Stupid idiots are cancelling my favourite tv-show


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @intertravel said:

    what relation does the shitness of copy protection bear to tracking viewing figures?
     

    Two sides of the same coin. Unwanted, overly complex shit forced into technology that works without it, for the benefit of people other than the owners of the technology.

    It's not really a rant against copy protection (though I gladly will), but more using the technology of HDCP as an example. 



  • You're supposed to provide a cite to "blocking anonymously collected usage data prevents you from using the device." To provide context.

    I don't know what all this shit you've posted is about, but I'm reasonably sure it has nothing at all to do with that.

    Is there some kind of brain worm that removes your ability to tell paranoid Slashdot issues apart or something? Why can so few members of this forum hold their own in a debate? Deep questions.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @blakeyrat said:

    You're supposed to provide a cite to "blocking anonymously collected usage data prevents you from using the device." To provide context.
     

    Any fucking piece of software that has "we will collect usage stats" in the EULA. The only way to turn it off is to click "Disagree", which renders the program unusable.

    And no, you asked, and I quote (again):

    @blakeyrat said:

    How is collecting anonymous usage data "at your expense"? This is the exact question I want answered in a non-paranoid-kook way.

    And I explained to you, in great detail and with significant citations, how it can be at my expense. Further to that, I provided citations to illustrate tangential ideas that are similar in nature to the point we are discussing. (Or, well, that I'm discussing anyways). Rather than addressing, agreeing with or rebutting any of that, your reply is:

     @blakeyrat said:

    I don't know what all this shit blah blah blah

    I've provided you directly with everything you've requested, and that's your reply. You're either an idiot, or being intentionally obtuse. In either case, you are refusing to participate in the argument in a constructive manner. If all you can do is attack without making an argument, I believe you cannot participate in a debate. I don't see any point in continuing this one sided debate.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Why can so few members of this forum hold their own in a debate?

    I don't know. What's the common link?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    You're supposed to provide a cite to "blocking anonymously collected usage data prevents you from using the device." To provide context.
     

    Any fucking piece of software that has "we will collect usage stats" in the EULA. The only way to turn it off is to click "Disagree", which renders the program unusable.

    Ok; where's the cite?

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    How is collecting anonymous usage data "at your expense"? This is the exact question I want answered in a non-paranoid-kook way.

    And I explained to you, in great detail and with significant citations, how it can be at my expense. Further to that, I provided citations to illustrate tangential ideas that are similar in nature to the point we are discussing. (Or, well, that I'm discussing anyways). Rather than addressing, agreeing with or rebutting any of that, your reply is:

    1. That's not what I was asking for citations on

    2) Your explanation was flawed in certain fundamental ways (for one thing, you said the usage data couldn't possibly benefit you when in fact it could save your favorite TV show from cancellation.) Since you're being intellectually dishonest by ignoring good points already brought up, the explanation (even if it were on-topic, which it is not) would be complete trash.

    3) Your explanation was also full of things that could happen "in theory" and didn't actually contain anything that has actually happened in reality. If I want to read fantasy, I'll go to the library and check out some David Eddings. I want hard facts.

    @Lorne Kates said:

    I've provided you directly with everything you've requested,

    No you didn't! You went off on some crazy tangent about HDCPHCPMI or whatever the fuck you were talking about. And even THAT, the worst you've been able to say is "there are some buggy pieces of hardware that sometimes don't work right." SHOCKER! It's almost like... every other protocol ever designed ever that has buggy pieces of hardware that sometime don't work right!

    But let's not talk about that, because it's completely off-topic, and I don't give a shit.

    What we were talking about is anonymously-collected usage statistics, and them causing you harm. You said, and I quote "and there are real life, every day examples of all of those that exist right now. You can't go a month on a tech forum without coming across one of them." Well, if they show up in tech forums every month, why not just fucking link to one already? That's all I asking for.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    What we were talking about is anonymously-collected usage statistics, and them causing you harm. You said, and I quote "and there are real life, every day examples of all of those that exist right now. You can't go a month on a tech forum without coming across one of them." Well, if they show up in tech forums every month, why not just fucking link to one already? That's all I asking for.

    Yet again, you reject anything that doesn't fit perfectly in your square hole. He gave you a pretty good analogy of something that went from a one way to a two way flow of data. It's really not that big of a jump between that and what got started here. You also had a point about the potential benefit of his favorite show maybe not being cancelled. But at least admit his points, please.

    Your style of "debate" is pretty tedious, and generally comes across as "not holding your own," but more as moving goal posts and ignoring arguments.



  • @boomzilla said:

    He gave you a pretty good analogy of something that went from a one way to a two way flow of data. It's really not that big of a jump between that and what got started here.

    Well, first of all, I don't want analogies, I want facts.

    Secondly, if I ask for evidence of X, why should I be convinced by evidence of Y and a short, stupid explanation of how X sometimes resembles Y a bit if you squint?

    He can either back up his points, or he can't. He if can, he should. If he can't, he should say so instead of going off on something completely unrelated.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    He gave you a pretty good analogy of something that went from a one way to a two way flow of data. It's really not that big of a jump between that and what got started here.

    Well, first of all, I don't want analogies, I want facts.

    Yep. Goalpost: moved. Or maybe you're just being lazy.

    FACT: You asked why anyone would oppose anonymous tracking.

    FACT: He gave a pretty detailed example of the same process that he's afraid would happen with anonymous tracking.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Secondly, if I ask for evidence of X, why should I be convinced by evidence of Y and a short, stupid explanation of how X sometimes resembles Y a bit if you squint?

    He can either back up his points, or he can't. He if can, he should. If he can't, he should say so instead of going off on something completely unrelated.

    Well, it seemed to me that he did. Since it was something that was hypothetical (i.e., not actually happening right now), I suppose your described burden of proof makes any example invalid a priori.

    You also look for any tiny disqualifying point, like when he uses Sony as an example. ("Oh, there's your problem. And because you used an example that I already thought was shit, your entire argument is invalid.")



  • @boomzilla said:

    FACT: You asked why anyone would oppose anonymous tracking.

    FACT: He gave a pretty detailed example of the same process that he's afraid would happen with anonymous tracking.

    Fact: Blakey is not the only person struggling to see why you would think the analogy is related in any way.


  • @boomzilla said:

    FACT: You asked why anyone would oppose anonymous tracking.

    I'm pretty sure I never asked that. That's certainly not what I requested citations of.

    The funny thing is, I don't even really care what people think as long as they've actually *thought* about the issue and formed *their own opinion* based on *actual evidence*. The reason Lorne can't convince me is that he hasn't yet convinced *himself*, and that's what I'm trying to rectify.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    FACT: You asked why anyone would oppose anonymous tracking.

    I'm pretty sure I never asked that. That's certainly not what I requested citations of.

    My statement was condensed a bit. Here is where that started.
    @blakeyrat said:
    @ Lorne Kates said:

    That's why I oppose having a TV be anything but a receive only display (and I'm counting the tuner, be it internal or external). If it can transmit, it will. For it to transmit, it needs to be connected to [something]. And as soon as [something] is unavailable, it can't transmit, and will almost certainly not work-- by design. If a company sees profit in that data transmitting, it will quickly become non-optional to not transmit, either by designing the device not to work if it cannot (no offline mode), or a law will be passed.

    And there are real life, every day examples of all of those that exist right now. You can't go a month on a tech forum without coming across one of them.

    Then you'll have no trouble at all proving a cite to back-up your bullshit!

    His "bullshit" was his reason for opposing anonymous tracking.

    @blakeyrat said:

    The funny thing is, I don't even really care what people think as long as they've actually thought about the issue and formed their own opinion based on actual evidence. The reason Lorne can't convince me is that he hasn't yet convinced himself, and that's what I'm trying to rectify.

    @intertravel said:

    Fact: Blakey is not the only person struggling to see why you would think the analogy is related in any way.

    OK...here is what I took away from his argument:

    • Anonymous tracking begins.
    • Either it's optional (e.g., opt out) or mandatory to begin with.
    • Eventually, it's likely to be mandatory, if only because of assumptions made by hardware / software, whether intentional or not.
    • HDCP evolution is a similar example where the supposedly straightforward flow of information, combined with seemingly simple or easy to implement extra stuff causes problems.
    So, anonymous tracking (in addition to any privacy-like concerns) could lead down this path, too. I guess you think this doesn't matter, because it's the fault of stupid hardware or software vendors, or whatever, and it's OK for you not to care, but it still causes people money and aggravation when stuff like this happens, and that seems like a legitimate con against this sort of thing. The pros may still outweigh the cons, but that's different than screaming that the cons are illegitimate.

Log in to reply