Those of you who are using the common methods for blocking Windows 7 and Windows 8.1's obnoxious Win10 upgrade procedure take note. Apparently an update released yesterday changed an important registry setting -- DisableOSUpgrade -- that prevented
Windows 7 and 8.1 from proceeding with the forced march to Windows 10.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/299...-in-force.html

Does anyone know if Microsoft will be offering a paid version of Win10 that doesn't spy on us?
I suspect the medical business will need it to satisfy HIPPA laws.

On 10/16/2015 04:59 PM, Microsoft Bob wrote:
Those of you who are using the common methods for blocking Windows 7 and
Windows 8.1's obnoxious Win10 upgrade procedure take note. Apparently an
update released yesterday changed an important registry setting --
DisableOSUpgrade -- that prevented Windows 7 and 8.1 from proceeding
with the forced march to Windows 10.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/299...-in-force.html


Does anyone know if Microsoft will be offering a paid version of Win10
that doesn't spy on us?
I suspect the medical business will need it to satisfy HIPPA laws.



There is a utility to help


http://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10

| Does anyone know if Microsoft will be offering a paid version of Win10
that doesn't spy on us?

There's been no such indication. They may offer a paid
version next year that does spy on you. The version
for corporations with large, multi-copy contracts allows
them to have more control and block updates. I don't
know that it allows disabling spyware. I haven't seen the
contract or EULA for the corporate version. There may not
even be a single version of those. And a surprising number
of companies are falling for the cloud fad, in which case
they're handing over all of their docs for someone else to
hold. Or they're using Office 365 online. How do we define
spyware when the users give their docs to Microsoft
willingly and work on them under Microsoft's control?

Windows 10 is an aggressive attempt to coerce the
Windows customer base into using online services and
giving up control of both the device and the software.
Microsoft is pushing what they call "universal apps" that
run on Win10 PCs, phones, tablets and X-Box. Universal
apps are something like sandboxed webpages. Even the
software developers have no control over the system.
Actual Windows software is still usable, but much of that
is going to subscription (like Adobe Photoshop and MS
Office). Over time it's likely that real Windows software
will be phased out altogether. Photoshop might still install
as software, but you'll access it in a limited way, with no
direct access to the actual files, while your use of the
software will appear to be online. In that case even Adobe
would only have such access to the OS as Microsoft deems
necessary. It's basically the kiosk operating system model.
Anyone using a computer-phone or tablet has already
accepted that level of restriction and spying.

It's all headed in that direction: Google, Facebook,
Amazon, Apple, Adobe.... Companies are trying to
own the whole thing, selling you a locked-down
device and then selling you services to run on it,
while showing you ads and spying on you. Microsoft
has been trying to get to this point ever since Active
Desktop in 1998. The only way they might realistically
be expected to reverse course would be if their strategy
turns out to be a total failure, with the 10s of millions
of people tricked into Win10 deciding to do something
like switch to Linux. That is *very* unlikely to happen.
The whole Microsoft strategy is underhanded and very
gradual. You're posting arcane instructions about how
to block Win10 from installing. The vast majority of
people will never know about that. Many will never
even realize their Win7 box has changed into Win10.
They won't know about the increased spying. They
won't be bothered by the Desktop ads. They already
accept that Microsoft is in charge -- so long as they can
get their email. So why would MS decide to kill the
potential golden goose and change Win10 into an
honest product?

There might be some hope with the EU, which is
notably more civilized than the US when it comes
to personal rights vs corporate profits. But even if
the EU cracks down that does nothing for US customers.

On 10/16/2015 2:59 PM, Microsoft Bob wrote:
Those of you who are using the common methods for blocking Windows 7 and
Windows 8.1's obnoxious Win10 upgrade procedure take note. Apparently an update
released yesterday changed an important registry setting -- DisableOSUpgrade --
that prevented Windows 7 and 8.1 from proceeding with the forced march to
Windows 10.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/299...-in-force.html


Does anyone know if Microsoft will be offering a paid version of Win10 that
doesn't spy on us?
I suspect the medical business will need it to satisfy HIPPA laws.

Doubtful. MS has belatedly learned that the "real money" is NOT in
selling software but, rather, selling *people*! Always last to the
dinner table, count on them to now excploit the hell out of this
"sudden realization" -- as if their business depended on it!

Relying on ANYTHING inside your PC to block MS is pure folly.
"Hello Mr Fox. Please keep a watchful eye on this HEN HOUSE..."

Install a firewall upstream and invest the time to figure out what
you truly want to block/permit.

Don Y writes:

On 10/16/2015 2:59 PM, Microsoft Bob wrote:
Those of you who are using the common methods for blocking Windows 7 and
Windows 8.1's obnoxious Win10 upgrade procedure take note. Apparently an update
released yesterday changed an important registry setting -- DisableOSUpgrade --
that prevented Windows 7 and 8.1 from proceeding with the forced march to
Windows 10.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/299...-in-force.html


Does anyone know if Microsoft will be offering a paid version of Win10 that
doesn't spy on us?
I suspect the medical business will need it to satisfy HIPPA laws.

Doubtful. MS has belatedly learned that the "real money" is NOT in
selling software but, rather, selling *people*! Always last to the
dinner table, count on them to now excploit the hell out of this
"sudden realization" -- as if their business depended on it!

Relying on ANYTHING inside your PC to block MS is pure folly.
"Hello Mr Fox. Please keep a watchful eye on this HEN HOUSE..."

Sorry, can't resist.

No ads here and none in sight.
Fedora Linux.

I hear OSX is drawing more converts.
AAPL doesn't need to sell software.

Microsoft knew all along they couldn't stay the same size
selling the same old OS for new machines only.
People don't upgrade because the OS is good enough.
MSFT is going to try to create an on-going revenue stream,
but I think they'll fail.
Ultimately, they'll be a smaller company.

--
Dan Espen

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 8:12:38 PM UTC-5, net cop wrote:
Don Y writes:

On 10/16/2015 2:59 PM, Microsoft Bob wrote:
Those of you who are using the common methods for blocking Windows 7 and
Windows 8.1's obnoxious Win10 upgrade procedure take note. Apparently an update
released yesterday changed an important registry setting -- DisableOSUpgrade --
that prevented Windows 7 and 8.1 from proceeding with the forced march to
Windows 10.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/299...-in-force.html


Does anyone know if Microsoft will be offering a paid version of Win10 that
doesn't spy on us?
I suspect the medical business will need it to satisfy HIPPA laws.

Doubtful. MS has belatedly learned that the "real money" is NOT in
selling software but, rather, selling *people*! Always last to the
dinner table, count on them to now excploit the hell out of this
"sudden realization" -- as if their business depended on it!

Relying on ANYTHING inside your PC to block MS is pure folly.
"Hello Mr Fox. Please keep a watchful eye on this HEN HOUSE..."

Sorry, can't resist.

No ads here and none in sight.
Fedora Linux.

I hear OSX is drawing more converts.
AAPL doesn't need to sell software.

Microsoft knew all along they couldn't stay the same size
selling the same old OS for new machines only.
People don't upgrade because the OS is good enough.
MSFT is going to try to create an on-going revenue stream,
but I think they'll fail.
Ultimately, they'll be a smaller company.

--
Dan Espen

I've been using the Chrome OS and a Chromebook. It updates automatically and I've never worried about a virus. I'm sure that if there is a malware program written for Chrome OS it gets quashed quickly and all Chrome devices are automatically updated with the fix. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Chrome Monster

On 10/16/2015 6:12 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Microsoft knew all along they couldn't stay the same size
selling the same old OS for new machines only.
People don't upgrade because the OS is good enough.

They've been "smart enough" to put changes in the API's
and core services to coerce developers to move forward...
which coerces end users to move forward, etc. This has
been their modus operandi for each of their products
(Office, etc.).

MSFT is going to try to create an on-going revenue stream,
but I think they'll fail.

I suspect smart IT departments will just opt to stay with
older releases (I run XP on my workstations and there is
nothing that I need to do that I *can't* do -- efficiently!)

The disincentive for doing so is the lack of "support"
(drivers) for old OS's on new hardware.

Ultimately, they'll be a smaller company.

That's pretty obvious.

| Does anyone know if Microsoft will be offering a paid version of Win10
that doesn't spy on us?

I just came across a very interesting piece that's
apropos he

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10...o r_deadline/

The European Union courts have ruled American
mass citizen surveillance illegal in Europe and given
the US gov't and companies until 1/31/16 to come
up with a credible solution or be blocked from storing
private data. I don't know exactly what that implies,
but it sounds promising. Companies like MS, Google,
Apple and Facebook have built their businesses around
spying on people for targetted advertising, while
sharing that data with the US gov't. It's hard to see
how their business model can be maintained if the EU
stick to their guns. Even as this is happening, Microsoft
is threatening to go to court over demands from the
US Justice Dept that they share hotmail data stored
in Ireland. The Justice Dept is trying to claim that the
personal data of Europeans is not personal data at
all but rather is Microsoft's business data, which they
have a right to inspect! MS is apparently at least making
a show of resistance in order to not entirely lose their
credibility in the EU. It seems that the EU and the US
gov't and corporations couldn't be further from an
agreement.

I'd like to see an expert business analysis of all this.
It's hard to know how it's likely to affect the US market
and American tech spying.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:47:39 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 10/16/2015 6:12 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Microsoft knew all along they couldn't stay the same size
selling the same old OS for new machines only.
People don't upgrade because the OS is good enough.

They've been "smart enough" to put changes in the API's
and core services to coerce developers to move forward...
which coerces end users to move forward, etc. This has
been their modus operandi for each of their products
(Office, etc.).


I've had every mainstream version of Windows except 8/8.1, and not
encountered any serious issues with any of them.
Windows 10 a pleasant surprise. I've yet to download the NVIDIA
drivers for my high end graphics card, and am playing a number of
graphics intensive games with what MS provided in the vanilla install
of Pro.
It's leaner than Win 7 by about 5gb. Important to me, since I image.
The BS about spyware is just.....BS. Just stay off the net if you
"feel" that way.

MSFT is going to try to create an on-going revenue stream,
but I think they'll fail.

I suspect smart IT departments will just opt to stay with
older releases (I run XP on my workstations and there is
nothing that I need to do that I *can't* do -- efficiently!)

The disincentive for doing so is the lack of "support"
(drivers) for old OS's on new hardware.


I suspect large corporations will migrate to Windows 10.
The don't like pain.

Ultimately, they'll be a smaller company.

That's pretty obvious.

Smaller in employees, market cap, revenues?
I don't see them losing market share in the desktop market any time
soon. They're selling easy to use does-it-all software to the masses.
Not until somebody can cover the bases as well as MS does.
They may improve sales in the cell phone, tablet area, but I know
nothing about them.
Besides, I don't buy the notion that Windows 10 is "the end."
They'll have more versions to take advantage of new technology.

On 10/16/2015 10:49 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:47:39 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 10/16/2015 6:12 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Microsoft knew all along they couldn't stay the same size
selling the same old OS for new machines only.
People don't upgrade because the OS is good enough.

They've been "smart enough" to put changes in the API's
and core services to coerce developers to move forward...
which coerces end users to move forward, etc. This has
been their modus operandi for each of their products
(Office, etc.).

I've had every mainstream version of Windows except 8/8.1, and not
encountered any serious issues with any of them.

That wasn't my point. You can't, for example, support a device
that was W98 vintage on a W10 system. E.g., I was annoyed that I couldnt
run /After Dark/ on XP (beyond some token subset).

Windows 10 a pleasant surprise. I've yet to download the NVIDIA
drivers for my high end graphics card, and am playing a number of
graphics intensive games with what MS provided in the vanilla install
of Pro.
It's leaner than Win 7 by about 5gb. Important to me, since I image.
The BS about spyware is just.....BS. Just stay off the net if you
"feel" that way.

I don't let any MS machines talk to the outside except this one -- which
has essentially two applications on it: Tbird and Ffox. It takes longer
for me to dig out a USB cable and the image disk than it does to restore
the original image (made when I built the machine). I.e., nothing
"valuable" to lose (even the email can be retrieved from the servers).

MSFT is going to try to create an on-going revenue stream,
but I think they'll fail.

I suspect smart IT departments will just opt to stay with
older releases (I run XP on my workstations and there is
nothing that I need to do that I *can't* do -- efficiently!)

The disincentive for doing so is the lack of "support"
(drivers) for old OS's on new hardware.

I suspect large corporations will migrate to Windows 10.
The don't like pain.

I'm not so sure. I see companies dragging their feet more and more...
resisting the MS "imperative" to "upgrade or die". I know many
places that skipped Vista altogether!

Ultimately, they'll be a smaller company.

That's pretty obvious.

Smaller in employees, market cap, revenues?

Smaller in stature. A "has been".

I don't see them losing market share in the desktop market any time
soon. They're selling easy to use does-it-all software to the masses.
Not until somebody can cover the bases as well as MS does.

I would look to folks like Dell and HP to more aggressively
move to offering cloud services (even if they are *local* clouds)
to leverage their *individual* hardware offerings. I.e., lock
clients into using their special "appliances" (modern day X terminals)
to connect with software running on their (more expensive) servers.

All the existing infrastructure can remain in place. IT department
can do all maintenance from the "server closet". Appliances can
be inexpensive/disposable as they won't need lots of resources
(diskless). Perhaps All-in-One form factor devices without the
*bulk* of current AIO offerings.

Most business seats can probably easily be handled with a
"productivity suite", browser and mail client. Highly technical
seats ("engineering") can stick with "compatible" workstations;
perhaps even deliberately offered to exploit *old* drivers
(with more MIPS).

They may improve sales in the cell phone, tablet area, but I know
nothing about them.

MS hasn't had much notable success in the phone business. They
see the world as WindowsWindowsWindows... (something about having
a hammer and everything looks like a tack...)

Besides, I don't buy the notion that Windows 10 is "the end."
They'll have more versions to take advantage of new technology.

I think the hardware vendors may be wanting a piece of that pie.
And, can possibly pitch a centralized solution as having a much lower
TCO than what Windows has already *taught* all of these customers!

(some of the whitepapers are startling in illustrating these
differences)

For every customer (business) that goes down this road, there are
potentially thousands of MS licenses lost! And, anyone who finds
a *good* experience will be an excellent salesperson *for* this
approach: "We managed to cut our equipment budget by $XX and
have done away with N support positions!"

I do all of my software development work using this model. I sit
down at any of ~dozen machines and start typing, compiling, debugging,
etc. No need to be in any particular place to have a particular piece
of software available.

My workstations are dedicated machines -- largely because each has
very specific peripherals that are tethered to those individual
machines (scanners, motion controllers, cameras, high end sound,
video acquisition, electronic test equipment, device programmers,
etc.). These machines cost me a disproportionate amount of time
(money) to maintain and tend to see very *few* upgrades -- because
installing all that software takes *days* for each machine (assuming
it *will* run on whatever upgraded hardware/OS I put in place).

Vic Smith writes:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:47:39 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 10/16/2015 6:12 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Ultimately, they'll be a smaller company.

That's pretty obvious.

Smaller in employees, market cap, revenues?

I'm guessing all of the above.
Certainly further development of their OS is requiring less
and less people and bringing in less and less money.

They've done pretty well introducing incompatibility into their
office suite but I expect diminishing returns there too.

I don't see them losing market share in the desktop market any time
soon.

Agreed. But users sticking with XP, W7, etc. don't bring any revenue
to keep MSFT going.

They're selling easy to use does-it-all software to the masses.
Not until somebody can cover the bases as well as MS does.

OSX is reputed to be easier to use than Windows.
I know complete novices that switched and are very happy.
I find Linux just as easy to use, and I'm not alone.

They may improve sales in the cell phone, tablet area, but I know
nothing about them.

You should know that Linux is dominating that market.
Android, Kindle, Samsung, the only real competition comes from
Apple.

Besides, I don't buy the notion that Windows 10 is "the end."
They'll have more versions to take advantage of new technology.

They may create new versions, there will just be less and less
reasons to change.

--
Dan Espen

| They may improve sales in the cell phone, tablet area, but I know
| nothing about them.
|
| You should know that Linux is dominating that market.
| Android, Kindle, Samsung, the only real competition comes from
| Apple.
|

And Microsoft is making a bundle extorting patent
fees on Android from most phone makers. I haven't
followed that story lately. Last I heard MS was getting
companies to agree to payments without even needing
to tell them which patents they claimed were relevant.
Monopoly maintenance has always been Microsoft's
primary product and primary skill.

| The BS about spyware is just.....BS.

You can say that you think it's "BS" for people
to be concerned about privacy and security....
though it would be nice if you could be a bit
more articulate.

But you clearly haven't looked
into the actual facts, so you have no basis for
your opinion about there being a spyware aspect
to Win10. That's actually a surprisingly common
reaction: ostrich logic -- "I don't want to know
about it, because I don't want to make an effort,
therefore the problem is not there."

For anyone who cares about the actual facts,
in order to make their own *informed* opinion,
first there's the new privacy policy, which MS
changed with the release of Win10:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/priva...t/default.aspx

The non-business EULA says you agree to their
privacy policy. The privacy policy, in turn, says,
you will be spied on in numerous ways and not all
of them can be blocked. In other words, Microsoft
themselves are saying in plain language that Win10
is spyware, and that you must agree to that in order
to use Win10. It's part of the longstanding tradition
of writing mickey mouse licenses for software and
justifying it with the claim that you are not buying,
but licensing, the product.

Further, even the parts that can allegedly be
turned off may still be in surveillance mode after
being disabled. Anyone who wants to know the
basic issues can look at these links:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...he-new-normal/

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...-to-microsoft/

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/07/29/wind-nos/






Just stay off the net if you
| "feel" that way.
|
| MSFT is going to try to create an on-going revenue stream,
| but I think they'll fail.
|
| I suspect smart IT departments will just opt to stay with
| older releases (I run XP on my workstations and there is
| nothing that I need to do that I *can't* do -- efficiently!)
|
| The disincentive for doing so is the lack of "support"
| (drivers) for old OS's on new hardware.
|
|
| I suspect large corporations will migrate to Windows 10.
| The don't like pain.
|
| Ultimately, they'll be a smaller company.
|
| That's pretty obvious.
|
| Smaller in employees, market cap, revenues?
| I don't see them losing market share in the desktop market any time
| soon. They're selling easy to use does-it-all software to the masses.
| Not until somebody can cover the bases as well as MS does.
| They may improve sales in the cell phone, tablet area, but I know
| nothing about them.
| Besides, I don't buy the notion that Windows 10 is "the end."
| They'll have more versions to take advantage of new technology.
|

"Mayayana" writes:

| They may improve sales in the cell phone, tablet area, but I know
| nothing about them.
|
| You should know that Linux is dominating that market.
| Android, Kindle, Samsung, the only real competition comes from
| Apple.

And Microsoft is making a bundle extorting patent
fees on Android from most phone makers. I haven't
followed that story lately. Last I heard MS was getting
companies to agree to payments without even needing
to tell them which patents they claimed were relevant.
Monopoly maintenance has always been Microsoft's
primary product and primary skill.

Google says MSFT collects 2 billion a year on Android royalties.
In that same space, MSFT is loosing 2.5 billion per year
on XBOX, Skype, Windows Phone.

Reportedly, MSFT gets $3.81 for each Samsung phone sold.

--
Dan Espen

On 10/17/2015 7:07 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| The BS about spyware is just.....BS.

You can say that you think it's "BS" for people
to be concerned about privacy and security....
though it would be nice if you could be a bit
more articulate.

But you clearly haven't looked
into the actual facts, so you have no basis for
your opinion about there being a spyware aspect
to Win10. That's actually a surprisingly common
reaction: ostrich logic -- "I don't want to know
about it, because I don't want to make an effort,
therefore the problem is not there."

For anyone who cares about the actual facts,
in order to make their own *informed* opinion,
first there's the new privacy policy, which MS
changed with the release of Win10:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/priva...t/default.aspx

The non-business EULA says you agree to their
privacy policy. The privacy policy, in turn, says,
you will be spied on in numerous ways and not all
of them can be blocked. In other words, Microsoft
themselves are saying in plain language that Win10
is spyware, and that you must agree to that in order
to use Win10. It's part of the longstanding tradition
of writing mickey mouse licenses for software and
justifying it with the claim that you are not buying,
but licensing, the product.

Further, even the parts that can allegedly be
turned off may still be in surveillance mode after
being disabled. Anyone who wants to know the
basic issues can look at these links:

Why is ANY of this surprising? And, why is MS's *belated*
adoption of this such an issue of concern?

When you walk into a department store, cameras watch your
movement through the store -- where you stop, what you
look at, etc. If your phone is on, they can track its
motion. When you make your purchase (credit card!),
they know what your buying habits are (over time) -- what
time of day you shop, what products you buy at which time
of the month/year/etc.

Costco member? Do you think they just use that card to
"authorize" you to make a purchase? Of course they track the
sorts of purchases you make, etc.

Frequent a casino? They've characterized how much they can count
on you to *lose* before you'll depart. And, how frequently you'll
return for "another lesson". Likewise, the size of the incentive
that they need to coerce you back a bit earlier than you'd
otherwise like.

Drive a car? Chances are your license plates are routinely
scanned and the approximate location of your vehicle as well
as your typical travel activities recorded.

Visit a web site? "Welcome back!" E.g., cookies were originally
a hack to allow a site to *avoid* having to store data about your
visit on *their* server (we'll let the user pay for that storage
on *their* computer!). Anyone who thinks a site can't store
information about every visitor now ECONOMICALLY has their head
too far in the sand. Turn off cookies? Pfft! Who cares. You
can be identified by your browser footprint, IP address, etc.

Of course, google tracks your searches. And, reads your mail (if you
or the "other party" are serviced by google's mail servers)

[N.B. You needn't have a gmail.com address to be a victim!]

USPS routinely images the outsides of all first class mail. So,
to and from are typically known.

The more insidious aspects of MS's spying include their ability
to catalog audio and video (e.g., have YOUR voice "on file")

[Ever hear a machine speak *in* your voice? It's scary! "Wait!
I never said that!!"]

Facial recognition software tracks your presence in public places.

etc.

In virtually all of these cases, you have an option to NOT be tracked;
by simply not participating in the activity that is being tracked!
E.g., don't send USPS mail, don't shop in department stores, don't
do web searches, etc.

The same applies to MS/W10 -- don't *use* it! :

| Why is ANY of this surprising? And, why is MS's *belated*
| adoption of this such an issue of concern?
|

It's of concern to me. The behavior is indecent and
uncivilized. Don't you care to help build and maintain
a healthy society? We're currently in a transition period
where we have to figure out how new technologies will
be used. Do you want to leave those decisions to amoral
corporations whose only interest is in getting you to buy
more stuff? Don't we all deserve better than that? And
that's just the current issue. With near-total surveillance
between business and gov't we're getting into unknown
territory. We're inadvertently redefining human rights.

I talk about it, also, because I'm in a position to know
more than most people do. A big part of the success of
spyware/targetted advertising is that it's done in a non-
intrusive way, so that most people don't actually see it
working. I figure that if they care then they have a right
to know. They also have a right to know and understand
that the products they've been using are being redefined.
It's not just a matter of whether you mind Microsoft
doing market research by spying on you. Microsoft is
actually taking the product out of your hands.

Your examples are all good examples, but as everyone's
mother knows, the fact that "the other kids are doing it"
doesn't make it right.

And there are numerous degrees involved. I'm not a
Costco member. I try to be loyal to locally owned and
family owned companies when possible. I don't have any
store loyalty cards. I almost never use Google and have
most of their domains (from google analytics to doubleclick)
blocked in my HOSTS file. I've moved toward cash for
more purchases, both for privacy and security. I don't
use a debit card. (Why? Your bank gets a fee for every
purchase, which you ultimately pay. They're charging you
to use your own money.)

I don't go to casinos, no. I never did understand that
habit. Though I can see the appeal for people struggling
financially. Once you buy the lottery ticket or feed the
one-arm bandit, for a brief period you've bought a fantasy
that just possibly all of your troubles might be solved.

I exercise maximum privacy
online and don't find it terribly inconvenient. Why would
I allow cookies, other than the occasionally necessary
session cookie that gets deleted when I leave the site?
It's an easy setting in Firefox. There's no need for anyone
allowing themselves to be tracked that way. I don't use
a cellphone very much. If I did I wouldn't leave it constantly
turned on. I certainly wouldn't agree to wear an Apple or
Google tracking collar -- which is what their phones are.

All of the examples above are ways to improve privacy.
Most involve very little effort or inconvenience. All that's
required is that we pay attention a bit and not always
grab the cheapest price or easiest convenience no matter
what.

Your solution of "just don't use it" can work to some
extent, but when there are no other options that's not
a solution. Clearly you think there are already no other
options, since your suggestion is presented snidely. All
I'm saying is that it doesn't cost you much to sit up,
pay attention, and make deliberate decisions, rather than
simply throwing your hands up because it's easy.


| When you walk into a department store, cameras watch your
| movement through the store -- where you stop, what you
| look at, etc. If your phone is on, they can track its
| motion. When you make your purchase (credit card!),
| they know what your buying habits are (over time) -- what
| time of day you shop, what products you buy at which time
| of the month/year/etc.
|
| Costco member? Do you think they just use that card to
| "authorize" you to make a purchase? Of course they track the
| sorts of purchases you make, etc.
|
| Frequent a casino? They've characterized how much they can count
| on you to *lose* before you'll depart. And, how frequently you'll
| return for "another lesson". Likewise, the size of the incentive
| that they need to coerce you back a bit earlier than you'd
| otherwise like.
|
| Drive a car? Chances are your license plates are routinely
| scanned and the approximate location of your vehicle as well
| as your typical travel activities recorded.
|
| Visit a web site? "Welcome back!" E.g., cookies were originally
| a hack to allow a site to *avoid* having to store data about your
| visit on *their* server (we'll let the user pay for that storage
| on *their* computer!). Anyone who thinks a site can't store
| information about every visitor now ECONOMICALLY has their head
| too far in the sand. Turn off cookies? Pfft! Who cares. You
| can be identified by your browser footprint, IP address, etc.
|
| Of course, google tracks your searches. And, reads your mail (if you
| or the "other party" are serviced by google's mail servers)
|
| [N.B. You needn't have a gmail.com address to be a victim!]
|
| USPS routinely images the outsides of all first class mail. So,
| to and from are typically known.
|
| The more insidious aspects of MS's spying include their ability
| to catalog audio and video (e.g., have YOUR voice "on file")
|
| [Ever hear a machine speak *in* your voice? It's scary! "Wait!
| I never said that!!"]
|
| Facial recognition software tracks your presence in public places.
|
| etc.
|
| In virtually all of these cases, you have an option to NOT be tracked;
| by simply not participating in the activity that is being tracked!
| E.g., don't send USPS mail, don't shop in department stores, don't
| do web searches, etc.
|
| The same applies to MS/W10 -- don't *use* it! :

--
"Microsoft Bob" wrote in message
...

Those of you who are using the common methods for blocking Windows 7 and
Windows 8.1's obnoxious Win10 upgrade procedure take note. Apparently an
update released yesterday changed an important registry setting --
DisableOSUpgrade -- that prevented
Windows 7 and 8.1 from proceeding with the forced march to Windows 10.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/299...-in-force.html

Does anyone know if Microsoft will be offering a paid version of Win10 that
doesn't spy on us?
I suspect the medical business will need it to satisfy HIPPA laws.

You don't know what yer talking about, you boob.
LOL

On 10/17/2015 11:18 AM, Mayayana wrote:

| Why is ANY of this surprising? And, why is MS's *belated*
| adoption of this such an issue of concern?
|

It's of concern to me. The behavior is indecent and
uncivilized. Don't you care to help build and maintain
a healthy society? We're currently in a transition period
where we have to figure out how new technologies will
be used. Do you want to leave those decisions to amoral
corporations whose only interest is in getting you to buy
more stuff? Don't we all deserve better than that? And
that's just the current issue. With near-total surveillance
between business and gov't we're getting into unknown
territory. We're inadvertently redefining human rights.

I talk about it, also, because I'm in a position to know
more than most people do. A big part of the success of
spyware/targetted advertising is that it's done in a non-
intrusive way, so that most people don't actually see it
working. I figure that if they care then they have a right
to know. They also have a right to know and understand
that the products they've been using are being redefined.
It's not just a matter of whether you mind Microsoft
doing market research by spying on you. Microsoft is
actually taking the product out of your hands.

Your examples are all good examples, but as everyone's
mother knows, the fact that "the other kids are doing it"
doesn't make it right.

And there are numerous degrees involved. I'm not a
Costco member. I try to be loyal to locally owned and
family owned companies when possible. I don't have any
store loyalty cards. I almost never use Google and have
most of their domains (from google analytics to doubleclick)
blocked in my HOSTS file. I've moved toward cash for
more purchases, both for privacy and security. I don't
use a debit card. (Why? Your bank gets a fee for every
purchase, which you ultimately pay. They're charging you
to use your own money.)

I don't go to casinos, no. I never did understand that
habit. Though I can see the appeal for people struggling
financially. Once you buy the lottery ticket or feed the
one-arm bandit, for a brief period you've bought a fantasy
that just possibly all of your troubles might be solved.

I exercise maximum privacy
online and don't find it terribly inconvenient. Why would
I allow cookies, other than the occasionally necessary
session cookie that gets deleted when I leave the site?
It's an easy setting in Firefox. There's no need for anyone
allowing themselves to be tracked that way. I don't use
a cellphone very much. If I did I wouldn't leave it constantly
turned on. I certainly wouldn't agree to wear an Apple or
Google tracking collar -- which is what their phones are.

All of the examples above are ways to improve privacy.
Most involve very little effort or inconvenience. All that's
required is that we pay attention a bit and not always
grab the cheapest price or easiest convenience no matter
what.

Your solution of "just don't use it" can work to some
extent, but when there are no other options that's not
a solution. Clearly you think there are already no other
options, since your suggestion is presented snidely. All
I'm saying is that it doesn't cost you much to sit up,
pay attention, and make deliberate decisions, rather than
simply throwing your hands up because it's easy.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-crazy/407833/

Perce

On 10/17/2015 9:44 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/17/2015 7:07 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| The BS about spyware is just.....BS.

You can say that you think it's "BS" for people
to be concerned about privacy and security....
though it would be nice if you could be a bit
more articulate.

But you clearly haven't looked
into the actual facts, so you have no basis for
your opinion about there being a spyware aspect
to Win10. That's actually a surprisingly common
reaction: ostrich logic -- "I don't want to know
about it, because I don't want to make an effort,
therefore the problem is not there."

For anyone who cares about the actual facts,
in order to make their own *informed* opinion,
first there's the new privacy policy, which MS
changed with the release of Win10:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/priva...t/default.aspx

The non-business EULA says you agree to their
privacy policy. The privacy policy, in turn, says,
you will be spied on in numerous ways and not all
of them can be blocked. In other words, Microsoft
themselves are saying in plain language that Win10
is spyware, and that you must agree to that in order
to use Win10. It's part of the longstanding tradition
of writing mickey mouse licenses for software and
justifying it with the claim that you are not buying,
but licensing, the product.

Further, even the parts that can allegedly be
turned off may still be in surveillance mode after
being disabled. Anyone who wants to know the
basic issues can look at these links:

Why is ANY of this surprising? And, why is MS's *belated*
adoption of this such an issue of concern?

When you walk into a department store, cameras watch your
movement through the store -- where you stop, what you
look at, etc. If your phone is on, they can track its
motion. When you make your purchase (credit card!),
they know what your buying habits are (over time) -- what
time of day you shop, what products you buy at which time
of the month/year/etc.

Costco member? Do you think they just use that card to
"authorize" you to make a purchase? Of course they track the
sorts of purchases you make, etc.

Frequent a casino? They've characterized how much they can count
on you to *lose* before you'll depart. And, how frequently you'll
return for "another lesson". Likewise, the size of the incentive
that they need to coerce you back a bit earlier than you'd
otherwise like.

Drive a car? Chances are your license plates are routinely
scanned and the approximate location of your vehicle as well
as your typical travel activities recorded.

Visit a web site? "Welcome back!" E.g., cookies were originally
a hack to allow a site to *avoid* having to store data about your
visit on *their* server (we'll let the user pay for that storage
on *their* computer!). Anyone who thinks a site can't store
information about every visitor now ECONOMICALLY has their head
too far in the sand. Turn off cookies? Pfft! Who cares. You
can be identified by your browser footprint, IP address, etc.

Of course, google tracks your searches. And, reads your mail (if you
or the "other party" are serviced by google's mail servers)

[N.B. You needn't have a gmail.com address to be a victim!]

USPS routinely images the outsides of all first class mail. So,
to and from are typically known.

The more insidious aspects of MS's spying include their ability
to catalog audio and video (e.g., have YOUR voice "on file")

[Ever hear a machine speak *in* your voice? It's scary! "Wait!
I never said that!!"]

Facial recognition software tracks your presence in public places.

etc.

In virtually all of these cases, you have an option to NOT be tracked;
by simply not participating in the activity that is being tracked!
E.g., don't send USPS mail, don't shop in department stores, don't
do web searches, etc.

The same applies to MS/W10 -- don't *use* it! :

Some people call that marketing strategies! I never agreed with that
conclusions, either.

--
Maggie

On 10/17/2015 8:18 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Why is ANY of this surprising? And, why is MS's *belated*
| adoption of this such an issue of concern?

It's of concern to me. The behavior is indecent and
uncivilized. Don't you care to help build and maintain
a healthy society? We're currently in a transition period
where we have to figure out how new technologies will
be used. Do you want to leave those decisions to amoral
corporations whose only interest is in getting you to buy
more stuff? Don't we all deserve better than that? And
that's just the current issue. With near-total surveillance
between business and gov't we're getting into unknown
territory. We're inadvertently redefining human rights.

Sure! And, besides grumbling, wat do you suggest folks do about
this? And, what portion of their lifestyle should they sacrifice
to take on this effort??

I talk about it, also, because I'm in a position to know
more than most people do. A big part of the success of
spyware/targetted advertising is that it's done in a non-
intrusive way, so that most people don't actually see it

People, for the most part, are incapable of understanding
the ideas behind "big data" -- except on only the grossest
levels ("young males are more likely to have car accidents").
If you explained the sorts of inferences that could *reasonably*
(not "certainly") be made from the data available, they would
probably not believe you. Or, would fail to see the potential
"threat" involved.

I have been developing an automation system, here. It watches
the occupants of the house and makes estimates as to their
activities and, from that, deductions about their likely
*needs* and requests.

E.g., if you get out of bed in the middle of a "sleep period",
chances are, you're headed to the bathroom. If it's dark,
then turning on *some* light would probably be helpful to
the occupant!

What value might the fact that I'm *routinely* awake at night
have to someone? If you looked at (say) 300,000,000 people
and correlated sleeping habits with cancer risk or likelihood
of buying a particular record album, does that have value?
If you noticed that folks who bought rocky road ice cream AND
listened to Motley Crue were more likely to develop type 2
diabetes, does that have value? Or, people who visit a shooting
range "religiously" and attend church services "most of the time"
correlated with incidents of domestic violence? etc.

working. I figure that if they care then they have a right
to know. They also have a right to know and understand
that the products they've been using are being redefined.
It's not just a matter of whether you mind Microsoft
doing market research by spying on you. Microsoft is
actually taking the product out of your hands.

No. *You* are the product.

[big snip -- time for me to head off to bed]

All of the examples above are ways to improve privacy.
Most involve very little effort or inconvenience. All that's
required is that we pay attention a bit and not always
grab the cheapest price or easiest convenience no matter
what.

Your solution of "just don't use it" can work to some
extent, but when there are no other options that's not
a solution. Clearly you think there are already no other
options, since your suggestion is presented snidely. All
I'm saying is that it doesn't cost you much to sit up,
pay attention, and make deliberate decisions, rather than
simply throwing your hands up because it's easy.

I think there *are* "other options". But, most of them
require some sort of initiative on the part of the "consumer".
IME, people are lazy. They opt for the easy way out. So,
can be exploited because of this!

I don't use charge cards unless it's a purchase that I need to
"insure" or suspect I may have problems returning. So, unless
you coordinate camera imagery of me at a variety of different
stores, you are unlikely to understand what I purchase and when
I purchase it.

I can't remember the last time I wrote a check. And, my checks
don't bear my address or phone number (I typically only use them
for transfering funds between accounts or to pay off credit cards).
Certainly no need to use them to buy a quart of milk!

I don't let my workstations talk to the outside world -- yet
*still* benefit from "Windows Updates" (I just have to take
extra steps to acquire and apply them "offline"! Far LESS
convenient than Joe Consumer who just lets his machine fetch
and install them itself).

I use a variety of different search engines so no *one* sees
the entire complement of "subjects of interest" to me.

I can't avoid having a rather unique browser fingerprint -- because
I choose not to enable the "features" that most folks rely on
(e.g., Jscript, flash, etc.). So, I draw attention to myself
by "being different". Given how many Zetabytes of storage google
has, I'm sure they can set aside a megabyte or two devoted *solely*
to me -- even if they don't know my name (yet)!

I can't legally obfuscate my license plate while driving. OTOH,
I *walk* to many places (for the exercise). So, no tie in to the
vehicle (that I'm *not* driving).

I can't prevent the USPS from imaging my correspondence. But, don't
have much *to* image (bills -- which are usually pretty easy to
GUESS at; or, ask my letter carrier).

I'm careful as to what I say in email and particularly so when
corresponding with gmail addresses and folks that I know who forward
their "other" accounts to/through gmail.

I don't use google phone (of course, they can listen in to your
conversation "for quality purposes" as well as note who you
communicate with).

Google thinks I live a few miles from "here" -- I've not bothered
to correct their error.

We don't have a cable subscription so no one knows what broadcast
media we "consume" -- nor when we consume it. (even my MythTV
doesn't subscribe to a "schedule/guide" service so no information
leaks that way).

Our "discount cards" at various stores have no names assigned to
them. So, they can figure out that "customer XYZ bought these things
on this day and these other things on this other day" -- but, can't
associate that with *me*. And, if the card doesn't give me a discount
on the items that I've purchased, it stays in my wallet (so, you don't
see the "non-sale items" that I purchase).

My automation system goes to great lengths to do things "locally"
so *it* doesn't leak information to a casual observer (that, in
the case of a machine intelligence, can have *infinite* patience
to gather information about my behavior/interests)

OTOH, I can't stop my city from contracting portions of its services
out to third parties. And, in doing so, disclosing my transactions
regarding those services.

While each of these are "trivial" inconveniences, they are,
nonetheless, inconveniences. Most people, IME, don't want to bother
with even *this* level of inconvenience.

Here's an interesting experiment, next time you "move":
take out a POBox near your new home and arrange for ALL
mail to be sent there. Then, watch the various search
engines and services to see how long it takes for your *real*
address to show up.

On 10/17/2015 9:09 AM, Muggles wrote:

In virtually all of these cases, you have an option to NOT be tracked;
by simply not participating in the activity that is being tracked!
E.g., don't send USPS mail, don't shop in department stores, don't
do web searches, etc.

The same applies to MS/W10 -- don't *use* it! :

Some people call that marketing strategies! I never agreed with that
conclusions, either.

We (SWMBO & myself) are "terrible" consumers. We are exposed to very
little advertising (minimal "mass media" exposure, etc.). And, are
the types that do our own research before making purchases -- instead
of letting someone else *suggest* a purchase.

We also tend to be "need driven" and not distracted by "wants". So,
impulse purchases are just not in the cards for us. E.g., our shopping
day sees us leaving the house with a carefully prepared list of
items -- and returning home *with* those items, not some random
assortment of other things that "caught our eye".

Finally, we consciously make our own decisions as to the "value" of
items and don't rely on someone else's "price point" to set our
expectations as to what we should expect to pay, etc. ("Who
the hell would pay $X for *that*??")

OTOH, I've watched my sister shop. Totally oblivious as to what
she's putting in her cart, no planning, etc. "I want this; I
want that; oh, gee... isn't *this* nice!! Gotta have TWO of those!"

frown

On 10/17/2015 11:43 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/17/2015 9:09 AM, Muggles wrote:

In virtually all of these cases, you have an option to NOT be tracked;
by simply not participating in the activity that is being tracked!
E.g., don't send USPS mail, don't shop in department stores, don't
do web searches, etc.

The same applies to MS/W10 -- don't *use* it! :

Some people call that marketing strategies! I never agreed with that
conclusions, either.

We (SWMBO & myself) are "terrible" consumers. We are exposed to very
little advertising (minimal "mass media" exposure, etc.). And, are
the types that do our own research before making purchases -- instead
of letting someone else *suggest* a purchase.

We also tend to be "need driven" and not distracted by "wants". So,
impulse purchases are just not in the cards for us. E.g., our shopping
day sees us leaving the house with a carefully prepared list of
items -- and returning home *with* those items, not some random
assortment of other things that "caught our eye".

Finally, we consciously make our own decisions as to the "value" of
items and don't rely on someone else's "price point" to set our
expectations as to what we should expect to pay, etc. ("Who
the hell would pay $X for *that*??")

OTOH, I've watched my sister shop. Totally oblivious as to what
she's putting in her cart, no planning, etc. "I want this; I
want that; oh, gee... isn't *this* nice!! Gotta have TWO of those!"

frown

I don't buy much of anything unless it's on my list, but sometimes I'll
go shopping with a general goal to find *something* that I can use to
make project X with at home. I'll look for items that I can re-purpose
and use in a totally different way than what it was made to be used for
IF I can't find what I'd really like to use to make what I need. I
design what I need if I can't find something in the store that'll work,
and then I'll build it out of odd parts.

We have all of these but up pieces of 3/4" grey pvc, and I wanted to use
it to build a contraption that'll hold up/open garden waste bags. Those
bags are really tall and the store options for things like that are a
joke that wouldn't hold up a heavy duty bag like that, so I bought some
flexible tubing at the hardware store and made a hoop out of it. I used
zip ties to create crossed legs, and I zip tied the hoop to the top and
used chain to attach clips to each side so I could make sure a bag
wouldn't slip off the edges of the top of the holder.

It's really lightweight, and I can probably update the thing to be
collapsible by adding bolts to the legs and made the top hoop
detachable, too.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2i8iq0z.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/aajif4.jpg

--
Maggie

|
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-crazy/407833/
|

I saw that one. Interesting, though by the
end the author seemed to be more tongue-in-
cheek than serious.

| With near-total surveillance
| between business and gov't we're getting into unknown
| territory. We're inadvertently redefining human rights.
|
| Sure! And, besides grumbling, wat do you suggest folks do about
| this? And, what portion of their lifestyle should they sacrifice
| to take on this effort??
|

I'm only suggesting making an effort to deal with it,
which you seem to be doing yourself. We can't completely
protect email, but we can avoid free webmail that redefines
our own files as their property.

CVS now sells customer data to drug companies. What
to do about that? I can go to other drug stores. But is
Walgreens any better? I don't know. In any case, I can
keep track of it and vote with both my votes and my wallet.
If most people even just disabled 3rd-party cookies it
would be a crisis for online advertisers.

Partly this is to discourage the practices and partly
it's to help prevent them from getting worse. If people
accept that Google owns their email then Google will own
their email. It doesn't have to be that way.

I once had a Jewish friend whose entire extended
family was lost in WW2. Only his parents got out. I
once asked him why the Jews didn't leave Germany,
despite the restrictions, abuse, forced wearing of
Star of David.... The treatment kept getting worse,
yet most of them just stayed. He said that's a common
question that Jews ask among themselves. I suppose
probably it was just another case of the slow-boiling frog:
The water doesn't seem *too* hot yet, and it's a
lot of hassle to jump out.

I think the Star of David emblems are a pretty good
analogy to current issues. (At the risk of melodrama,
perhaps. One could easily accept them with excuses.
Who cares? What are we going to do? Move to France?
That would be one big headache. And aren't we Jews,
anyway? So what harm is there in wearing these
emblems? But the requirement itself was a humiliation
and a step in the systematic abuse of the citizenry.

I wonder how people have even allowed things to
go as far as they have, with email being spied on
while geographic location and activities are tracked.

There's very little privacy protection at present. The
only example I'm aware of is the Video Privacy Protection
Act, which resulted from Robert Bork's video rental history
being leaked to the press.

On 10/17/2015 01:55 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| With near-total surveillance
| between business and gov't we're getting into unknown
| territory. We're inadvertently redefining human rights.
|
| Sure! And, besides grumbling, wat do you suggest folks do about
| this? And, what portion of their lifestyle should they sacrifice
| to take on this effort??
|

I'm only suggesting making an effort to deal with it,
which you seem to be doing yourself. We can't completely
protect email, but we can avoid free webmail that redefines
our own files as their property.

CVS now sells customer data to drug companies. What
to do about that? I can go to other drug stores. But is
Walgreens any better? I don't know. In any case, I can
keep track of it and vote with both my votes and my wallet.
If most people even just disabled 3rd-party cookies it
would be a crisis for online advertisers.

Partly this is to discourage the practices and partly
it's to help prevent them from getting worse. If people
accept that Google owns their email then Google will own
their email. It doesn't have to be that way.

I once had a Jewish friend whose entire extended
family was lost in WW2. Only his parents got out. I
once asked him why the Jews didn't leave Germany,
despite the restrictions, abuse, forced wearing of
Star of David.... The treatment kept getting worse,
yet most of them just stayed. He said that's a common
question that Jews ask among themselves. I suppose
probably it was just another case of the slow-boiling frog:
The water doesn't seem *too* hot yet, and it's a
lot of hassle to jump out.

I think the Star of David emblems are a pretty good
analogy to current issues. (At the risk of melodrama,
perhaps. One could easily accept them with excuses.
Who cares? What are we going to do? Move to France?
That would be one big headache. And aren't we Jews,
anyway? So what harm is there in wearing these
emblems? But the requirement itself was a humiliation
and a step in the systematic abuse of the citizenry.

I wonder how people have even allowed things to
go as far as they have, with email being spied on
while geographic location and activities are tracked.

There's very little privacy protection at present. The
only example I'm aware of is the Video Privacy Protection
Act, which resulted from Robert Bork's video rental history
being leaked to the press.

I know that librarians typically won't tell you who has a particular
book out, but whether that's because of a legal restriction or simply
because of the librarians' code of ethics I don't know.

Perce

On 10/17/2015 1:00 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/17/2015 11:43 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/17/2015 9:09 AM, Muggles wrote:


We also tend to be "need driven" and not distracted by "wants". So,
impulse purchases are just not in the cards for us. E.g., our shopping
day sees us leaving the house with a carefully prepared list of
items -- and returning home *with* those items, not some random
assortment of other things that "caught our eye".


OTOH, I've watched my sister shop. Totally oblivious as to what
she's putting in her cart, no planning, etc. "I want this; I
want that; oh, gee... isn't *this* nice!! Gotta have TWO of those!"

frown

I don't buy much of anything unless it's on my list, but sometimes I'll
go shopping with a general goal to find *something* that I can use to
make project X with at home. I'll look for items that I can re-purpose
and use in a totally different way than what it was made to be used for
IF I can't find what I'd really like to use to make what I need. I
design what I need if I can't find something in the store that'll work,
and then I'll build it out of odd parts.

We may make a list so nothing is forgotten, but I don't want to be
restricted to it. If something looks good, we may try it. Life would be
boring if we never ventured out and tried something different. Often,
my goal is to come home with something never tried before.

Major purchases like appliances, cars, furniture is researched before
hand and we've been satisfied with what we bought. Minor purchases like
groceries always have some impulse items. A cheese that looks good or a
thick Porterhouse steak may grab me.

Just as I often turn down a road that I have no idea where it goes.

As for Msft tracking me, they will become very bored.

On 10/17/2015 10:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| With near-total surveillance
| between business and gov't we're getting into unknown
| territory. We're inadvertently redefining human rights.
|
| Sure! And, besides grumbling, wat do you suggest folks do about
| this? And, what portion of their lifestyle should they sacrifice
| to take on this effort??

I'm only suggesting making an effort to deal with it,
which you seem to be doing yourself. We can't completely
protect email, but we can avoid free webmail that redefines
our own files as their property.

Again, people don't place any VALUE on those things! OTOH,
they seem to place value on being ABLE to pay $4 for a cup
of coffee, etc.

I.e., you can't force people to adopt a particular set of values
(even if it is entirely obvious to you -- or me!)

CVS now sells customer data to drug companies. What
to do about that? I can go to other drug stores. But is
Walgreens any better? I don't know. In any case, I can
keep track of it and vote with both my votes and my wallet.
If most people even just disabled 3rd-party cookies it
would be a crisis for online advertisers.

There's far too much of an incentive for advertisers to
QUICKLY work around such a change in use. Instead of
dropping a cookie on your machine, they'd reference
another "nocookie" domain that bore the cost of tracking you!
A line or two in an included file for each web page...

Partly this is to discourage the practices and partly
it's to help prevent them from getting worse. If people
accept that Google owns their email then Google will own
their email. It doesn't have to be that way.

You're fighting human nature. People are lazy. And, suckers
for anything that *seems* "free". "Buy" music -- and then
pay someone to serve those files *back* to you?? :

I once had a Jewish friend whose entire extended
family was lost in WW2. Only his parents got out. I
once asked him why the Jews didn't leave Germany,
despite the restrictions, abuse, forced wearing of
Star of David.... The treatment kept getting worse,
yet most of them just stayed. He said that's a common
question that Jews ask among themselves. I suppose
probably it was just another case of the slow-boiling frog:
The water doesn't seem *too* hot yet, and it's a
lot of hassle to jump out.

Exactly.

I had a friend who claimed he "had nothing to hide".
To which, I replied, "I notice your bank statements still
come in an *envelope* (surely a POSTCARD would be cheaper for
his financial institution!)"

I think the Star of David emblems are a pretty good
analogy to current issues. (At the risk of melodrama,
perhaps. One could easily accept them with excuses.
Who cares? What are we going to do? Move to France?
That would be one big headache. And aren't we Jews,
anyway? So what harm is there in wearing these
emblems? But the requirement itself was a humiliation
and a step in the systematic abuse of the citizenry.

Here, you must be able to provide proof of citizenship
(or, the legal authority to be here) on demand. Of
course, us while folk figure that;s not a problem
as no one's likely to demand it of *us*...

I wonder how people have even allowed things to
go as far as they have, with email being spied on
while geographic location and activities are tracked.

The Patriot Act went a long way to convincing people
that they *need* to be spied on. "We're keeping you
safe! Besides, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE???"

There's very little privacy protection at present. The
only example I'm aware of is the Video Privacy Protection
Act, which resulted from Robert Bork's video rental history
being leaked to the press.

This is primarily a problem in the US -- where business
interests always trump personal liberties. I wonder what it
would be like if these same businesses were willing to sell
this information to The Voting Public? E.g., which movies
my Congressman watches? Which books he reads? Which cell
phone towers are carrying his calls "after hours" (and if
those are the correct towers given his alleged home address)?
What sorts of clothing items he purchases? Any mail order
deliveries (in brown paper boxes)? etc.

Stop being predictable and the value of that data rapidly
diminishes. Yet, the cost of collecting and maintaining
it never does!

Once folks *have* some data, there is a strong incentive
to try to hold onto it -- even if it no longer appears to
be relevant. The thinking being "I've already got this.
If I discard it, I may never be able to collect *it*,
again! Best buy more disk space (and more staff) just
in case it *has* value!"

My automation system has a "long memory" so it can make
deductions based on past observations. Memory is cheap
($100 per installed TB is peanuts!). So, why *not*
remember everything the occupants/users did yesterday?
And, the day before? Why *not* recall what the *local*
(i.e., on this plot of land!) weather was last year at
this time? And, what the *reported* weather (for this
part of town) was at that same time?

Surely all of these "bits" might be of help in determining what
the user might want to do today. Or, what the weather will
*really* be -- regardless of what the local forecaster
claims "at the airport".

Each time I think of businesses, guberments, etc. mindlessly
collecting everything they can get their hands on, I think about
how quickly this pile grows. And, the costs of keeping it as
well as digging through it. When does the pile of data collapse
under its own weight? (again, not wanting to discard ANY of it!)

Ask google what the search results for "foobiggle" *were*
three weeks ago and they'll look at you funny -- "Who cares!
We're concerned with the results for *today* (or tomorrow)"

On 10/17/2015 11:14 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 10/17/2015 01:55 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| With near-total surveillance
| between business and gov't we're getting into unknown
| territory. We're inadvertently redefining human rights.
|
| Sure! And, besides grumbling, wat do you suggest folks do about
| this? And, what portion of their lifestyle should they sacrifice
| to take on this effort??
|

I'm only suggesting making an effort to deal with it,
which you seem to be doing yourself. We can't completely
protect email, but we can avoid free webmail that redefines
our own files as their property.

CVS now sells customer data to drug companies. What
to do about that? I can go to other drug stores. But is
Walgreens any better? I don't know. In any case, I can
keep track of it and vote with both my votes and my wallet.
If most people even just disabled 3rd-party cookies it
would be a crisis for online advertisers.

Partly this is to discourage the practices and partly
it's to help prevent them from getting worse. If people
accept that Google owns their email then Google will own
their email. It doesn't have to be that way.

I once had a Jewish friend whose entire extended
family was lost in WW2. Only his parents got out. I
once asked him why the Jews didn't leave Germany,
despite the restrictions, abuse, forced wearing of
Star of David.... The treatment kept getting worse,
yet most of them just stayed. He said that's a common
question that Jews ask among themselves. I suppose
probably it was just another case of the slow-boiling frog:
The water doesn't seem *too* hot yet, and it's a
lot of hassle to jump out.

I think the Star of David emblems are a pretty good
analogy to current issues. (At the risk of melodrama,
perhaps. One could easily accept them with excuses.
Who cares? What are we going to do? Move to France?
That would be one big headache. And aren't we Jews,
anyway? So what harm is there in wearing these
emblems? But the requirement itself was a humiliation
and a step in the systematic abuse of the citizenry.

I wonder how people have even allowed things to
go as far as they have, with email being spied on
while geographic location and activities are tracked.

There's very little privacy protection at present. The
only example I'm aware of is the Video Privacy Protection
Act, which resulted from Robert Bork's video rental history
being leaked to the press.

I know that librarians typically won't tell you who has a particular book out,
but whether that's because of a legal restriction or simply because of the
librarians' code of ethics I don't know.

I think there was (legal?) a push for libraries to track your
"borrows". I recall some years ago our local librarians taking
a stance and NOT doing that.

OTOH, our catalog (and user interface -- including reserves,
checkouts, etc.) is now farmed out to a Canadian company
(apparently, city workers aren't smart enough to maintain
a database of books and lenders -- yet, I don't recall hearing
of any layoffs! I guess they must be maintaining something
*equally* important, now...)

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:07:29 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| The BS about spyware is just.....BS.

You can say that you think it's "BS" for people
to be concerned about privacy and security....
though it would be nice if you could be a bit
more articulate.

But you clearly haven't looked
into the actual facts, so you have no basis for
your opinion about there being a spyware aspect
to Win10. That's actually a surprisingly common
reaction: ostrich logic -- "I don't want to know
about it, because I don't want to make an effort,
therefore the problem is not there."


You have no basis for saying that of course.
I told you before that I am aware of what you term "spyware."
And I've disabled all of it that concerns me.
I accepted the EULA with my eyes open.


snip

Further, even the parts that can allegedly be
turned off may still be in surveillance mode after
being disabled. Anyone who wants to know the
basic issues can look at these links:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...he-new-normal/

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...-to-microsoft/

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/07/29/wind-nos/


"May be?" Well, if that's your proof of "spying" you don't have
much.
Those articles are months old, and I read similar even before I
installed Win10.
If MS does anything illegal, I'm sure the feds will jump on them.
There are plenty of people "spying" on MS too.
I don't plan on doing anything illegal, but if I do I sure as hell
won't do it on my computer.
Anyway, I'm not pro or anti MS. It just IS.
You apparently don't like MS.

On 10/17/2015 10:00 AM, Muggles wrote:
OTOH, I've watched my sister shop. Totally oblivious as to what
she's putting in her cart, no planning, etc. "I want this; I
want that; oh, gee... isn't *this* nice!! Gotta have TWO of those!"

frown

I don't buy much of anything unless it's on my list, but sometimes I'll
go shopping with a general goal to find *something* that I can use to
make project X with at home.

There are two kinds of shopping -- for staples and for a particular need.
The former is largely a constant activity: you need so many rolls of
toilet paper per butt per month, so many calories of foodstuffs, etc.
This is the area where marketers try to influence your purchases with
"impulse" buys. If you don't regularly buy smoked salmon, then how are
they ever going to *sell* you smoked salmon?? And, if they don't
convince new customers to buy their smoked salmon, then sales will
only go down, over time, as the old customers die off, etc.

We are keenly aware of a vendor changing their offerings -- almost
invariably in favor of something more expensive or more uniquely
associated with them (can't buy it anywhere else). And, when a
vendor tries to manipulate our purchases by changing, discontinuing
or repricing one of these items, we make a conscious effort to
RE-decide "is this worth it?" I.e., the vendor doesn't get a free
pass on the fact that we had *previously* made that decision in
their favor!

Example: SWMBO likes TJ's vegetarian chili. TJ has been out of
stock (for a LONG time). I suspect they would prefer her to
purchase some *other*/similar product that they offer. Instead,
we put "vegetarian chili" on the list and let *all* vendors
compete for that business (figure of speech... we just start looking
for product offerings from EVERY vendor).

Lo and behold, Amy's is the exact same vegetarian chili that
TJ's *used* to sell! More expensive -- but, we can be selective about
when and where we buy it and, as such, end up paying the same as
if we'd purchased it from TJ's (who no longer SELLS it!).

I.e., this sort of practice (common of TJ's and Costco) ends up
typically *costing* them business from our perspective. (We are
seriously considering dropping the Costco membership as our
purchases there have steadily decreased due to their "product
lineup" changes). I'm sure this wasn't the *intention* of their
policies -- they'd be much happier if we were buying the higher
profit margin "Kirkland" offerings, or the imported lemon
juice (are Italian lemons more lemony than ours??), or...

I'll look for items that I can re-purpose
and use in a totally different way than what it was made to be used for
IF I can't find what I'd really like to use to make what I need. I
design what I need if I can't find something in the store that'll work,
and then I'll build it out of odd parts.

Shopping for a specific need is typically more time consuming. And,
you're more willing to invest that time (ask me how much time I'm
willing to invest buying toilet paper! : ) because you have
a genuine, specific *need*.

New car is too high and wide for me to comfortably wash the roof.
Other cars I could just reach over and get the entire surface.
So, need something to make this easier: a small step ladder
(but how will that fare in actual use?) or a "sponge on a pole"
(will that end up scratching the finish, over time?).

So, the "in search of" list gets this item added so that as
we find ourselves at places that *might* offer something along
these lines, we *remember* to look at their offerings. It's not
worth a focused effort to find a suitable solution ASAP.

Next, I need to locate some thumb drives (right price, capacity,
shape, etc.).

We have all of these but up pieces of 3/4" grey pvc, and I wanted to use
it to build a contraption that'll hold up/open garden waste bags. Those
bags are really tall and the store options for things like that are a
joke that wouldn't hold up a heavy duty bag like that, so I bought some
flexible tubing at the hardware store and made a hoop out of it. I used
zip ties to create crossed legs, and I zip tied the hoop to the top and
used chain to attach clips to each side so I could make sure a bag
wouldn't slip off the edges of the top of the holder.

It's really lightweight, and I can probably update the thing to be
collapsible by adding bolts to the legs and made the top hoop
detachable, too.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2i8iq0z.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/aajif4.jpg

We shopped around for a "garbage can" that exactly "fits" (supports)
the bags that we use. This gives the bag the required support
when we need it. And, gives us a garbage can when we don't
(e.g., to collect twigs that would otherwise rip a plastic bag).

On 10/17/2015 3:30 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

If MS does anything illegal, I'm sure the feds will jump on them.
There are plenty of people "spying" on MS too.

I don't think the issue is MS breaking the law. Rather, I think
Mayayana is lamenting the lack of concern folks have for personal
privacy.

I tend to be obsessive about privacy issues -- yet am not about to
move to a cabin in the back woods (drawing even MORE attention to
myself!) just to avoid these "data leaks".

I don't plan on doing anything illegal, but if I do I sure as hell
won't do it on my computer.

You may not be doing anything technically *illegal* -- yet not want
knowledge of that to become available to others!

My (ex)BinL was "fishing in someone else's pond". When my sister
suspected this, we sat down with his cell phone records, ATM
cards, credit cards, etc. -- i.e., all of the bills that my sister
routinely paid. Instead of just looking at the "Pay this amount"
line, we started looking at the items *listed* as part of that total.

It wasn't hard to figure out which days he had started *out* for
work -- yet ended up traveling in the opposite direction, spending
8 hours "there" before conveniently "coming home from work".
Of course, it's relatively easy to figure out who *owns* the phone
numbers that he was calling. And, see the patterns to all this...

Likewise, his facebook page, etc.

Technically, no evidence of any *laws* being broken. But, I can assure
you, he wasn't happy that this information was "available" to others!

Anyway, I'm not pro or anti MS. It just IS.
You apparently don't like MS.

As I said upthread, I don't see the alarm in complaining that MS is doing
something that others figured out LONG BEFORE MS!

In the 70's, there was a TV show (one of those "magazine" shows...
maybe 60 minutes?) that did a piece of these sorts of issues -- long before
folks had email addresses, Intellius, etc.

Basically, they took a couple's canceled checks for the previous 12
month period and, with their consent, flew them to the "other coast"
and gave them to a PI. The PI was instructed not to break any laws,
and not to contact them. But, given 30 days to deduce everything
he could about this couple.

Then, the "show" went back to show you their daily lives, their
home, family, car(s), Dad headed off to work, etc. I.e., to give
you an idea of how they lived.

At the end of the show, they revisited the PI and asked him what
conclusions he could draw from their canceled checks. And, you
saw him deducing much of the same stuff that you'd just been
*shown* (she's pregnant, has her hare neatly coifed, they drive
an older model car, he wears a suit to work, they have two dogs,
etc.).

Just from the record of those transactions that they considered
worth the time to RECORD on little slips of paper (checks!).

[Imagine what could be done if you could watch their web
searches, track their phone calls, etc.]

Seeing this just at teh time that *I* was becoming a financially
independent actor (i.e., my own credit cards, not relying on
mommy and daddy to buy things for me, etc.) had a profound
effect on the information that I "willingly leak".

[E.g., shortly after moving here, some "religious types" came
knocking on the door. Lots of casual questions that were obviously
intended to "collect data". They were disappointed that I wasn't as
"forthcoming" in volunteering details that were of interest to
them (who the f*ck are you people? what makes you think I'd
want you to know these things?? do *I* get to grill you about
arbitrary questions that *I* might consider "interesting"? : )]

| Those articles are months old,

Yes. Beginning of July. And still relevant.

| Anyway, I'm not pro or anti MS. It just IS.
| You apparently don't like MS.
|

Like them? If someone steals your car do you
want them arrested because you don't like them?
"Anti-MS" is just one of the common defenses of
the ostriches. Along with paranoia and tinfoil
hat silliness. All I'm doing is laying out the facts
so that people can decide for themselves. You're
the one who called the facts BS.

I'd be more than happy to wax acidic about
Apple, Google and Facebook if you like. I love
to attack Apple. Not because I "don't like"
them but because they're a sleazy company
with an undeserved public image of virtue. Billions
goes into creating the public images of these
companies. No one spends money to show their
dark sides.
The topic here just happens to be Windows 10,
so it's Microsoft's sleaze that I'm pointing out.

On 10/17/2015 6:40 PM, Don Y wrote:

-- they'd be much happier if we were buying the higher
profit margin "Kirkland" offerings, or the imported lemon
juice (are Italian lemons more lemony than ours??), or...

IMO, yes, the fresh stuff I've had in Italy is the citrus I've ever had.
Can't speak for the particular juice in Costco though, but I'd try it
over other brands.

On 10/17/2015 4:08 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/17/2015 6:40 PM, Don Y wrote:

-- they'd be much happier if we were buying the higher
profit margin "Kirkland" offerings, or the imported lemon
juice (are Italian lemons more lemony than ours??), or...

IMO, yes, the fresh stuff I've had in Italy is the citrus I've ever had. Can't
speak for the particular juice in Costco though, but I'd try it over other brands.

To add to *tea*? You;ll never notice the difference! Are you sure
they are juicing *ripe* lemons? And not just the same sort of crud
that is juiced *here*?

For baked goods, I've found lemons off our own tree beat anything
store bought. I don't think people realize how "unripe" the stuff
you get in most stores actually is. Try a *ripe* lemon and you'll
never settle for store bought, again! Think "sweet" not "sour".

The same can be said for limes. Entirely different taste
from what you've grown to expect.

[And blood oranges make "traditional OJ" taste like swill!]

On 10/17/2015 8:01 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/17/2015 4:08 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/17/2015 6:40 PM, Don Y wrote:

-- they'd be much happier if we were buying the higher
profit margin "Kirkland" offerings, or the imported lemon
juice (are Italian lemons more lemony than ours??), or...

IMO, yes, the fresh stuff I've had in Italy is the citrus I've ever
had. Can't
speak for the particular juice in Costco though, but I'd try it over
other brands.

To add to *tea*? You;ll never notice the difference! Are you sure
they are juicing *ripe* lemons? And not just the same sort of crud
that is juiced *here*?

For baked goods, I've found lemons off our own tree beat anything
store bought. I don't think people realize how "unripe" the stuff
you get in most stores actually is. Try a *ripe* lemon and you'll
never settle for store bought, again! Think "sweet" not "sour".

The same can be said for limes. Entirely different taste
from what you've grown to expect.

[And blood oranges make "traditional OJ" taste like swill!]

If you have a lemon tree you should not even be considering buying lemon
juice. Even for tea

As I said, my experience in Italy was with fresh, not bottled. My
brother used to send me fresh ripe lemons from his tree so I know what
you mean.

On 10/17/2015 5:34 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
If you have a lemon tree you should not even be considering buying lemon
juice. Even for tea

Last tree died in a freeze a couple of years ago. Its replacement is only
in its second "producing" season. Last year, yield was 60 pounds. I
imagine 100 pounds this year (tree is only about 5 ft tall). Still *much*
less than I consume in the course of a year -- which is how long that juice
would have to last (frozen) after harvest.

The "fresh harvest" will first be applied to baked goods (where the
difference in taste is most remarkable). Any surplus will go into
tea or SWMBO's various "salads". I suspect we *might* get through
June before needing to buy "bottled". But, at that time, the use
will only be for tea.

As I said, my experience in Italy was with fresh, not bottled. My brother used
to send me fresh ripe lemons from his tree so I know what you mean.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:59:25 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 10/17/2015 3:30 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

If MS does anything illegal, I'm sure the feds will jump on them.
There are plenty of people "spying" on MS too.

I don't think the issue is MS breaking the law. Rather, I think
Mayayana is lamenting the lack of concern folks have for personal
privacy.


Well, I'm not concerned beyond what I can reasonably control.
And most people are aware of these "privacy issues."
Mayanaya presumes everybody who uses Win10 is a dope.
Anyway, that's my impression. Could be wrong.

I tend to be obsessive about privacy issues -- yet am not about to
move to a cabin in the back woods (drawing even MORE attention to
myself!) just to avoid these "data leaks".

I don't plan on doing anything illegal, but if I do I sure as hell
won't do it on my computer.

You may not be doing anything technically *illegal* -- yet not want
knowledge of that to become available to others!

My (ex)BinL was "fishing in someone else's pond". When my sister
suspected this, we sat down with his cell phone records, ATM
cards, credit cards, etc. -- i.e., all of the bills that my sister
routinely paid. Instead of just looking at the "Pay this amount"
line, we started looking at the items *listed* as part of that total.


He should have been more careful. But that just shows that such
transactional data has been a "privacy" issue for a long time.
Hell, I didn't give my SSN or DOB to anybody but employers, and
had absolutely no credit history 40 years ago. Yet I got a letter
from my state showing I had been drawing unemployment when I was not.
I reported it, and that ended that.

snip

Likewise, his facebook page, etc.

Technically, no evidence of any *laws* being broken. But, I can assure
you, he wasn't happy that this information was "available" to others!


Uh, his wife. And he should have known that.
You can't cure stupid.

Anyway, I'm not pro or anti MS. It just IS.
You apparently don't like MS.

As I said upthread, I don't see the alarm in complaining that MS is doing
something that others figured out LONG BEFORE MS!


Of course.
And there's a difference here. MS doesn't have my SSN or any other
critical information. They have my IP address.
I've probably done a thousand online CC transactions over the years,
and not been burned once.
Of course others haven't been so "lucky."
OTOH, Amazon, Newegg, Home Depot et al have my CC number.
An unethical person with one of those firms can pull a credit report
and get my SSN. Whatareyougonnado?
You can have no credit and only deal in cash. But a camera will track
you in that 7-11 and see you buying a Hustler magazine.
Did you see the 1980 flick "Atlantic City" staring Burt Lancaster?
He was an over-the-hill hoodlum who dealt in cash only. He was in the
process of going on the lam with a young woman, and she said something
like this:
"They can track us."
"Nah. don't worry about it."
"They'll track us by your credit card number."
"Nah, I don't have a credit card."
"Then they'll track us by your social security number."
"Nah. I don't have a social security number."
Only time I really felt jealousy watching a movie.
Probably had just done my taxes.

On 10/17/2015 5:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/17/2015 10:00 AM, Muggles wrote:
OTOH, I've watched my sister shop. Totally oblivious as to what
she's putting in her cart, no planning, etc. "I want this; I
want that; oh, gee... isn't *this* nice!! Gotta have TWO of those!"

frown

I don't buy much of anything unless it's on my list, but sometimes I'll
go shopping with a general goal to find *something* that I can use to
make project X with at home.

There are two kinds of shopping -- for staples and for a particular need.
The former is largely a constant activity: you need so many rolls of
toilet paper per butt per month, so many calories of foodstuffs, etc.
This is the area where marketers try to influence your purchases with
"impulse" buys. If you don't regularly buy smoked salmon, then how are
they ever going to *sell* you smoked salmon?? And, if they don't
convince new customers to buy their smoked salmon, then sales will
only go down, over time, as the old customers die off, etc.

We are keenly aware of a vendor changing their offerings -- almost
invariably in favor of something more expensive or more uniquely
associated with them (can't buy it anywhere else). And, when a
vendor tries to manipulate our purchases by changing, discontinuing
or repricing one of these items, we make a conscious effort to
RE-decide "is this worth it?" I.e., the vendor doesn't get a free
pass on the fact that we had *previously* made that decision in
their favor!

Example: SWMBO likes TJ's vegetarian chili. TJ has been out of
stock (for a LONG time). I suspect they would prefer her to
purchase some *other*/similar product that they offer. Instead,
we put "vegetarian chili" on the list and let *all* vendors
compete for that business (figure of speech... we just start looking
for product offerings from EVERY vendor).

Lo and behold, Amy's is the exact same vegetarian chili that
TJ's *used* to sell! More expensive -- but, we can be selective about
when and where we buy it and, as such, end up paying the same as
if we'd purchased it from TJ's (who no longer SELLS it!).

I.e., this sort of practice (common of TJ's and Costco) ends up
typically *costing* them business from our perspective. (We are
seriously considering dropping the Costco membership as our
purchases there have steadily decreased due to their "product
lineup" changes). I'm sure this wasn't the *intention* of their
policies -- they'd be much happier if we were buying the higher
profit margin "Kirkland" offerings, or the imported lemon
juice (are Italian lemons more lemony than ours??), or...

I'll look for items that I can re-purpose
and use in a totally different way than what it was made to be used for
IF I can't find what I'd really like to use to make what I need. I
design what I need if I can't find something in the store that'll work,
and then I'll build it out of odd parts.

Shopping for a specific need is typically more time consuming. And,
you're more willing to invest that time (ask me how much time I'm
willing to invest buying toilet paper! : ) because you have
a genuine, specific *need*.

New car is too high and wide for me to comfortably wash the roof.
Other cars I could just reach over and get the entire surface.
So, need something to make this easier: a small step ladder
(but how will that fare in actual use?) or a "sponge on a pole"
(will that end up scratching the finish, over time?).

So, the "in search of" list gets this item added so that as
we find ourselves at places that *might* offer something along
these lines, we *remember* to look at their offerings. It's not
worth a focused effort to find a suitable solution ASAP.

Next, I need to locate some thumb drives (right price, capacity,
shape, etc.).

We have all of these but up pieces of 3/4" grey pvc, and I wanted to use
it to build a contraption that'll hold up/open garden waste bags. Those
bags are really tall and the store options for things like that are a
joke that wouldn't hold up a heavy duty bag like that, so I bought some
flexible tubing at the hardware store and made a hoop out of it. I used
zip ties to create crossed legs, and I zip tied the hoop to the top and
used chain to attach clips to each side so I could make sure a bag
wouldn't slip off the edges of the top of the holder.

It's really lightweight, and I can probably update the thing to be
collapsible by adding bolts to the legs and made the top hoop
detachable, too.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2i8iq0z.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/aajif4.jpg

We shopped around for a "garbage can" that exactly "fits" (supports)
the bags that we use. This gives the bag the required support
when we need it. And, gives us a garbage can when we don't
(e.g., to collect twigs that would otherwise rip a plastic bag).



I've been cleaning up my back yard and garden today and used my bag
contraption. LOVED IT! Cleaning up yard waste was a breeze. Now, I
have to decide if I'm going to upgrade it from zip ties to screws and
bolts. lol

--
Maggie

On 10/17/2015 5:54 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:59:25 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 10/17/2015 3:30 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

If MS does anything illegal, I'm sure the feds will jump on them.
There are plenty of people "spying" on MS too.

I don't think the issue is MS breaking the law. Rather, I think
Mayayana is lamenting the lack of concern folks have for personal
privacy.

Well, I'm not concerned beyond what I can reasonably control.

This is the key point: ---------------------^^^^^^^^^^
How far do you go in screwing up your lifestyle just for the
sake of *claiming* you've protected your privacy?

And most people are aware of these "privacy issues."

I don't think most people give serious thought to them.
I think they are busy with things that they *think* are "more
important" (and, which *may* well be -- to them!)

I have a buddy who was obsessive about privacy. One day,
I saw him clean shaven (had previously been ZZTop-ish)
and couldn't help but comment on the DRAMATIC change!

"I had to go get a new photo for my driver's license."
"And they made you shave off your beard??"
"No. I just wanted to make sure the photo on my DL didn't
*look* like me -- and, I want to have a beard (normally)"

shrug

Does he think that folks couldn't imagine/pencil-in a beard
on his clean shaven face in the photo??

Mayanaya presumes everybody who uses Win10 is a dope.
Anyway, that's my impression. Could be wrong.

Dunno. Only he (?) can comment on that.

[BinL's "indiscretions"]

Likewise, his facebook page, etc.

Technically, no evidence of any *laws* being broken. But, I can assure
you, he wasn't happy that this information was "available" to others!

Uh, his wife. And he should have known that.
You can't cure stupid.

Friend with the beard (above) once was talking about some case
where he was trying to preserve his anonymity. I commented:
"But, you called their 800 number, right?"
"Yeah, so?"
"So, don't you think they KNOW the phone number of all callers?
Even if that is belatedly after-the-fact?"

Anyway, I'm not pro or anti MS. It just IS.
You apparently don't like MS.

As I said upthread, I don't see the alarm in complaining that MS is doing
something that others figured out LONG BEFORE MS!

Of course.
And there's a difference here. MS doesn't have my SSN or any other
critical information.

They don't explicitly have that information. But, that doesnt
mean they can't "accidentally" harvest it in the process of
snooping on other transactions that you undertake during the
normal use of your computer.

E.g., it's simple for spyware to watch for "Password:" and gobble
up any text that you type into that "text box" -- especially if
the text box is set not to echo characters, etc.

They have my IP address.
I've probably done a thousand online CC transactions over the years,
and not been burned once.

SWMBO uses her CC's extensively. She is *routinely* receiving replacement
cards in the mail. Of course, the CC company never tells her *where* the
breach occurred so she has no way of trimming those vendors from her
use.

Of course others haven't been so "lucky."
OTOH, Amazon, Newegg, Home Depot et al have my CC number.
An unethical person with one of those firms can pull a credit report
and get my SSN. Whatareyougonnado?

A "friend" who worked at one of the local banks went snooping into a family
member's account. Of course, bank manager claimed this wasn't possible
(really? then how did this information -- balance, etc. -- get into
that party's hands?). Not worth the time to pursue legal remedies.
Instead, close the (sizeable) account and let the bank manager decide
how "happy" he wants to be with the consequences of this employee's
actions!

You can have no credit and only deal in cash. But a camera will track
you in that 7-11 and see you buying a Hustler magazine.
Did you see the 1980 flick "Atlantic City" staring Burt Lancaster?
He was an over-the-hill hoodlum who dealt in cash only. He was in the
process of going on the lam with a young woman, and she said something
like this:
"They can track us."
"Nah. don't worry about it."
"They'll track us by your credit card number."
"Nah, I don't have a credit card."
"Then they'll track us by your social security number."
"Nah. I don't have a social security number."
Only time I really felt jealousy watching a movie.
Probably had just done my taxes.

| Well, I'm not concerned beyond what I can reasonably control.
| And most people are aware of these "privacy issues."
| Mayanaya presumes everybody who uses Win10 is a dope.
| Anyway, that's my impression. Could be wrong.

Most people are not aware of these issues. That's the
point. It's none of my business if you don't mind Windows
calling home with your data, but that's not what you said.
You said any such concern was BS. So who's calling who
a dope?

Another aspect, for me, is frustration with where things
are going. Not because I hate MS but because I love
Windows. I got into computers late - 1998. To me it seemed
that Windows was like a fun car. Macs were an overpriced
car with the hood welded shut and limited tools. And Linux
was like a do-it-yourself car kit. At the time, most of the
software was for Windows. Microsoft encouraged people
to learn Windows and provided tools at all levels. I taught
myself Windows programming, made some money and had
a lot of fun. I've written software for myself, which would
be a much bigger challenge on Apple or Linux. But since
Win2000/ME I've watched as the system gradually gets
locked down and turned into interactive cable TV. In the
car analogy, what's happening is that they're ceasing the
sales of cars and trying to replace existing cars with taxis.
It's approaching a time when the only software that people
will be able to write for Windows will be phone/tablet
style trinket apps. So-called universal (Metro) apps. Not
being able to control one's own data is part of the transition,
just as there's little option to control what Apple collects
on an iPhone because there's no control over the iPhone
OS.

It's not only Microsoft, by any means. Apple, Facebook,
Microsoft, Amazon and Google are all trying to grab the
whole pie. All except Facebook are approaching it with
multiple devices, apps, social connections and shopping.
They're each trying to suck in as many customers as
possible to a new version of the AOL walled garden. The
special tragedy with Windows is that it has been, and
can be, so much more. Google is thoroughly corrupt.
Apple has always controlled their devotees. Amazon is
trying for a total retail monopoly, accessed in large part
through Kindles and phones, and will undoubtedly
jack up their prices if they ever achieve it. Only Microsoft,
until relatively recently, wasn't trying to own their customers.
They were simply selling good tools. Most of their customers
have been business and those customers demanded computers
as functional tools for which they can write custom,
inhouse software.

All I want is a decent computer that I control myself.
I'd be less bothered by people who choose shopping TV,
frankly, if a straight computer was also still an easy option.
But that's becoming an increasingly complex challenge.
The AOL walled garden is not an offering. It's a sneaky
strategy. The complexity of settings and actions required
just to prevent Win7 being overwritten by Win10 is a good
example.
Even Ubuntu Linux has stooped to ads and spywa

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/ubuntu-spyware-what-to-do

Remember when AOL was the thing? I was using a
friend's Mac at the time. New to computers, I'd heard
about the famous Internet but couldn't seem to find it.
I just kept going in circles between AOL chat groups,
credit card offers, games, shopping.... I asked a friend
in tech support: Where is this famous Internet? He
had to guide me through the steps to sneak out the
back door of AOLs obnoxious arcade and onto the
open Web, where I was actually free to visit any
website.