Cookie conundrum
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Feb 2010 12:41 Geoff Berrow <blthecat(a)ckdog.co.uk> wrote: > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > >The computer you were using can be traced, and the user of that computer > >at the time identified. > > > >You think that doesn't matter - from which point of view does it not > >matter? > > It's all relative isn't it? It's not affecting my life unduly as far > as I can see. And yet is has done, hugely - and it'll get worse. > >> No one forces any of us to use the Internet. > > > >You need to study sociology and psychology, you do. > > > >We are not /forced/ to use the internet, no - we are pushed and harried > >and `encouraged' to do so by all sorts of things, though. We're > >continually brainwashed to `do it online' and `you can trust us'. Etc. > > I would not wish it on anyone, And yet it's the world you live in, right here, right now. You wouldn't /wish/ the reality we have on anyone? No need for wishing: we've got it now. > but I've had a life changing experience > that helps me keep things in perspective. In the end it's all about > weighing positives against negatives. > > It's a no brainer for me. Yers: no brains indeed. You ignore the long-term threats and the long-term problems for considerations of short term comfort and convenience - and so society sleep-walks into tyranny. > >I use the internet for shopping because it's nigh on impossible for me > >to buy what I want by visiting shops in person, for example. Not forced > >to use the internet, no - but it's nearly impossible for me to get by > >any other way. > > Well the Internet has improved the lives of many in many ways. The > question is does the improvement justify your perceived loss of > privacy. As you haven't gone away I guess that's a yes. Huh? You're mad, you are. The internet makes possible things that are otherwise impossible - such as buying goods that I used to be able to buy from real life shops but can't get from real-life shops any more. You think I should permit myself to be unable to (for example) keep my motorcycles maintained simply because real life bike shops can no longer supply spare parts[1]? The internet is not itself any sort of threat to my privacy. The threat comes from our government, and from the other organisations operating with government support (such as the commercial firms which exploit us as workers and customers) - that's what the problem is. The fact that the internet is /used/ as one of the many privacy-destroying tools is neither here nor there. Rowland. [1] No, really: my wife and I have both tried to buy spare parts for our motorcycles from local bike shops. They take the orders, take a deposit - and then fail to get the parts in. We have tried several shops. And these days, due to its age (1986/87[2] - not ancient), on-line or via telephone ordering is the only way I can get parts for /my/ bike at all. [2] Don't ask. There is indeed doubt. It's the 86/87 model, anyway. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Geoff Berrow on 4 Feb 2010 13:10 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:41:20 +0000, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >[1] No, really: my wife and I have both tried to buy spare parts for >our motorcycles from local bike shops. They take the orders, take a >deposit - and then fail to get the parts in. We have tried several >shops. And these days, due to its age (1986/87[2] - not ancient), >on-line or via telephone ordering is the only way I can get parts for >/my/ bike at all. > >[2] Don't ask. There is indeed doubt. It's the 86/87 model, anyway. Mine's 1978 but I don't ride it often enough to wear anything out. :-} -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
From: D.M. Procida on 4 Feb 2010 14:36 Geoff Berrow <blthecat(a)ckdog.co.uk> wrote: > No one forces any of us to use the Internet. But there are a great many things one can no longer do, unless one does use it. Daniele
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Feb 2010 10:36 Geoff Berrow <blthecat(a)ckdog.co.uk> wrote: > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > >[1] No, really: my wife and I have both tried to buy spare parts for > >our motorcycles from local bike shops. They take the orders, take a > >deposit - and then fail to get the parts in. We have tried several > >shops. And these days, due to its age (1986/87[2] - not ancient), > >on-line or via telephone ordering is the only way I can get parts for > >/my/ bike at all. > > > >[2] Don't ask. There is indeed doubt. It's the 86/87 model, anyway. > > > Mine's 1978 but I don't ride it often enough to wear anything out. :-} Mine's a VFR750. It's therefore meant to be ridden. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Norm de Plume on 5 Feb 2010 22:49
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:03:40 +0000, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > <gulp> *YOU* - you, Peter C., actually met that monster? Really? > Well, yes. Saddam needed the weapons, precursor chemicals, and spare parts to keep his regime running, and people like Peter were happy to oblige. It kept him in cardigans and pipes for years after. > Blimey. > > And I assume he didn't appear to be any sort of monster, but there was a > definite aura of threat/menace/similar? No, Saddam was a jolly chap, the kind you'd find riding a bike down the A40 at 200 km/hr. He liked Usenet too, very careful with his netiquette. Always snipped his posts and provided handy footnotes. |