bloopletech

I don't want to come across too harshly, since you've engaged in the discussion and revealed that you work for qualcomm, but:

Do you morally and ethically agree with the position that Qualcomm should get paid a licence fee for the firmware for each and every resale of a particular chip? (vs the spirit of the first sale doctrine)

At the moment, it seems that you're giving tacit approval to this position.

Ok, after reading your response, I was somewhat confused, and now looking at the code, it seems like the drivers licenses are done in California is quite a bit different than here, in Australia.

It seems that in California, at least, there is a legal distinction between a 'revoked' license and being 'unlicensed'.

In Australia, AFAIK there's no distinction; if you commit an offence serious enough to have your license revoked, then you no longer have a license and are unlicensed; i.e. it's the license that gives you the right to drive, and if your license is revoked then you don't have a license any more.

It's the same deal for suspensions - in Australia, if your license is suspended, then you're by definition unlicensed for the period.

So there may be a semantic mismatch where I misunderstood you.

It would seem that in California, pretty much the only way you could get a 12500(a) is if you'd never held a license at all; in this case, it fits your assertion that Hispanics are the only _unlicensed_ drivers.

And no poor non-Hispanic people driving through on El Camino, getting from A to B? I don't know the local geography, but I would assume that a main thoroughfare would get _some_ non-residents.

Are Hispanic people unlicensed at such a high rate relative to the general population that it would fit this data?

Also,

> I don't think most police would let anyone have a pass on unlicensed/suspended

is a direct contradiction to:

> Even if someone were unlicensed and caught, if you didn't have the cause to stop him for something else, he'd walk on the unlicensed driver charge.

Which you posted above.

[edited to fix bad c+p]

Also, if it's totally not racist at all, then why did they stop providing the information as soon as this analysis was put up? That makes them look way more suspicious than they already did.

I think I just posted the same thing you did. Also:

Strawman: 'Well these people all drive crappy cars with stuff wrong with them' Teardown: Where's all the traffic violations for poor white people? Poor black people? Further, what about all the other kinds of traffic violation (drunk driving etc.)? Are Hispanics the only people who ever do anything wrong on the road?

So... if being unlicensed is not a sufficient justification for a traffic stop, then why are these drivers being pulled over in the first place?

Are you saying that they get pulled over for something else, and it so happens that they are also unlicensed?

In that case, why is it only Hispanic drivers being pulled over? Are Hispanics the only ethnic group in the areas north and south that commit traffic infractions?

One of the big differences between 1st-party and 3rd-party tracking is that Bob at Bob's Cakes can only see what you're doing on Bob's site (1st-party tracking), but if Bob uses Google Analytics, and so does Jane, and Sarah, then Google Analytics (3rd-party) knows about your activity _across_ Bob's, Jane's, and Sarah's sites, which can potentially be used in worse/more invasive ways.

Also, the javascript tracking scripts can capture a lot more information than a simple access log line - they're not directly comparable.

Ghostery primarily blocks 3rd-party advertising javascript - not at the session cookie level, and not for the website you're actually using.

I think a number of different issues are being conflated here.

Secondly, in my ordinary web browsing, I'm not trying to avoid all tracking whatsoever - I'm much more interested in blocking the 99.9% low-hanging fruit of commercial 3rd-party tracking. If I really was paranoid / needed to prevent tracking completely, I'd use a much more sophisticated setup.

Given that context, the fact that some people may be trying to embed image web bugs on a bunch of pages isn't nearly as important or interesting; AFAIK most commercial 3rd-party trackers are javascript-based these days. Same applies for straight cookies - blocking the 3rd-party javascript usually prevents these begin set in the first place.

> since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs

I'm not advocating for that at all - there is a continuum between only viewing raw HTML and running every bit of 3rd-party javascript someone decided to throw into the page.

My comment was bascially arguing that there _is_ a continuum, and that it is possible to block the vast majority of 3rd-party trackers, _without_ having to turn of JS completely, do anything really paranoid.

My whole comment, essentially, was about _avoiding_ turning off JS etc., and still maintaining a level of control over my browsing experience. I actually develop web applications for a living, so it would be a bit silly of me to say that we shouldn't have sessions support!

> > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money

What I was referring to here, is that if ads and 3rd-party tracking are blocked, then sites will have to create new revenue streams to operate with - and if that means paying directly for good content, then I look forward to supporting that business model.

I think your annoyance is misplaced. I develop rails apps for a living, so I am aware of the importance of js, sessions etc. - I'm merely stating that I can have my cake (blocking 3rd-party trackers) and eat it (still use the next) too.

Your comment is FUD. The article you link to starts with truth and then drifts into FUD at the end.

See https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#optout (I have opted out).

I am annoyed that they accept money to whitelist ads and am also annoyed that they allow whitelisting like this at all; however there is a considerable distance between having opt-out whitelisting, and what you're implying.

What's the time lag until we run out of IPv4 addresses at the VPS/hosting provider and broadband ISP level?

I see the situation getting progressively more dire, and presumably these notifications are there to try and get people moving to avoid the wall; but assuming everyone keeps operating as close to the status quo as they are able, how long before we truly hit the wall?

You're making a false dichotomy - you imply the only choices are a) allowing tracking, or b) not using sites that track.

As I implied in my other comment, this is a false dichotomy; by using browser extensions, I can and do control my browsing experience to benefit from sites that track while preventing them from tracking.

The very concept that I should subject myself to the whims of web sites is completely counter to the history and culture of the net.

Actually, I can use your site and benefit from it, while simultaneously blocking your ability to track me. It's called Ghostery (and similar browser extensions).

I use Ad-Block Plus and Ghostery for all my web browsing, and have both Ad-Block Plus set to block _all_ ads and Ghostery set to block _all_ tracking scripts.

These extensions do not make 'polite requests'; they directly control the browsing experience to my benefit.

I (and my extensions) control my browsing experience, not you.

(You can argue that this is unfair, but in the long run I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money.)

That makes sense I suppose. I note though that you still haven't described what the application actually does: 'better manage their people' could mean a lot of things. I'm sure you'll get to that though ;).

More to the point, the design doesn't tell my what your service actually DOES; some sort of calendaring thing?

The category it's competing in (and thus its feature set) is not obvious to me (a 21yo professional software developer working remotely for an SF company).