and average people just don't care much about anything, especially quality.
> average people just don't care much about anything, especially quality. That's incredibly arrogant, and more than a little naive. The problem is that you're only looking at the small part of the problem which you understand better than the average person. Think about it instead from the perspective of the ice cream shop owner: they're not making any money from your using the network. You might look at the a Faceboo…
If enough people care about the problem and don't buy ice cream as a result, they will likely change their policy.
I don't think this will ever happen, most will buy ice cream and just leave or sign in with their Facebook profile, which is a win-win for the ice cream shop.
Likely this will just cause enterprising people to look for holes in the registration process, like tunneling traffic over port 53 (old), or any number of other methods, especially when you are talking about a unified login system that forces you to do something with FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My POV is... look, you get to be as contrarian as you want. Feel free to never jump on the Dictatorship band wagon. But understand you're in the minority. The Dictator is that big, and is that established in our culture. So, feel free, choose your own path, but then stop whining about the hassle of being in the minority. Nobody cares about your freedom concerns.
Like a drug, nobody knows yet the long term effects of Facebook. So when someone acts super paranoid about the effects of something yet unproven, other people come out of the woodwork and try to give the guy some perspective. It's kind of the same negative attitudes we see towards GMO's, drones or RF radiation. I mean people could easily flip their perspective and, instead, see these tools as very powerful and, if us…
Also, how come you only list other negative attitudes to things that are either still controversial or scientifically validated as probably harmless? How about asbestos, PCB, lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Stasi?
Also, are you arguing that we only ever should take action when the end results are in, never because of predictions, because those might be wrong? Or are you saying that all degrees of uncertainty are the same unless zero, and essentially equivalent to total uncertainty?
Seriously, I don't get what you are actually trying to tell me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's more satisfying to be a jerk towards someone who can do nothing about the situation, under the guise of principle.
How was that exchange with the clerk 'being a jerk'?