Meetup.com seems to do this successfully, is that the same type of site that you are referring to?
I've considered going to a computer / technology / entrepreneurship club, but haven't yet. They also have local groups for dog owners, walking/fitness/specialty (ballet, dance), FPV drone flyers, sports groups, and almost anything else I could think of they had a group already started for it in my city.
Some have memberships fees (completely optional when setting up a new group, afaik) and some have more strict requirements when joining (a potential problem but I haven't heard of it being abused).
Meetup seems to be successful because it only handles scheduled, group activities. If your website lets people privately connect with others who live in the same city, some of your user base will start using it to find sex.
It's not critical that the seeds are kept at that temperature, it's just to maximize the amount of time they last.
If the freezers fail then it will take several weeks for the temperature to go from -18C (freezer) to -4C (ground temperature), and after that the seeds will still last a very long time.
Thanks for clarification on that one, the dramatic opening paragraph seemed to suggest that the sky would fall if the freezer was not repaired immediately.
Edit to my original post: the project should be funded along with complementary approaches.
I can imagine a several large domes to protect people and crops from the atmosphere, but the threat of them being hit by a meteorite seems like a critical issue, unless we also shipped some AA or powerful lasers to combat them.
This is based on Copresence, which will probably ultimately include something like AirDrop. The audio portion would be used for neighbour discovery, before hand off to e.g. wifi direct. Copresence is already used for the guest play feature of ChromeCast.
Listening browsers require the extension. Neither require a Dev release of Chrome - 43.x is the current stable release.
Nothing you'd call documentation. Copresence is part of Chromium, so you can dive into the source code if you wish. I'm attempting to reverse engineer the audible portion (just for fun). I'm tweeting as I go https://twitter.com/moreati
It seems like your goal is to be a better search engine than Google, and focusing primarily on the command line.
What is the reason for a developer not wanting to type into a normal search engine a few keywords about a coding issue?
This concept just doesn't make sense to me: "Describe your problem in details with markdown supported. GitHelp will use your description to find you the most relevant content and resources to help you solve your problem instead of Googling."
Here is a suggestion, show us an example (with screenshots or a video) of a query or question using Google search and using GitHelp, then we can properly see the value of the service.
The "getting stuck" part is the most fun for me personally. It means I've hit a challenge that I've not faced before and have to do something thinking and research to solve it.
I understand the two sides, but what's the difference to the consumer who has a Newegg account but does not want Amazon to have their personal data?
In the end, Amazon would end up with the consumers data, so to the consumer there is no difference. Are you saying that there is a difference? That's what I wanted clarification on, what that difference was.
To continue with the analogy above the difference arises if Newegg says "We don't share your data with third parties" and does #1. That would breach customer expectations because they are outright lying. The #2 case seems much less clear cut because Newegg wouldn't exist as a standalone entity anymore, and most people's reasonable expectation is Amazon would then have access to Newegg's data. It depends on each person's answer to the question: Is Amazon a third party in the second example?
You are assuming that a Privacy Policy is legally binding, it's generally accepted as not being.
In the example, Amazon can do whatever it wants with the data.
Data submitted to almost anyone online (maybe with the exception of large companies or companies specifically designed to not track data) should be considered public unfortunately.
I have seen some states recently put in place laws to protect this data from being made public or sold carelessly, but for the most part it is unregulated as far as I can tell.
In a discussion about policy, you should never use terms like "generally accepted" and "should be considered" to refer to the reality that is already under question. It's extremely confusing.
The fact that your data isn't protected can't be used as an argument that it shouldn't be. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, either.
> You are assuming that a Privacy Policy is legally binding, it's generally accepted as not being.
I'm not claiming privacy policies are legally binding, just that they can be an indicator of trustworthiness and integrity. That's what I really meant when I said "[Option #1] would breach customer expectations because they are outright lying."
The way I read mc32's "I think there's a difference" is moral difference, because I share the same sentiment as him or her ("I hope the FTC wins its case...") which would turn that moral difference into a legally binding one.
While I agree that it's probably not legally binding (I beleive even the standard "Click and connect" contracts have been thrown out of courts in the past), do you have any references to share?
I do agree but there are some huge flaws with this that need to be worked out first.
How would you sell one company to another? There isn't much difference between a company being sold because it's being acquired and a company's assets being sold because it's bankrupt and needs to pay creditors.
Perh a start would be strict ToS inheritance and much richer consumer data regulation. Any change on tos after an acquisition would have to be opted into by the user. So if Verizon buys experia, they don't suddenly do all kinds of things with that data I didn't expect.
Other than violating social norms, would there be any problem with purposefully making the data socially poisonous (not Bobby Tables, more like saying your name is Mao or Stalin and you on 101 Legalize Murder Avenue... and this is a tame example compared to what the internet could come up with)?
For the consumer, it's a pain to have to manage several identities just to have a shred of privacy when using the internet.
For the company, they always want the most accurate data, so that it can be cross-referenced and properly analyzed (specific aged males like X product better than Y).
I assume that most customer data is accurate, at some companies I've done some verification of customer databases just to identify the "95% accurate" verses the "mostly inaccurate or unverifiable" data, so that it can be excluded in certain instances.
Me personally, I have a wide variety of methods of obscuring data and confusing LexisNexis type companies, I'm not sure how fruitful it is, but it would be foolish to not at least try.
Many places required a verifiable address, which can be difficult to obscure (UPS store works for many things).
If you see a random form online, don't enter your real info dummy. If you see a website offering to lookup someones information, don't give that site your information and credit-card info (I've seen it happen many times).
You also don't want to make it obvious that you are using false data. Using an alternative version of your name and slightly different numbers will do more to confuse data-correlation efforts.
Just for the record, US national security is a completely different issue and I do not support attempting to provide misleading data to those relevant organizations. I've always been on the fence about the data-privacy topic. Humans can do bad things, 7+ billion humans with increasing influence and power slightly worries me. If you order lots of a uncoated fertilizer and do not have a garden or any land, then yes, in my opinion it is acceptable to build a system that raises a red flag on that person to be subject to an unbiased and transparent investigation.
Typically it's hard to do that when companies check against registered billing addresses for cards, or indeed card holder names, etc etc.
In general I've started just saying "No". I mean, I went to get my eyes tested and three different people tried to get my email/mobile for their records. I'm not even that bothered about surveillance it's just i'm sick to death of twats phoning me at work to claim compensation/buy something/ give feedback.
I've adopted the same method of dealing with this. Let me provide another anecdote: I went to a new dentist a few weeks ago and greatly confused the staff when I requested they didn't take a picture of me to attach to a personal file. They were equally confused when I told them I didn't want to watch anything on the TV during my appointment and would prefer instead that they turned it off.
I wasn't trying to be difficult or prove a point, I just really didn't want/feel comfortable with either of those things. As they did not impact the office's ability to perform their dentistry, it seemed perfectly reasonable for me to opt-out of them. The strangest part was, based on their confused reactions, it seems I may have been one of the first to deny one or both of those options.
Since it would be nearly impossible to universally "poison" your footprint the most like scenario would end up being that Lawton Fogle is tied to an alias of Hitler Manson that lives on Sodomy Lane and has a fake social security number with strangle biblical references. Not a good way to stay off somebody's radar.
Haven't people already been doing that for years? Am I just unusually paranoid? I always lie to companies I'm buying from when I can find some way to pollute their database.
The "we will never sell your data to anyone" in a Privacy Policy effectively means nothing at all.
Why are there not consumer protection laws in place to prevent this? In my opinion, in order to sell customer data you should have to go to court and have a judge look over the data to determine what can be sold.
I've little faith that any judge would do anything other than "ah. This is something... computer. don't know. Yes?". It's the same "shutters coming down with a bang!" phenomenon as one sees with most non-technical folks the moment they think something technical might be coming their way.
Either way, this is a very grey area, as if you tie up corporate affairs with every single one of your customers, it would make your business unsaleable, and make liquidation impossible, so while consumer protection is desirable, there also have to be measures that allow businesses to operate without the explicit consent of each and every one of their customers for any action.
I see your point about businesses being unsellable.
What's the difference in Facebook acquiring WhatsApp's customer database via purchasing the entire company and it being sold numerous times during a hypothetical WhatsApp liquidation sale? None really, and whatever WhatsApp's (and all other companies) Privacy Policy said about protecting user data is somewhat meaningless.
Increasingly the value in a business is the customer base, and therefore their data - this will only continue as the service economy grows and brand continues to be king.
There's actually a whole section[1] of the bankruptcy code that requires precisely that. The court can even appoint a special consumer privacy ombudsman as it determines what data may be transferred.
I've considered going to a computer / technology / entrepreneurship club, but haven't yet. They also have local groups for dog owners, walking/fitness/specialty (ballet, dance), FPV drone flyers, sports groups, and almost anything else I could think of they had a group already started for it in my city.
Some have memberships fees (completely optional when setting up a new group, afaik) and some have more strict requirements when joining (a potential problem but I haven't heard of it being abused).