Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Surveillance Capitalism; Invented by Google
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Java Jive
Dec 1, 2021, 6:25:48 PM12/1/21
to
I make no apologies for the length of the following, because it's an
important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff describes social media's colonial
appropriation of first our on-line lives and then our real-life spaces,
using, as I suppose, a sort of quasi-economics jargon, 'behavioral
surplus', or sometimes just 'surplus', to describe the money-making
meta-data we give away, meaning *ALL* the meta-data from *ALL*
customer's interactions with their services, so that's not just, say,
the search terms you enter into Search, but also the contents of your
GMail address book and of your GMails themselves, and much more besides.
Still in my own words, in the interests of brevity, the first thing to
grasp is just how much this data is worth. When Google was formed in
the late 1990s, it had a sort of pact with the people it viewed then as
its clients, people searching online, that it was working on their
behalf, and Google's learning from data about previous searches and
recycling it into improved search performance found favour with the
online search community. However, by the time the dot-com bubble burst
in in the early 2000s, this wasn't yet making them money, and suddenly
making money had become very important indeed. In response, Google
silently dropped its pact with the users of its search engine, and
started to feed all sorts of metadata from their searches, that
previously been either ignored or used solely for improving searching
algorithms, into real money-making clients, the clients of AdSense. By
2004, AdSense was making a million dollars a day, by 2010 it was making
$10b pa. Flushed with this triumph, the quest for ever more
'behavioural surplus' began.
Continuing now in the authoress' words, she breaks the appropriation of
new areas of the metadata of our lives into four stages, calling the
first 'Incursion' and the second 'Habituation'. As an example of this
colonial process, she writes about Google Street View as follows ...
p140ff
"""
The theory and practice of dispossession were developed and refined as
the company learned how to counter and transform public resistance as an
essential condition for the protection and expansion of its behavioral
surplus franchise. Google's launch of Gmail on April Fool's Day, 2004,
provided an early occasion to climb this learning curve as the
corporation faced down public outrage over the automated scanning of
e-mail content intended as a fresh source of surplus for targeted ads.
Eventually, the dispossession cycle was refined as an explicit theory of
change that framed a tactical game plan which is by now regularly evoked
as the surveillance capitalist corporation's battle-tested response to
societal resistance.
The dispossession cycle at Google was so successful in facing down the
threats to Gmail that it was replicated and further elaborated in the
battles over Google Street View, the street-mapping operation launched
in 2007. Once again, the company did not ask permission. It simply
repeated the "original sin of simple robbery" and took what it wanted,
waiting for resistance to run its course as it devoured and datafied the
world's public spaces, streets, buildings, and homes.
Stage One: Incursion
Street View first entered public awareness with an apparently benign
blog post. Peter Fleischer, Google's "privacy counsel," helped launch
the new "service" by writing a paean celebrating America's "noble
tradition" of public spaces, where, he claimed, "people don't have the
same expectations of privacy as they do in their homes."
[...]
The blog post that accompanied Street View is a precise replica of the
invaders who once landed on that blameless Caribbean beach. Those
adelantados concealed the bare facts of invasion in elaborate gestures
of friendship and humility that made it impossible to discern the clear
and present danger implicit in their arrival. Fleischer similarly
assures his audience of friendly terms. Street View, which used
cartoonishly wrapped cars with a large 360-degree camera mount on the
roof to capture the imagery it sought, was designed to "respect the
privacy of people who happen to be walking down a public street,"
Fleischer wrote. "That's why we designed a simple process for anyone to
contact us and have their image removed," and he promised that it would
respect laws and customs "in other parts of the world."
[...]
In 2010 the German Federal Commission for Data Protection announced that
Google's Street View operation actually camouflaged a covert data sweep;
Street View cars were secretly collecting personal data from private
Wi-Fi networks.37 Google denied the charge, insisting that it was
gathering only publicly broadcast Wi-Fi network names and the
identifying addresses of Wi-Fi routers, but not personal information
sent over the network.38
Within days, an independent analysis by German security experts proved
decisively that Street View's cars were extracting unencrypted personal
information from homes. Google was forced to concede that it had
intercepted and stored "payload data," personal information grabbed from
unencrypted WiFi transmissions. As its apologetic blog post noted, "In
some instances entire emails and URLs were captured, as well as
passwords." Technical experts in Canada, France, and the Netherlands
discovered that the payload data included names, telephone numbers,
credit information, passwords, messages, e-mails, and chat transcripts,
as well as records of online dating, pornography, browsing behavior,
medical information, location data, photos, and video and audio files.
They concluded that such data packets could be stitched together for a
detailed profile of an identifiable person.39
Google's "Spy-Fi" scandal filled headlines around the world. Many
believed that the Street View revelations would inflict irreparable
damage to Google. In Germany, where the firm's actions were in clear
violation of privacy and data-protection laws, officials reacted angrily
and warned that Google would face EU investigations and consequences in
the German courts. A bill was introduced into the German Parliament
that proposed to fine Google for displaying personal property without
owners' consent. Google faced fresh litigation in Switzerland, Canada,
France, and the Netherlands. By 2012, there were multiple
investigations in twelve countries, including most of Europe, North
Atlantic, and Australia, and Google had been found guilty of violating
laws in at least nine countries.40
In the US, attorneys general from thirty-eight states launched a probe
into Google's Street View practices. Private citizens filed numerous
class-action suits, eight of which were consolidated in the Northern
California US District Court. The head of Privacy International said
that Google was being "Big Brother."' The Electronic Privacy
Information Center championed substantial legal resistance in the US
against Google's efforts to avoid repercussions in the wake of the
Spy-Fi scandal, and it maintained a detailed continuously updated online
overview of the worldwide outrage, protests, investigations, litigation,
and settlements in response to Google Street View and its extraction
tactics.42
Google characterized Street View's "privacy violations” as a "mistake"
made by a single engineer working on an "experimental" project, whose
code had inadvertently made it into Street View's software. The firm
refused to release the identity of the mystery engineer and insisted
that the project's leaders were unaware of the data capture and "had no
intention" of using those data. As Eric Schmidt told the Financial
Times, "We screwed up," noting that the engineer in question would face
an internal investigation for his clear "violation" of Google's
policies. Unbowed, Schmidt insisted on the validity of Google's mission
to index all the world's information.43
A 2012 investigation by the Federal Communications Commission described
the case as "a deliberate software-design decision by one of the Google
employees working on the Street View project."44 The engineer had been
selected for the team because of his unique expertise in Wi-Fi
"wardriving," the practice of driving around using equipment to locate
wireless networks.45 His design notes indicated that user traffic and
location data would be logged along with "information about what they
are doing" that would "be analysed offline for use in other
initiatives." The notes identified but then dismissed "privacy
considerations."46
The FCC found evidence that contradicted Google's scapegoating,
narrative. The records showed that the engineer had e-mailed links to
his software documentation to project leaders, who then shared them with
the entire Street View team. It also found evidence that on at least
two occasions, the engineer told his colleagues that Street View was
collecting personal data. Despite these facts along with evidence of
the company's exhaustive internal software reviews and testing
procedures and the regular transfer of payload data from Street View's
hard disks to Google's Oregon data center, Google engineers denied any
knowledge of personal data collection.47
Stage Two: Habituation
Hanke's bet that the "cycle" would eventually wear down resistance
reflects a key operational component of the extraction imperative,
discovered in Search, refined with Gmail, and elaborated with Street
View. The messages that come through are "Don't look back. Wait them
out. Step on them, if necessary."
The April 2012 FCC report is heart wrenching in its way, a melancholic
depiction of democracy's vulnerability in the face-off with a wealthy
determined, and audacious surveillance capitalist opponent. In November
2010 the FCC sent Google a letter of inquiry requesting necessary
information. Little was forthcoming. By March of the next year, a
second "supplemental" letter was sent. Google's response was incomplete
information and lack of cooperation, which produced another "demand
letter" in August. Google's continued lack of engagement required yet
another letter in late August. The FCC staff was burdened with
following up and chasing down evasive corporate executives and their
representatives for an entire year.
The document is a revelation of negative space and a saga of democracy
rebuffed. The FCC's detailed initial request produced "only five
documents" and no e-mails. The corporation said that it had no time to
undertake a comprehensive review, calling it "burdensome." Google
"failed" to identify relevant individuals. It "redacted" names. It
asserted that the information requested "serves no useful purpose." It
"failed" to verify information. When asked for specific submissions,
"Google did not do so." Google "argued" that it should "not be
required" to provide access to the payload data it had illicitly
collected. "Google waited...." The phrases "failed to respond" and
"failed to provide" are repeated throughout the account. "Google
violated Commission orders... delaying...." Affidavits were requested
five times, but the company did not provide any of these until September
2011, after the FCC threatened a subpoena. The mystery engineer simply
refused to speak with investigators, citing his Fifth Amendment right to
avoid self-incrimination. As the report concludes, "There is evidence
that Google's failure to cooperate with the Bureau was in many or all
cases deliberate."
"""
And in part that's how we got to now, but, as the book partly states
subsequently, and I have discovered elsewhere, there are consequences to
the above story that are deep, far-reaching, and threaten democracy.
Google had a very close relationship with Obama, he won. Google,
Facebook, and others had senior technical and analytical staff embedded
in Trump's offices during the 2018 election, and were, by his campaign
manager's own admission, essential to his success in that year. These
corporations have it in their power to swing elections, and, because it
is absolutely essential for Google, Facebook, and other surveillance
capital enterprises to prevent investigations into their excessive
incursions into people's privacy, some have started funding right-wing
organisations that they think will stand up for the "freedom of the
individual against the state", where the 'individual' here is actually
the corporation, not the common folk like you and me whose data gives
them that money and that power. You may have noticed, I certainly have
when debunking online fake news, that when you do a relevant search,
often you have to scroll past lots of obviously dodgy political sites
before you'll find something that looks likely to tell you something
truthful, relevant, and useful about the subject in hand. Now, in
general I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I wonder why that
might be?
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff describes social media's colonial
appropriation of first our on-line lives and then our real-life spaces,
using, as I suppose, a sort of quasi-economics jargon, 'behavioral
surplus', or sometimes just 'surplus', to describe the money-making
meta-data we give away, meaning *ALL* the meta-data from *ALL*
customer's interactions with their services, so that's not just, say,
the search terms you enter into Search, but also the contents of your
GMail address book and of your GMails themselves, and much more besides.
Still in my own words, in the interests of brevity, the first thing to
grasp is just how much this data is worth. When Google was formed in
the late 1990s, it had a sort of pact with the people it viewed then as
its clients, people searching online, that it was working on their
behalf, and Google's learning from data about previous searches and
recycling it into improved search performance found favour with the
online search community. However, by the time the dot-com bubble burst
in in the early 2000s, this wasn't yet making them money, and suddenly
making money had become very important indeed. In response, Google
silently dropped its pact with the users of its search engine, and
started to feed all sorts of metadata from their searches, that
previously been either ignored or used solely for improving searching
algorithms, into real money-making clients, the clients of AdSense. By
2004, AdSense was making a million dollars a day, by 2010 it was making
$10b pa. Flushed with this triumph, the quest for ever more
'behavioural surplus' began.
Continuing now in the authoress' words, she breaks the appropriation of
new areas of the metadata of our lives into four stages, calling the
first 'Incursion' and the second 'Habituation'. As an example of this
colonial process, she writes about Google Street View as follows ...
p140ff
"""
The theory and practice of dispossession were developed and refined as
the company learned how to counter and transform public resistance as an
essential condition for the protection and expansion of its behavioral
surplus franchise. Google's launch of Gmail on April Fool's Day, 2004,
provided an early occasion to climb this learning curve as the
corporation faced down public outrage over the automated scanning of
e-mail content intended as a fresh source of surplus for targeted ads.
Eventually, the dispossession cycle was refined as an explicit theory of
change that framed a tactical game plan which is by now regularly evoked
as the surveillance capitalist corporation's battle-tested response to
societal resistance.
The dispossession cycle at Google was so successful in facing down the
threats to Gmail that it was replicated and further elaborated in the
battles over Google Street View, the street-mapping operation launched
in 2007. Once again, the company did not ask permission. It simply
repeated the "original sin of simple robbery" and took what it wanted,
waiting for resistance to run its course as it devoured and datafied the
world's public spaces, streets, buildings, and homes.
Stage One: Incursion
Street View first entered public awareness with an apparently benign
blog post. Peter Fleischer, Google's "privacy counsel," helped launch
the new "service" by writing a paean celebrating America's "noble
tradition" of public spaces, where, he claimed, "people don't have the
same expectations of privacy as they do in their homes."
[...]
The blog post that accompanied Street View is a precise replica of the
invaders who once landed on that blameless Caribbean beach. Those
adelantados concealed the bare facts of invasion in elaborate gestures
of friendship and humility that made it impossible to discern the clear
and present danger implicit in their arrival. Fleischer similarly
assures his audience of friendly terms. Street View, which used
cartoonishly wrapped cars with a large 360-degree camera mount on the
roof to capture the imagery it sought, was designed to "respect the
privacy of people who happen to be walking down a public street,"
Fleischer wrote. "That's why we designed a simple process for anyone to
contact us and have their image removed," and he promised that it would
respect laws and customs "in other parts of the world."
[...]
In 2010 the German Federal Commission for Data Protection announced that
Google's Street View operation actually camouflaged a covert data sweep;
Street View cars were secretly collecting personal data from private
Wi-Fi networks.37 Google denied the charge, insisting that it was
gathering only publicly broadcast Wi-Fi network names and the
identifying addresses of Wi-Fi routers, but not personal information
sent over the network.38
Within days, an independent analysis by German security experts proved
decisively that Street View's cars were extracting unencrypted personal
information from homes. Google was forced to concede that it had
intercepted and stored "payload data," personal information grabbed from
unencrypted WiFi transmissions. As its apologetic blog post noted, "In
some instances entire emails and URLs were captured, as well as
passwords." Technical experts in Canada, France, and the Netherlands
discovered that the payload data included names, telephone numbers,
credit information, passwords, messages, e-mails, and chat transcripts,
as well as records of online dating, pornography, browsing behavior,
medical information, location data, photos, and video and audio files.
They concluded that such data packets could be stitched together for a
detailed profile of an identifiable person.39
Google's "Spy-Fi" scandal filled headlines around the world. Many
believed that the Street View revelations would inflict irreparable
damage to Google. In Germany, where the firm's actions were in clear
violation of privacy and data-protection laws, officials reacted angrily
and warned that Google would face EU investigations and consequences in
the German courts. A bill was introduced into the German Parliament
that proposed to fine Google for displaying personal property without
owners' consent. Google faced fresh litigation in Switzerland, Canada,
France, and the Netherlands. By 2012, there were multiple
investigations in twelve countries, including most of Europe, North
Atlantic, and Australia, and Google had been found guilty of violating
laws in at least nine countries.40
In the US, attorneys general from thirty-eight states launched a probe
into Google's Street View practices. Private citizens filed numerous
class-action suits, eight of which were consolidated in the Northern
California US District Court. The head of Privacy International said
that Google was being "Big Brother."' The Electronic Privacy
Information Center championed substantial legal resistance in the US
against Google's efforts to avoid repercussions in the wake of the
Spy-Fi scandal, and it maintained a detailed continuously updated online
overview of the worldwide outrage, protests, investigations, litigation,
and settlements in response to Google Street View and its extraction
tactics.42
Google characterized Street View's "privacy violations” as a "mistake"
made by a single engineer working on an "experimental" project, whose
code had inadvertently made it into Street View's software. The firm
refused to release the identity of the mystery engineer and insisted
that the project's leaders were unaware of the data capture and "had no
intention" of using those data. As Eric Schmidt told the Financial
Times, "We screwed up," noting that the engineer in question would face
an internal investigation for his clear "violation" of Google's
policies. Unbowed, Schmidt insisted on the validity of Google's mission
to index all the world's information.43
A 2012 investigation by the Federal Communications Commission described
the case as "a deliberate software-design decision by one of the Google
employees working on the Street View project."44 The engineer had been
selected for the team because of his unique expertise in Wi-Fi
"wardriving," the practice of driving around using equipment to locate
wireless networks.45 His design notes indicated that user traffic and
location data would be logged along with "information about what they
are doing" that would "be analysed offline for use in other
initiatives." The notes identified but then dismissed "privacy
considerations."46
The FCC found evidence that contradicted Google's scapegoating,
narrative. The records showed that the engineer had e-mailed links to
his software documentation to project leaders, who then shared them with
the entire Street View team. It also found evidence that on at least
two occasions, the engineer told his colleagues that Street View was
collecting personal data. Despite these facts along with evidence of
the company's exhaustive internal software reviews and testing
procedures and the regular transfer of payload data from Street View's
hard disks to Google's Oregon data center, Google engineers denied any
knowledge of personal data collection.47
Stage Two: Habituation
Hanke's bet that the "cycle" would eventually wear down resistance
reflects a key operational component of the extraction imperative,
discovered in Search, refined with Gmail, and elaborated with Street
View. The messages that come through are "Don't look back. Wait them
out. Step on them, if necessary."
The April 2012 FCC report is heart wrenching in its way, a melancholic
depiction of democracy's vulnerability in the face-off with a wealthy
determined, and audacious surveillance capitalist opponent. In November
2010 the FCC sent Google a letter of inquiry requesting necessary
information. Little was forthcoming. By March of the next year, a
second "supplemental" letter was sent. Google's response was incomplete
information and lack of cooperation, which produced another "demand
letter" in August. Google's continued lack of engagement required yet
another letter in late August. The FCC staff was burdened with
following up and chasing down evasive corporate executives and their
representatives for an entire year.
The document is a revelation of negative space and a saga of democracy
rebuffed. The FCC's detailed initial request produced "only five
documents" and no e-mails. The corporation said that it had no time to
undertake a comprehensive review, calling it "burdensome." Google
"failed" to identify relevant individuals. It "redacted" names. It
asserted that the information requested "serves no useful purpose." It
"failed" to verify information. When asked for specific submissions,
"Google did not do so." Google "argued" that it should "not be
required" to provide access to the payload data it had illicitly
collected. "Google waited...." The phrases "failed to respond" and
"failed to provide" are repeated throughout the account. "Google
violated Commission orders... delaying...." Affidavits were requested
five times, but the company did not provide any of these until September
2011, after the FCC threatened a subpoena. The mystery engineer simply
refused to speak with investigators, citing his Fifth Amendment right to
avoid self-incrimination. As the report concludes, "There is evidence
that Google's failure to cooperate with the Bureau was in many or all
cases deliberate."
"""
And in part that's how we got to now, but, as the book partly states
subsequently, and I have discovered elsewhere, there are consequences to
the above story that are deep, far-reaching, and threaten democracy.
Google had a very close relationship with Obama, he won. Google,
Facebook, and others had senior technical and analytical staff embedded
in Trump's offices during the 2018 election, and were, by his campaign
manager's own admission, essential to his success in that year. These
corporations have it in their power to swing elections, and, because it
is absolutely essential for Google, Facebook, and other surveillance
capital enterprises to prevent investigations into their excessive
incursions into people's privacy, some have started funding right-wing
organisations that they think will stand up for the "freedom of the
individual against the state", where the 'individual' here is actually
the corporation, not the common folk like you and me whose data gives
them that money and that power. You may have noticed, I certainly have
when debunking online fake news, that when you do a relevant search,
often you have to scroll past lots of obviously dodgy political sites
before you'll find something that looks likely to tell you something
truthful, relevant, and useful about the subject in hand. Now, in
general I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I wonder why that
might be?
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Alan
Dec 1, 2021, 8:24:03 PM12/1/21
to
On 2021-12-01 3:25 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> I make no apologies for the length of the following, because it's an
> important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
You also make no apologies for the fact that it is completely off topic...
> I make no apologies for the length of the following, because it's an
> important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
...do you hypocrite.
Should I report you do your Usenet provider?
:-)
Joerg Lorenz
Dec 2, 2021, 4:01:59 AM12/2/21
to
Am 02.12.21 um 00:25 schrieb Java Jive:
in a Android/Google group.
The big tech cos try to degrade us more and more to digital slaves. The
bad thing is the governments try to overtake them in this domain.
--
De gustibus non est disputandum
> I make no apologies for the length of the following, because it's an
> important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
THX a lot! And I strongly believe that this is very much on topic here
> important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
in a Android/Google group.
The big tech cos try to degrade us more and more to digital slaves. The
bad thing is the governments try to overtake them in this domain.
--
De gustibus non est disputandum
Java Jive
Dec 2, 2021, 8:33:37 AM12/2/21
to
On 02/12/2021 01:24, Alan wrote:
>
> On 2021-12-01 3:25 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I make no apologies for the length of the following, because it's an
>> important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
>
>
> On 2021-12-01 3:25 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I make no apologies for the length of the following, because it's an
>> important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
>
> Should I report you do your Usenet provider?
You can try if you like, but you'll fail, because, unlike, most of your
threads, it's on topic for this ng.
Alan
Dec 2, 2021, 10:57:44 AM12/2/21
to
On 2021-12-02 5:33 a.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 02/12/2021 01:24, Alan wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-12-01 3:25 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> I make no apologies for the length of the following, because it's an
>>> important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
>>
>> Should I report you do your Usenet provider?
>
> You can try if you like, but you'll fail, because, unlike, most of your
> threads, it's on topic for this ng.
>
No... ...it's not.
> On 02/12/2021 01:24, Alan wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-12-01 3:25 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> I make no apologies for the length of the following, because it's an
>>> important topic, but of course you don't have to read it ...
>>
>> Should I report you do your Usenet provider?
>
> You can try if you like, but you'll fail, because, unlike, most of your
> threads, it's on topic for this ng.
>
Mayayana
Dec 2, 2021, 8:13:44 PM12/2/21
to
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote
|
| In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of Surveillance
| Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff
I got her book but found it unreadable. I'm not sure why.
Maybe it was because it was so longwinded. But she does seem
to be sayig things that need to be said. In addition to your
mention of Obama and Trump, there's the case of Eric Schmidt
trying to sell the 2016 electin to Hillary. He even had detailed
plans to get cheap youth labor and then dump them as soon
as possible to save money. To think, the Democrats used to
be the party of the working person...
http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html
|
| In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of Surveillance
| Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff
Maybe it was because it was so longwinded. But she does seem
to be sayig things that need to be said. In addition to your
mention of Obama and Trump, there's the case of Eric Schmidt
trying to sell the 2016 electin to Hillary. He even had detailed
plans to get cheap youth labor and then dump them as soon
as possible to save money. To think, the Democrats used to
be the party of the working person...
http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html
Andy Burnelli
Dec 2, 2021, 8:46:04 PM12/2/21
to
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 20:13:50 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
> I got her book but found it unreadable.
Mayayana,
> I got her book but found it unreadable.
You called me a troll for posting on-topic threads of technical value.
And yet... here YOU troll us (along with the other trolls).
Stop it.
Please.
Java Jive trolled us, and the rest of the ignorant trolls followed suit.
Why must you prove that you're a troll along with those pieces of shit?
Mayayana: Act like an actual adult please (and not an ignorant POS).
--
Those other trolls from Java Jive on down can't be fixed.
Alan
Dec 3, 2021, 12:12:24 AM12/3/21
to
On 2021-12-02 5:46 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 20:13:50 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> I got her book but found it unreadable.
>
> Mayayana,
>
> You called me a troll for posting on-topic threads of technical value.
> And yet... here YOU troll us (along with the other trolls).
>
> Stop it.
> Please.
>
> Java Jive trolled us, and the rest of the ignorant trolls followed suit.
> Why must you prove that you're a troll along with those pieces of shit?
>
> Mayayana: Act like an actual adult please (and not an ignorant POS).
When you grow up... ...when your testicles finally descend...
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 20:13:50 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> I got her book but found it unreadable.
>
> Mayayana,
>
> You called me a troll for posting on-topic threads of technical value.
> And yet... here YOU troll us (along with the other trolls).
>
> Stop it.
> Please.
>
> Java Jive trolled us, and the rest of the ignorant trolls followed suit.
> Why must you prove that you're a troll along with those pieces of shit?
>
> Mayayana: Act like an actual adult please (and not an ignorant POS).
...then you can ask others to act like adults.
Not before.
Java Jive
Dec 3, 2021, 4:58:58 AM12/3/21
to
On 03/12/2021 01:46, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> Java Jive trolled us
This is an Android group, Google created Android, and I posted about how
Google harvest personal data, *your* personal data included, from all
interactions that you have with them, including of course on Android
devices, for their excessive profit, breaking multiple laws in multiple
countries by doing so, and how they abuse the economic and political
power that results from this illegal activity.
Whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, that issue potentially
affects all users of all Android devices, and thus is directly on topic
for this ng.
> Mayayana: Act like an actual adult please (and not an ignorant POS).
You'd know all about the latter.
>
> Java Jive trolled us
This is an Android group, Google created Android, and I posted about how
Google harvest personal data, *your* personal data included, from all
interactions that you have with them, including of course on Android
devices, for their excessive profit, breaking multiple laws in multiple
countries by doing so, and how they abuse the economic and political
power that results from this illegal activity.
Whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, that issue potentially
affects all users of all Android devices, and thus is directly on topic
for this ng.
> Mayayana: Act like an actual adult please (and not an ignorant POS).
Java Jive
Dec 3, 2021, 5:29:58 AM12/3/21
to
On 03/12/2021 01:13, Mayayana wrote:
>
> "Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote
>>
>> In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of Surveillance
>> Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff
>
> I got her book but found it unreadable. I'm not sure why.
> Maybe it was because it was so longwinded.
Yes! When Alastair Cooke was travelling America filming his series of
>
> "Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote
>>
>> In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of Surveillance
>> Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff
>
> I got her book but found it unreadable. I'm not sure why.
> Maybe it was because it was so longwinded.
that name for the BBC, aired, AFAICR, in the 70s, he asked one of his
team what she thought of Americans, and she replied that they never said
quite what they mean!
This authoress is something of a case in point, verbally sometimes she
goes round the block to get to the house next door. However, now that
I've persevered and got well into the book, I'm not noticing the
verbiage so much.
> But she does seem
> to be sayig things that need to be said.
> In addition to your
> mention of Obama and Trump, there's the case of Eric Schmidt
> trying to sell the 2016 electin to Hillary. He even had detailed
> plans to get cheap youth labor and then dump them as soon
> as possible to save money. To think, the Democrats used to
> be the party of the working person...
>
> http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html
because for sure they had the money by then, and in the UK we've had
similar issues with social media being used as a political tool.
Mayayana
Dec 3, 2021, 9:10:04 AM12/3/21
to
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote
| Yes! When Alastair Cooke was travelling America filming his series of
| that name for the BBC, aired, AFAICR, in the 70s, he asked one of his
| team what she thought of Americans, and she replied that they never said
| quite what they mean!
That's ironic. I might have described Brits that way. Brits
tend to define passive aggression as an art form. The backhanded
compliment is, perversely, considered a civilized form of warfare. I've
heard us called naive, backward, unsophisticated... and there's some
grounds for that. But indirect? No.
I suspect Zuboff's trouble is more likely excessive education. Books
by professors are not usually written but are rather "monetized"
academic papers. With an academic paper you have to be technical,
feign absolute objectivity, and spend at least 30% of your words
citing other academic papers, lest you be shunned at the next
conference. That makes for some muddy writing. But I can't actually
remember Zuboff's book. Which is odd, because it's exactly the kind
of thing I'm interested in.
| > In addition to your
| > mention of Obama and Trump, there's the case of Eric Schmidt
| > trying to sell the 2016 electin to Hillary. He even had detailed
| > plans to get cheap youth labor and then dump them as soon
| > as possible to save money. To think, the Democrats used to
| > be the party of the working person...
| >
| >
http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html
|
| So it goes that far back?! Well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised,
| because for sure they had the money by then, and in the UK we've had
| similar issues with social media being used as a political tool.
|
I'd say it goes back to when someone at Google came up
with the idea that making billions on contextual ads was not
enough money, and since technology allowed targetted ads,
therefore targetting isn't evil. That was the beginning of
standardizing spyware. It was also the beginning of the mutually
oily arrangment of sleazy-freebie online services.
Then there's also the fact that when Google said "Don't Be Evil",
the general public thought that was a moral position, not realizing
that Google was populated by young, unsocialized geeks who
were dressed by their mothers and used the word evil to describe
day-old donuts. Like most of tech, they were pre-moral creatures.
But Google also isn't operating in a vacuum. People use
their services, governments have been slow to prevent
monopolies, and technophilia has been a big problem. Only
recently have people begun to question whether a 2-year-old
should play with computers. Up until now it's been assumed
that all digital devices work on the brain like spinach on
Popeye, adding valuable IQ points to prepare for that grim and
intense battle for academic success that will be kindergarten.
So it's really everyone. Tech companies, customers and
regulators have all been ridiculously naive. But how can you
tell them that? They're all hypnotically fixated on their
cellphones.
It seems that all new technologies are first regarded as
miracle cures. I remember once seeing a page out of a
catalog from the late 1800s. They were selling an electronic
shirt. It was made of a mesh of wires and claimed to
cure all diseases. ("Look! It tingles. It must be magical.")
The special problem with tech is that
it now pervades all of society. And who can shut it off?
Cars are now infested. TVs are infested. It's nuts. And
it's very a delicate balance. It's not farfetched to think
that we could be hit by a solar flare in the foreseeable future
that would fry all chips. Such a flare happened in the 1800s.
If that happened, we'd be cast into the Stone Age. Even a
weeklong outage of Facebook and phone services would
send many people over the edge. Remember the hurricane
in NYC? Yuppies in lowewr Manhattan were hiking uptown
to look for power outlets. With no landlines and no electricity,
their cellphones dead, they were cut off from the world and
had no idea what was happening... in Manhattan!
Twenty years ago I drove a car that would have been unaffected
by such a calamity as a massive solar flare. Today probably
every car on the road would die on the spot. And it's not a
paranoid fantasy or the podssibility of a killer meteor. It's
actually likely. We're chipping all sorts of things for no good
reason. It's just childish glee; always looking for the next tech
thrill. The extreme example is Tesla's. I've developed a habit of
getting away from those cars as quickly as possible, because I
know that 1) the driver was stupid enough to drive a Tesla,
2) the driver is stupid enough to allow software updates to the
vehicle while driving and 3) the driver may very well be asleep.
| Yes! When Alastair Cooke was travelling America filming his series of
| that name for the BBC, aired, AFAICR, in the 70s, he asked one of his
| team what she thought of Americans, and she replied that they never said
| quite what they mean!
tend to define passive aggression as an art form. The backhanded
compliment is, perversely, considered a civilized form of warfare. I've
heard us called naive, backward, unsophisticated... and there's some
grounds for that. But indirect? No.
I suspect Zuboff's trouble is more likely excessive education. Books
by professors are not usually written but are rather "monetized"
academic papers. With an academic paper you have to be technical,
feign absolute objectivity, and spend at least 30% of your words
citing other academic papers, lest you be shunned at the next
conference. That makes for some muddy writing. But I can't actually
remember Zuboff's book. Which is odd, because it's exactly the kind
of thing I'm interested in.
| > In addition to your
| > mention of Obama and Trump, there's the case of Eric Schmidt
| > trying to sell the 2016 electin to Hillary. He even had detailed
| > plans to get cheap youth labor and then dump them as soon
| > as possible to save money. To think, the Democrats used to
| > be the party of the working person...
| >
| >
http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html
|
| So it goes that far back?! Well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised,
| because for sure they had the money by then, and in the UK we've had
| similar issues with social media being used as a political tool.
|
with the idea that making billions on contextual ads was not
enough money, and since technology allowed targetted ads,
therefore targetting isn't evil. That was the beginning of
standardizing spyware. It was also the beginning of the mutually
oily arrangment of sleazy-freebie online services.
Then there's also the fact that when Google said "Don't Be Evil",
the general public thought that was a moral position, not realizing
that Google was populated by young, unsocialized geeks who
were dressed by their mothers and used the word evil to describe
day-old donuts. Like most of tech, they were pre-moral creatures.
But Google also isn't operating in a vacuum. People use
their services, governments have been slow to prevent
monopolies, and technophilia has been a big problem. Only
recently have people begun to question whether a 2-year-old
should play with computers. Up until now it's been assumed
that all digital devices work on the brain like spinach on
Popeye, adding valuable IQ points to prepare for that grim and
intense battle for academic success that will be kindergarten.
So it's really everyone. Tech companies, customers and
regulators have all been ridiculously naive. But how can you
tell them that? They're all hypnotically fixated on their
cellphones.
It seems that all new technologies are first regarded as
miracle cures. I remember once seeing a page out of a
catalog from the late 1800s. They were selling an electronic
shirt. It was made of a mesh of wires and claimed to
cure all diseases. ("Look! It tingles. It must be magical.")
The special problem with tech is that
it now pervades all of society. And who can shut it off?
Cars are now infested. TVs are infested. It's nuts. And
it's very a delicate balance. It's not farfetched to think
that we could be hit by a solar flare in the foreseeable future
that would fry all chips. Such a flare happened in the 1800s.
If that happened, we'd be cast into the Stone Age. Even a
weeklong outage of Facebook and phone services would
send many people over the edge. Remember the hurricane
in NYC? Yuppies in lowewr Manhattan were hiking uptown
to look for power outlets. With no landlines and no electricity,
their cellphones dead, they were cut off from the world and
had no idea what was happening... in Manhattan!
Twenty years ago I drove a car that would have been unaffected
by such a calamity as a massive solar flare. Today probably
every car on the road would die on the spot. And it's not a
paranoid fantasy or the podssibility of a killer meteor. It's
actually likely. We're chipping all sorts of things for no good
reason. It's just childish glee; always looking for the next tech
thrill. The extreme example is Tesla's. I've developed a habit of
getting away from those cars as quickly as possible, because I
know that 1) the driver was stupid enough to drive a Tesla,
2) the driver is stupid enough to allow software updates to the
vehicle while driving and 3) the driver may very well be asleep.
AJL
Dec 3, 2021, 10:26:06 AM12/3/21
to
Mayayana wrote:
> It's not farfetched to think that we could be hit by a solar flare in
> the foreseeable future that would fry all chips.
Perhaps less far fetched to be hit by a human generated nuclear
> It's not farfetched to think that we could be hit by a solar flare in
> the foreseeable future that would fry all chips.
explosion EMP pulse...
Mayayana
Dec 3, 2021, 11:37:58 AM12/3/21
to
"AJL" <noe...@none.com> wrote in message news:sodcud$jhm$1...@dont-email.me...
The point is that it's not farfetched. While we put pointless
computerization in cars and build internet-connected
refrigerators and thermostats, this is a very real possibility.
Chips in refrigerators is what's farfetched. We're creating a
complx system of extremely brittle technology that we're
increasingly dependent on.
A similar flare happened in 1859. There's no way of knowing
whether that was an anomaly or something that happens
frequently. In earlier times it probably wouldn't have been noticed.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2150350-a-tech-destroying-solar-flare-could-hit-earth-within-100-years/
A nuclear explosion implies war. That would presumably involve
relatively local effects. So that's a whole different scenario. In
the event of nuclear war, locally burnt out computer chips would be
a very small problem. A massive solar flare would be planet-wide.
computerization in cars and build internet-connected
refrigerators and thermostats, this is a very real possibility.
Chips in refrigerators is what's farfetched. We're creating a
complx system of extremely brittle technology that we're
increasingly dependent on.
A similar flare happened in 1859. There's no way of knowing
whether that was an anomaly or something that happens
frequently. In earlier times it probably wouldn't have been noticed.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2150350-a-tech-destroying-solar-flare-could-hit-earth-within-100-years/
A nuclear explosion implies war. That would presumably involve
relatively local effects. So that's a whole different scenario. In
the event of nuclear war, locally burnt out computer chips would be
a very small problem. A massive solar flare would be planet-wide.
Alan
Dec 3, 2021, 12:30:14 PM12/3/21
to
On 2021-12-03 2:29 a.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 01:13, Mayayana wrote:
>>
>> "Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>> In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of Surveillance
>>> Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff
>>
>> I got her book but found it unreadable. I'm not sure why.
>> Maybe it was because it was so longwinded.
>
> Yes! When Alastair Cooke was travelling America filming his series of
> that name for the BBC, aired, AFAICR, in the 70s, he asked one of his
> team what she thought of Americans, and she replied that they never said
> quite what they mean!
Completely off topic for this group.
> On 03/12/2021 01:13, Mayayana wrote:
>>
>> "Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>> In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of Surveillance
>>> Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff
>>
>> I got her book but found it unreadable. I'm not sure why.
>> Maybe it was because it was so longwinded.
>
> Yes! When Alastair Cooke was travelling America filming his series of
> that name for the BBC, aired, AFAICR, in the 70s, he asked one of his
> team what she thought of Americans, and she replied that they never said
> quite what they mean!
>
> This authoress is something of a case in point, verbally sometimes she
> goes round the block to get to the house next door. However, now that
> I've persevered and got well into the book, I'm not noticing the
> verbiage so much.
>
>> But she does seem
>> to be sayig things that need to be said.
>
> Yes, very much so.
>
>> In addition to your
>> mention of Obama and Trump, there's the case of Eric Schmidt
>> trying to sell the 2016 electin to Hillary. He even had detailed
>> plans to get cheap youth labor and then dump them as soon
>> as possible to save money. To think, the Democrats used to
>> be the party of the working person...
>>
>> http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html
>>
>
> So it goes that far back?! Well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised,
> because for sure they had the money by then, and in the UK we've had
> similar issues with social media being used as a political tool.
Java Jive
Dec 3, 2021, 3:07:31 PM12/3/21
to
On 03/12/2021 17:30, Alan wrote:
>
> Completely off topic for this group.
Fuck off troll!
>
> Completely off topic for this group.
Alan
Dec 3, 2021, 3:29:10 PM12/3/21
to
On 2021-12-03 12:07 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 17:30, Alan wrote:
>>
>> Completely off topic for this group.
>
> Fuck off troll!
>
Nope.
> On 03/12/2021 17:30, Alan wrote:
>>
>> Completely off topic for this group.
>
> Fuck off troll!
>
I'll expose your hypocrisy every time!
:-)
AJL
Dec 3, 2021, 3:43:48 PM12/3/21
to
Mayayana wrote:
> we put pointless computerization in cars
I enjoy the gadgets in my cars so not pointless for me.
> we put pointless computerization in cars
> We're creating a complex system of extremely brittle technology that
> we're increasingly dependent on.
Yup. Take away my (Android - makes it on topic) phone and I'd be lost
for sure.
> A nuclear explosion implies war. That would presumably involve
> relatively local effects.
"Nuclear EMPs are characterized by a range of spectrum of frequencies,
pulse waveform shape, duration, and amplitude. A nuclear weapon
detonated between 40 and 400 kilometers can generate an EMP that could
affect up to 70% of the U.S. electric power grid, depending upon intensity."
<https://www.chds.us/ed/resources/uploads/2010/05/2017_HS_Summit_Lane_Electromagnetic_Pulses.pdf>
> A massive solar flare would be planet-wide.
we could sustain our current standard of living without our
modern technology (including chips)...
Alan
Dec 3, 2021, 4:39:37 PM12/3/21
to
On 2021-12-03 12:43 p.m., AJL wrote:
> Mayayana wrote:
>
>> we put pointless computerization in cars
>
> I enjoy the gadgets in my cars so not pointless for me.
Nor the ECU replacing points and the carburetor.
> Mayayana wrote:
>
>> we put pointless computerization in cars
>
> I enjoy the gadgets in my cars so not pointless for me.
When's the last time you tried to start your car and it took more than
one turn of the crank?
:-)
The Real Bev
Dec 3, 2021, 6:44:30 PM12/3/21
to
On 12/03/2021 02:29 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 01:13, Mayayana wrote:
>> I got her book but found it unreadable. I'm not sure why.
>> Maybe it was because it was so longwinded.
>
> Yes! When Alastair Cooke was travelling America filming his series of
> that name for the BBC, aired, AFAICR, in the 70s, he asked one of his
> team what she thought of Americans, and she replied that they never said
> quite what they mean!
I think we watched that series three times and read the book too. He
> On 03/12/2021 01:13, Mayayana wrote:
>> I got her book but found it unreadable. I'm not sure why.
>> Maybe it was because it was so longwinded.
>
> Yes! When Alastair Cooke was travelling America filming his series of
> that name for the BBC, aired, AFAICR, in the 70s, he asked one of his
> team what she thought of Americans, and she replied that they never said
> quite what they mean!
was a real jewel. I remember the woman who lived in Maine (maybe) who
said that the fall colors were a glory and always came as a surprise.
--
Cheers, Bev
"It's no piece of cake, but it sure beats listening to Ted
Kennedy on the Senate floor."
- Jesse Helms describing heart surgery
AJL
Dec 3, 2021, 8:28:42 PM12/3/21
to
side mirrors in and out with a push of a button. Or my memory seat
position button. Or the robot lady I can talk to for various functions.
On a more serious note are the lane change warnings, following too close
warnings, and backup warnings and camera. Definitely an improvement on
my old 49 Chevy. If the pulse comes I may wish I had that old car.
Course I probably couldn't gas it up from the destroyed electronic chip
encrusted gasoline pumps... :-/
The Real Bev
Dec 4, 2021, 2:55:27 AM12/4/21
to
makes up the difference. Comfy seats, a decent radio, heater and AC,
power brakes and steering and GPS units have been around for a long
time. The more complex something is the likelier it is to break and the
less likely it is to be self-repairable.
OTOH, I bought a Corolla so I'd never have to pick up a wrench again...
--
Cheers, Bev
"In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has
had to worry about where the next meal would come from."
-- Peter S. Drucker, who invented management
Mayayana
Dec 4, 2021, 8:19:20 AM12/4/21
to
"The Real Bev" <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote
| There are nice things about newer cars, but the fixability of old ones
| makes up the difference. Comfy seats, a decent radio, heater and AC,
| power brakes and steering and GPS units have been around for a long
| time. The more complex something is the likelier it is to break and the
| less likely it is to be self-repairable.
|
| OTOH, I bought a Corolla so I'd never have to pick up a wrench again...
|
Those are both good points. Electrical problems are
the most common. On my last Toyota, aside from brakes
and muffler, the only problems I had were faulty sensors.
Cars now don't even need tune-ups.
But the sensor business was ridiculous. Two on the
exhaust, one box of some kind in the fuel line, and wheel
sensors that are actually little cameras filming notches in
the disk. $350 for the parts. $700 if I wanted a mechanic
to plug in the cameras for me. And I had to buy an OBD II
meter to figure it out, since they didn't have the sense to
show those numbers on the dashboard. All the problems
were things that didn't exist 20 years ago.
So there are good points and bad. But the technology
itself is not the problem. The misuse is the problem. I now
have a motor shifting vents for heat/AC. It often malfunctions.
I then have to turn off everything, turn it back on, and
hope it will stop blowing AC on a 40 degree day.
The simple cables never malfunctioned. For me to turn a
dial that then calls a motor into action is ludicrous. Power
windows? Great if you can no longer reach the right-side
door because you're too old to stretch. Otherwise it's a lot
of expense for little value. And good luck putting down the
passenger window when the driver has stepped away for
something and turned off the car.
Now we're moving into a new phase, with most cars
spying and calling home. Also, corporate lobbying against
right to repair has been fierce. If laws are not maintained
to block that, we could end up like farmers with John Deere
tractors. Need new tires? You'll have to call Toyota and
schedule an appt. In the meantime, the sensor in the wheel
won't let you drive and the DMCA won't let you fix that. And
people will be asking in newsgroups how their car decided to
pull into Dunkin Donuts after they spoke the word "coffee".
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/what-does-your-car-know-about-you-we-hacked-a-chevy-to-find-out/
| There are nice things about newer cars, but the fixability of old ones
| makes up the difference. Comfy seats, a decent radio, heater and AC,
| power brakes and steering and GPS units have been around for a long
| time. The more complex something is the likelier it is to break and the
| less likely it is to be self-repairable.
|
| OTOH, I bought a Corolla so I'd never have to pick up a wrench again...
|
the most common. On my last Toyota, aside from brakes
and muffler, the only problems I had were faulty sensors.
Cars now don't even need tune-ups.
But the sensor business was ridiculous. Two on the
exhaust, one box of some kind in the fuel line, and wheel
sensors that are actually little cameras filming notches in
the disk. $350 for the parts. $700 if I wanted a mechanic
to plug in the cameras for me. And I had to buy an OBD II
meter to figure it out, since they didn't have the sense to
show those numbers on the dashboard. All the problems
were things that didn't exist 20 years ago.
So there are good points and bad. But the technology
itself is not the problem. The misuse is the problem. I now
have a motor shifting vents for heat/AC. It often malfunctions.
I then have to turn off everything, turn it back on, and
hope it will stop blowing AC on a 40 degree day.
The simple cables never malfunctioned. For me to turn a
dial that then calls a motor into action is ludicrous. Power
windows? Great if you can no longer reach the right-side
door because you're too old to stretch. Otherwise it's a lot
of expense for little value. And good luck putting down the
passenger window when the driver has stepped away for
something and turned off the car.
Now we're moving into a new phase, with most cars
spying and calling home. Also, corporate lobbying against
right to repair has been fierce. If laws are not maintained
to block that, we could end up like farmers with John Deere
tractors. Need new tires? You'll have to call Toyota and
schedule an appt. In the meantime, the sensor in the wheel
won't let you drive and the DMCA won't let you fix that. And
people will be asking in newsgroups how their car decided to
pull into Dunkin Donuts after they spoke the word "coffee".
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/what-does-your-car-know-about-you-we-hacked-a-chevy-to-find-out/
Ken Blake
Dec 4, 2021, 10:26:15 AM12/4/21
to
On 12/4/2021 6:19 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> Now we're moving into a new phase, with most cars
> spying and calling home. Also, corporate lobbying against
> right to repair has been fierce. If laws are not maintained
> to block that, we could end up like farmers with John Deere
> tractors. Need new tires? You'll have to call Toyota and
> schedule an appt. In the meantime, the sensor in the wheel
> won't let you drive and the DMCA won't let you fix that. And
> people will be asking in newsgroups how their car decided to
> pull into Dunkin Donuts after they spoke the word "coffee".
Although it's far from my favorite, Dunkin Donuts is at least
> Now we're moving into a new phase, with most cars
> spying and calling home. Also, corporate lobbying against
> right to repair has been fierce. If laws are not maintained
> to block that, we could end up like farmers with John Deere
> tractors. Need new tires? You'll have to call Toyota and
> schedule an appt. In the meantime, the sensor in the wheel
> won't let you drive and the DMCA won't let you fix that. And
> people will be asking in newsgroups how their car decided to
> pull into Dunkin Donuts after they spoke the word "coffee".
acceptable. If a car pulled into a Starbucks if I said "coffee," I'd
never buy that brand of car.
AJL
Dec 4, 2021, 10:35:01 AM12/4/21
to
On 12/4/2021 6:19 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> On my last Toyota, aside from brakes and muffler, the only problems I
> had were faulty sensors. The sensor business was ridiculous. Two on
> the exhaust, one box of some kind in the fuel line, and wheel sensors
> that are actually little cameras filming notches in the disk. $350
> for the parts.
How much is your life worth? Not long ago I was cruising the freeway
> that are actually little cameras filming notches in the disk. $350
> for the parts.
when a low tire pressure sensor light and buzzer came on. I had picked
up a screw in a front tire. It gave me time to get off the freeway
before things got dangerous. Worst case it may have been a life saving
warning. That wouldn't have happened when I had my 49 Chevy for two
reasons, no sensors and no freeways...
> Power windows? Great if you can no longer reach the right-side door
> because you're too old to stretch.
> And good luck putting down the passenger window when the driver has
> stepped away for something and turned off the car.
she can't open her window. I often accidentally hit it cause it's on the
top of the driver's door arm rest on my SUV. Bad engineering design...
> Now we're moving into a new phase, with most cars spying and calling
> home.
can do: If my car was in Chicago and I was in LA I could unlock it and
start it with my phone...
AJL
Dec 4, 2021, 10:35:03 AM12/4/21
to
On 12/4/2021 12:55 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/03/2021 05:28 PM, AJL wrote:
> There are nice things about newer cars, but the fixability of old
> ones makes up the difference.
True. In the old days I could usually fix my own cars. These days it
> On 12/03/2021 05:28 PM, AJL wrote:
> There are nice things about newer cars, but the fixability of old
> ones makes up the difference.
would likely be impossible for me even if I were physically able to do it.
> The more complex something is the likelier it is to break and the
> less likely it is to be self-repairable.
last time an electronic gadget, be it in the house or in the car, failed
(without my help).
> OTOH, I bought a Corolla so I'd never have to pick up a wrench
> again...
anything but routine maintenance so far (knocks on wood). Modern cars
seem much more reliable than those in my youth.
Ken Blake
Dec 4, 2021, 11:18:27 AM12/4/21
to
On 12/4/2021 8:35 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 12/4/2021 12:55 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 12/03/2021 05:28 PM, AJL wrote:
>
>> There are nice things about newer cars, but the fixability of old
>> ones makes up the difference.
>
> True. In the old days I could usually fix my own cars. These days it
> would likely be impossible for me even if I were physically able to do it.
I've never been good at doing mechanical things (and now that I'm 84,
> On 12/4/2021 12:55 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 12/03/2021 05:28 PM, AJL wrote:
>
>> There are nice things about newer cars, but the fixability of old
>> ones makes up the difference.
>
> True. In the old days I could usually fix my own cars. These days it
> would likely be impossible for me even if I were physically able to do it.
I'm much worse at it), and fixing cars has always been way beyond my
capabilities. But that reminds me of a story:
About 50 years ago, I was driving along a highway one day and I heard a
noise from the engine compartment and the generator light on the
dashboard came on.
I smiled to myself, as I thought the the belt had broken and I was smart
enough to always carry a spare with me.
I pulled to the side of the road, opened the car's hood, and sure
enough, I saw the broken belt.
I opened the trunk, took out the spare belt and the tool kit I always
carried, and went back to the front of the car.
It took only a few minutes to realize that I couldn't figure out how to
get the old one off, let alone the new one on.
Fortunately, a short time later a car pulled up behind and a man much
more skilled than I was got out and changed the belt for me. He got a
substantial tip and I was happy.
AJL
Dec 4, 2021, 12:10:47 PM12/4/21
to
On 12/4/2021 9:18 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> I've never been good at doing mechanical things
I learned to do most of my early car repairs to save a buck. Didn't have
> I've never been good at doing mechanical things
many extra with a large family in those days.
> (and now that I'm 84,
> I'm much worse at it),
expensive technical equipment for proper diagnosis and repair. And also
I don't bend so good anymore...
> and fixing cars has always been way beyond my capabilities.
The Real Bev
Dec 4, 2021, 3:48:47 PM12/4/21
to
On 12/04/2021 07:34 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 12/4/2021 6:19 AM, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> On my last Toyota, aside from brakes and muffler, the only problems I
>> had were faulty sensors. The sensor business was ridiculous. Two on
>> the exhaust, one box of some kind in the fuel line, and wheel sensors
>> that are actually little cameras filming notches in the disk. $350
>> for the parts.
>
> How much is your life worth? Not long ago I was cruising the freeway
> when a low tire pressure sensor light and buzzer came on. I had picked
> up a screw in a front tire. It gave me time to get off the freeway
> before things got dangerous. Worst case it may have been a life saving
> warning. That wouldn't have happened when I had my 49 Chevy for two
> reasons, no sensors and no freeways...
I have low-pressure sensors on the tires, one of which seems to have
> On 12/4/2021 6:19 AM, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> On my last Toyota, aside from brakes and muffler, the only problems I
>> had were faulty sensors. The sensor business was ridiculous. Two on
>> the exhaust, one box of some kind in the fuel line, and wheel sensors
>> that are actually little cameras filming notches in the disk. $350
>> for the parts.
>
> How much is your life worth? Not long ago I was cruising the freeway
> when a low tire pressure sensor light and buzzer came on. I had picked
> up a screw in a front tire. It gave me time to get off the freeway
> before things got dangerous. Worst case it may have been a life saving
> warning. That wouldn't have happened when I had my 49 Chevy for two
> reasons, no sensors and no freeways...
some sort of ultra-slow leak -- from 35 down to 24 in one or two months.
I asked the dealer last time I had an oil change if he could figure
out the problem, but he couldn't. At least he didn't charge me for
checking, if he indeed did. Yeah, I'm ashamed to say I pay for oil
changes now, but at least I use a coupon.
FWIW, I once broke a cheap Harbor Freight open-end wrench loosening the
oil pan drain plug -- which is normally only something like a half-turn
past finger-tight. Really pretty wrench set, too. Yes, they replaced
it with a better one for the difference in price.
>> Power windows? Great if you can no longer reach the right-side door
>> because you're too old to stretch.
to break.
OTOOH, Our 1960 Ford had hand-operated windows. The part that contacted
the bottom of the glass was a round plastic wheel. We had the car a
long time and I had to replace that sucker twice. They couldn't have
made it out of aluminum?
> My cars have switches for all 4 windows in the drivers door. Not yours?
>> And good luck putting down the passenger window when the driver has
>> stepped away for something and turned off the car.
ignition and left the car. Fortunately I had a spare. And speaking of
keys -- We eventually lost the spare key with the transponder, which
made me very uneasy. Getting a new one was $150, which seemed
ridiculous. Pushing a button is nice, but not THAT nice. Local
locksmith made me two ordinary keys for $150 and did whatever magic was
required to make ordinary keys work too. Even that seems really cheesy.
> You forgot to bitch about the child lock. The wife always does that when
> she can't open her window. I often accidentally hit it cause it's on the
> top of the driver's door arm rest on my SUV. Bad engineering design...
adjunct to the stupid little switch in one of the rear doors that
prevents them from being opened from the inside and which inexplicably
get switched ON all by themselves.
>> Now we're moving into a new phase, with most cars spying and calling
>> home.
>
> Yep. Mine's always in contact with Mother. Here's something exciting I
> can do: If my car was in Chicago and I was in LA I could unlock it and
> start it with my phone...
some sort of remote starting device. I can see that something like that
might be useful where freezing weather is the norm, but Southern
California? Presumably the DotD is a national item, so I guess there's
a rational explanation -- although they list those during the summer too.
DotD are normally an item on its last day at the sale price. It used to
have hard drives, sdcards, other computer stuff; now it's mostly
consumer stuff including what must be a freightcarload of Duke Cannon
beard-grooming equipment/supplies and other items needed by Real Men(tm).
--
Cheers, Bev
Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax that man behind the tree.
Mayayana
Dec 4, 2021, 3:52:07 PM12/4/21
to
"Ken Blake" <K...@invalidinvalid.com> wrote
| Although it's far from my favorite, Dunkin Donuts is at least
| acceptable. If a car pulled into a Starbucks if I said "coffee," I'd
| never buy that brand of car.
|
But you wouldn't mind it pulling in without you choosing
to do so? There's a place for you in the future, sir. :)
I would no longer drink either coffee if I don't have to.
When Starbucks opened they had aromatic brew but they
burned the beans. Now they just seem to have watery brew.
But who can blame them? So many people only go in to use
the wifi.
Years ago I used to get Dunkin Donuts iced coffee. It was
OK. But then they started producing a fluid that was yellowish
brown and tasted like instant. Nasty stuff. But that was when
I was young. These days I try to stick to edible food, preferably
organic. Did you know their bavarian creme filling was made
with titanium dioxide? Same stuff used in white paint. I saw
one of the buckets once.
| Although it's far from my favorite, Dunkin Donuts is at least
| acceptable. If a car pulled into a Starbucks if I said "coffee," I'd
| never buy that brand of car.
|
to do so? There's a place for you in the future, sir. :)
I would no longer drink either coffee if I don't have to.
When Starbucks opened they had aromatic brew but they
burned the beans. Now they just seem to have watery brew.
But who can blame them? So many people only go in to use
the wifi.
Years ago I used to get Dunkin Donuts iced coffee. It was
OK. But then they started producing a fluid that was yellowish
brown and tasted like instant. Nasty stuff. But that was when
I was young. These days I try to stick to edible food, preferably
organic. Did you know their bavarian creme filling was made
with titanium dioxide? Same stuff used in white paint. I saw
one of the buckets once.
The Real Bev
Dec 4, 2021, 3:55:55 PM12/4/21
to
letting their radiators cool down. Haven't seen that for decades. My
last car that overheated was a 1968 LTD, which issued steam from under
the hood before the red HOT light came on.
The 1988 Caddy was ultra reliable except for some weird unfixable
throttle problem late in life -- every once in a while it would floor
the gas pedal, requiring super-hard braking and pulling off the freeway
to stop the engine, at which point it started up and behaved normally.
I got used to dealing with that, so it changed the pattern over the next
year or so. In 2016, after I bought the Corolla, I finally let the
State pay me $1K to crush it. I'd given the ungrateful bitch new tires
and brakes the previous year too.
--
Cheers. Bev
It's not true that Lucas, in 1947, tried to get Parliament
to repeal Ohm's Law. They withdrew their efforts when they
met too much resistance.
Alan
Dec 4, 2021, 3:56:42 PM12/4/21
to
Do you know that titanium dioxide is harmful... ...or utterly safe?
Do you have any clue?
The Real Bev
Dec 4, 2021, 4:06:07 PM12/4/21
to
On 12/04/2021 09:10 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 12/4/2021 9:18 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> I've never been good at doing mechanical things
>
> I learned to do most of my early car repairs to save a buck. Didn't have
> many extra with a large family in those days.
Hubby grew up poor -- when his car needed a new tire he got it out of a
> On 12/4/2021 9:18 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> I've never been good at doing mechanical things
>
> I learned to do most of my early car repairs to save a buck. Didn't have
> many extra with a large family in those days.
field near his house where people threw their old tires. He learned to
fix EVERYTHING. When I married him I learned to fix a lot of stuff, but
I really hated it.
>> (and now that I'm 84,
>
> I turn the big eight-zero in a few weeks... 8-O
>> I'm much worse at it),
although I really don't trust them to do it right. I've had too many
bad experiences with incompetent mechanics doing jobs that we couldn't
do ourselves. They can't screw up too badly on oil changes, and I let
my son install new front brake pads -- he fixes everything too, just
like dad used to!
> Me too. But cars are much more complicated these days and require more
> expensive technical equipment for proper diagnosis and repair. And also
> I don't bend so good anymore...
at the gym even if I haven't played tennis for 40 years...
>> and fixing cars has always been way beyond my capabilities.
>
> I doubt that.
to prove it. The Germans always win the World contest, so he doesn't
feel too bad about losing that. The friend wouldn't dream of owning a
BMW unless he got the big discount and had his son to fix it free.
Ken Blake
Dec 4, 2021, 4:06:27 PM12/4/21
to
On 12/4/2021 1:52 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Ken Blake" <K...@invalidinvalid.com> wrote
>
> | Although it's far from my favorite, Dunkin Donuts is at least
> | acceptable. If a car pulled into a Starbucks if I said "coffee," I'd
> | never buy that brand of car.
> |
>
> But you wouldn't mind it pulling in without you choosing
> to do so? There's a place for you in the future, sir. :)
>
> I would no longer drink either coffee if I don't have to.
> When Starbucks opened they had aromatic brew but they
> burned the beans. Now they just seem to have watery brew.
It always tasted burnt to me, but it's been a long time since I tasted it.
> "Ken Blake" <K...@invalidinvalid.com> wrote
>
> | Although it's far from my favorite, Dunkin Donuts is at least
> | acceptable. If a car pulled into a Starbucks if I said "coffee," I'd
> | never buy that brand of car.
> |
>
> But you wouldn't mind it pulling in without you choosing
> to do so? There's a place for you in the future, sir. :)
>
> I would no longer drink either coffee if I don't have to.
> When Starbucks opened they had aromatic brew but they
> burned the beans. Now they just seem to have watery brew.
> But who can blame them? So many people only go in to use
> the wifi.
>
> Years ago I used to get Dunkin Donuts iced coffee. It was
> OK.
> But then they started producing a fluid that was yellowish
> brown and tasted like instant.
AJL
Dec 4, 2021, 9:24:47 PM12/4/21
to
On 12/4/2021 1:48 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> My Corolla once locked its own doors when I'd left the keys in the
> ignition and left the car.
My SUV has no ignition key, only a start button. So the FOB gets to stay
> My Corolla once locked its own doors when I'd left the keys in the
> ignition and left the car.
in my pocket all the time. A good feature for my bad memory.
>> [My car's] always in contact with Mother. Here's something exciting
>> I can do: If my car was in Chicago and I was in LA I could unlock
>> it and start it with my phone.
>> it and start it with my phone.
> I can see that something like that might be useful where freezing
> weather is the norm,
I've never used the phone remote start feature to warm up the car when
> weather is the norm,
it's out of sight because I figure if some perp saw the car running with
no one around he might break the window thinking he could steal it. He
can't of course because it stays locked in park until the FOB and I
arrive but I would still have a broken window. And the FOB by itself
works just fine unlocking and starting when the car is in sight...
Piet
Dec 5, 2021, 5:20:16 AM12/5/21
to
Ken Blake wrote:
> I've never been good at doing mechanical things (and now that I'm 84,
> I'm much worse at it), and fixing cars has always been way beyond my
> capabilities. But that reminds me of a story:
>
> About 50 years ago, I was driving along a highway one day and I heard a
> noise from the engine compartment and the generator light on the
> dashboard came on.
>
> I smiled to myself, as I thought the the belt had broken and I was smart
> enough to always carry a spare with me.
>
> I pulled to the side of the road, opened the car's hood, and sure
> enough, I saw the broken belt.
>
> I opened the trunk, took out the spare belt and the tool kit I always
> carried, and went back to the front of the car.
>
> It took only a few minutes to realize that I couldn't figure out how to
> get the old one off, let alone the new one on.
Broken belts were easily pulled out, if they hadn't fallen out already.
> I've never been good at doing mechanical things (and now that I'm 84,
> I'm much worse at it), and fixing cars has always been way beyond my
> capabilities. But that reminds me of a story:
>
> About 50 years ago, I was driving along a highway one day and I heard a
> noise from the engine compartment and the generator light on the
> dashboard came on.
>
> I smiled to myself, as I thought the the belt had broken and I was smart
> enough to always carry a spare with me.
>
> I pulled to the side of the road, opened the car's hood, and sure
> enough, I saw the broken belt.
>
> I opened the trunk, took out the spare belt and the tool kit I always
> carried, and went back to the front of the car.
>
> It took only a few minutes to realize that I couldn't figure out how to
> get the old one off, let alone the new one on.
And in the old days without smartphones you had to be smart yourself:
a tightly wound nylon stocking would serve well as a temporary belt.
-p
0 new messages