thoughts on this?

Well it's pretty fucked up, but what are your thoughts on it?

My thoughts:

in the trailer Eric Schmidts comment is such a bad argument. Unless it's taken out of context, he was saying that if we don't want to get spied on we should stop using facebook, and google, which is basically what everyone uses the internet for. Ok so he says we should go back to pre-internet age to protect our privacy rights.

overall i mean i think this can make for a very filtered society. Kids grow up with the internet from childhood now, they use google and social networking sites. By the time they will reach adulthood, if government and corporations have increasing amounts of information on them they can just look up their personality, mental disorders and their history. If they don't like them they can choose not to hire them for jobs. Ok so people who don't fit what government or corporations model citizen or worker that they want, they will not hire them for a good job, or they will track them with police. These people, who are undesirables to the powerful will fall into the poorer part of society and will be controlled by fear of earning a living. They will have no power . (they are going to know if someone doesn't use the internet at all-which they can choose not to hire, this goes back to eric schmidts argument) . I mean this doesn't compare to the filtering of something like the katyn massacre, where you just murder 20,000 students because they are more likely to make reasonable arguments against stalinism. But its still a brutal way to filter people.

i think about how fucking smart george orwell must have been

I work with similar concepts such as this, taking different databases, and using it to make meaningful trends/takeaways.I believe it's called business intelligence or BI for short.

Anyway just seeing what we can do with our data is ridiculous. So seeing 1500 different parameters per person is quite scary for me in the sense that it is a very powerful tool which can be used both positively and negatively.

@ Stroggoz
I know we dance around this issue alot, and I hope I'm not offending you in anyway by somewhat repeating earlier arguments. That problem would be sold if we embraced free markets and minimal governments.

Imagine its the 1900's again and everyone treats black ppl like crap. They hate them, they hate the color, they hate the smell, they hate the way they talk. And they hate paying them wages. So to summarize:

1) most everyone hates black ppl
2) black ppl are free to make decisions and choices

So let's say there are 100 textile factories. And 99 of them just despise black ppl and won't higher them unless tehy work for food and room wtih 0 wages. And tehy pay white employess 10$/hr.

Let's say there is 1 textile factory owner, who also hates black ppl, but his factory is under financial distress. He has to either reduce costs, or increase margin. Or let's simply say this guy is greedy (a righteous virtue in capitalism and free markets). He decides to hire them for 1$/hr

what do the blacks do? 1$/hr is the best they can earn what other options do they have? they take the job.

Now let's say another factory owner sees the previous factory owner's success. Let's assume that blacks and whites are equally qualified and efficient for the job .he also hungers for a few extra dollars, he fires all his white employees and hires the black ones for 2$/hr...

Can you see how this is a good thing? Can you see how wages will continue to converge due to "greed" which to me means simply the most efficient allocation of resources?

Even if you look at the world right now, a very similar thing happens. Imagine all the white programmers who enjoyed a near monopoly on that specific skill set with strong 70k + salaries. Now they have to compete with indian code outsourcing. Now they have to take lower salaries. Is this a crime? Is this a bad thing? should we protect white programmers? Why should we make companies pay extra for a service they could get for cheaper. Why not free those extra resoruces into becoming more competitive through R and D, or marketing, or advertising, etc.

So in your situation, if you feel as though the corporate white guys and the indie non filtered Jamaicans wtih dreadlocks, and New Zealnders with their accents are of equal value and net worth, it makes sense that you could compete with the other inefficient corporations who are only looking for corporate white guys.

I don't know if you have a Trader Joe's in NZ but we have a few here in Florida. It's totally the opposite business model. Good relationships with local farms, demand for organic non pesticide food, treats customers well, and treats employees well. Highers ppl with dreadlocks and tatoos, no discrimination. They are a game changer,and a threat to the traditional monster food companies through capital markets.

but imagine if the monster food companies got their hands into legislation. Some new ruling nice and hidden as a bill of morals. Something about how organic/pesticide free food needs 5 times as much water and land than their genetically modified foods. And let's say this is true. So they say something inflammatory like "With over population and millions of americans starving to death every year, and with africa mllions of starving children every year, it is MORALLY WRONG to produce anything other than GMO"

So the bill is passed, Trader Joes gets shut down, local farms have to etiher adopt GMO's or find a newjob, and now you have this shitty world iwthout any choice in food. I think this is closer to the reality you are referring to

Best regards,

Main problem seems that general population puts their trust into the hands of people/entities that don't trust them.

second point, is the "filtering" part stroggz talking about; i think that is of major interest/concern.

And also that general population undervalues their "data"

Its like they are going down the bill of rights and trying to get rid of each amendment one at a time. Damn couldnt get rid of second amendment! Lets move down to the fourth! muwhahahahaha

mnj i am pro free markets apart from the poor countries, which i think need protection so they can develop. The problem is 'real existing capitalism', which says markets are free but they arn't. i guess i didn't communicate that well in my last blogs, where i was trying to argue against what i guess i could call real existing free markets, not free markets. I didn't know back then that there was terminology for what capitalism is in the real world.

of course there are people with different skill levels who are worth more labor than others, people with more privileged have access to better government/education/rights, they are going to be worth more. I don't see how anyone can deny that.

your model works very well and i agree with it, but that is not how the real world works. You have to view the world as lots of people, all with different levels of skill, and coercion over each other. Because the free market only works if people don't coerce each other, and there is no such world like that will ever exist so i find the free market model absolutely pointless to apply to any existing economy.

There is also the matter of creative values that cannot be turned into money, like particular artistic values. You cannot put those things into a 'market' even though they constitute creating a better world.

and yeah that last scenario is pretty close to what im referring to. Although they don't even have to use government to interfere with the market. can just buy em out, stuff like that. Or you could just become more efficient than them and destroy the competition, which is not necessarily always a good thing.

more poker blogs lets see some end of the month results

The problem is the state as usual, who gives a shit if Facebook has your information so they can make better advertizing... fuck I rather get showed shit I like than random shit.

Its only dangerous when that information comes into hands of the government, thats when big brother and the police state come alive.

lol just found a related video with chomsky. So that Eric Schmidt quote was about google glass