My advice, and take it as you will; if you want to "get low level with him" by using a programming language, forget it. Low level programming is something you need to understand completely in order to enjoy. I would start off with a simple and straight forward language. My personal choice would be Ruby, for it's clear syntax, and powerful features, but obviously this may not be everyone's cup of tea. Python or Java may be a good alternative. I would not suggest Perl as your first language, since it tries to cater to too many programming styles, and would be really confusing for a beginner. Whichever language you choose, use it to teach him programming fundamentals; specifically how to construct a logical framework that will solve a given problem. Do not get too deep into implementation: he is not likely to be ready to hear about memory management at this point. If you want to get creative, you can get him used to different paradigms, such functional programming with Lisp. Of course, this may be of limited use, depending on what he expects to do with these skills.

After that, if you, and he, truly have your minds set on low level languages, then I would start a bit lower with digital circuit design, with the basics of logic gates and memory. After that, at least cover the very basic CPU design. It should not be too hard to explain the basic RISC pipeline. In this stage it is critical not to delve into details, because while the concepts themselves are straightforward, covering all the formulas, special cases, rules, and caveats is enough to fill a four year engineering program. From then you can touch on assembler, and only after that would he actually be able to get the full benefit of knowing and understanding a low level language. If he does have a talent for it, then I strongly recommend the former method to get him familiar with the basic ideas, then the latter method to teach him how those basic ideas tie into existing systems.

Further, if you do try something like that, I would take a day at the start to go over how it all will tie together in the end. Maybe even make a diagram. This will save you a lot of headaches in the future, since you will be able to redirect all the "Why are we doing this again?" questions.

If he has the patience for it, this sort of knowledge would give him an invaluable step up on his classmates, so I do agree that it would be time well spent.

To put this in perspective: you just completely ignored his well constructed argument for why these millions of people may net you MORE money than a movie that was not pirated at all, just to address an ideological concern that these random people simply should not have it, thus it is wrong. I ask you then to explain to me, and the rest of the world the following questions:

What benefit does your system offer, that overrides the good of the system proposed by loren? Who benefits in your situation? Is there more money flowing somewhere that I'm missing? Who is to say that people should have not gotten to see it, some words on paper, do you have anything a bit more concrete?

Also, payment of money is a concept made up because it is convenient to have the ability to assign a specific value to a specific object. That, however, does not mean that payment cannot happen in other ways, for there are lots of items of value in the world. For example, if your word was able to get 10 people to actually see the movie, then couldn't you say that the net effect is that these words were really worth 10 people worth of movie tickets sales? You were under no obligation to give your recommendation, but in doing so you paid your dues. So, now I must ask: what has value in your world? Obviously cash is worth something, and most likely gold, but what about gems, or perhaps oil, how about other minerals, maybe the products constructed from those, and why not the ideas that go into making these products. After all, the major corporations pay pretty well for these ideas, and have for a very long time. Of course if ideas are worth something, then it's not a far reach to say any words may be.

So I could reasonably argue that by downloading the movie, watching it, and recommending it to your friends, perhaps even writing a review online you more than paid off your debt. Think on it.

That's grossly misinterpreted analogy. As I mentioned in my original post, it would be far easier for the government to go to a telecom that has infrastructure and the process to spy on you, instead of going to a company that actually tries to protect your data for their own benefit. Also, a company that focuses on data that is commercially viable for them, and may not be what th government is after.

In other words, this is not the difference between opening the door to your house, this is like going, "Well, someone might break into my house, so not only am I going to lock my door, but I will never go shopping at my grocery store again, because I'm afraid they might not lock their doors at night, and they might find out how many bags of milk I get a week."

If a so called "e-spy" wants to break into your "e-door" there are infinitely easier ways than breaking into one of the most advanced tech companies in the world. In fact, they would most likely break into your computer outright. Unless you are a really good system administrator, with too much time on your hands, you probably don't have a dedicated IDS, constantly updated firewall, complex traffic analysis systems, and strict security policies on your home computer.

I think 3 may actually be a bit more likely than you think.

The long boot times are really a relic of legacy systems. We have been using essentially the same boot process for decades, and it's just not able to keep up with the features available in modern hardware. However, there is light on the horizon, as some upcoming standards may finally get us to reasonable speeds.

Hardware/driver hell should also not be a problem for much longer. The system should technically have all the info it needs to get set up, and there are more and more standards that dictate the features that the hardware must provide. A bit more work on developing a system to sync all this together, and in a few years computers may really be just as easy and quick to set up and use as consoles are now.

That said, I actually agree that consoles are here to stay. However, I think we may see a change in what we call a console, and for that matter, what we call a PC, before the next decade is done. In fact, I would not be too surprised to see a synergy of what today are two as separate platforms. This would have the added benefit of shutting up both the "Consoles are Dying!" and the "PCs are Dying!" crowds.

Please read, and understand the posts I make before trying to take them apart. If something is not clear, then you look foolish resorting to insults when a simple question may have sufficed.

Anyhow, I mentioned the government because if you were to go back over the comments for this article, you would see that one of the most common concerns is "what if the government wants to track me?" Further, it is the only concern I see that is actually somewhat credible. My line about you being "interesting to spy on" was meant to connect the idea of the Google database to the idea of the government being interested in you. Just because you think an example is unlikely does not mean it is not an important concern for the topic. In fact, it appears that we are in agreement that a real investigator would not be easily deterred. That is all that needs to be said about the topic, and that was exactly what I was trying to convey by expanding on the Government to ISP example.

Next, yes, it really is a matter of people not caring to maintain their privacy. I get nothing beneficial from having my online presence remain secret. The reply before yours did have that patently ridiculous examples of searches for condoms resulting in samples in the mail, but I think most people can understand that no one would have all the info, AND the money to do something like that. At most, you might get a condom ad the next time you go to your favorite porn site.

Regarding the actual concept of privacy. I did not say that it is infeasible in all situations. There are times when it is quite important, and there are plenty of techniques that can ensure it. What I am trying to understand is why would I want to take those steps for a situations where I am not particularly concerned about keeping my browsing habits secret.

So we get to the crux of the matter; you are correct in that I do not understand how this info is detrimental to me. Exactly WHY should I, or a person in general care about such information sitting on some corporate computers, tied to a number that represents a cookie saved on my computer? I have seen references to mythology, insults, misinterpretations, and claims that I simply do not understand. There was a nice example bringing up political opponents or enemies getting access to this data, but unless your arch-rival is a server admin for Google, or a federal judge with the ability to sign warrants, your data is probably at least as safe on the Google servers as it is on your internet connected computer. Even if they do get access to this data, it is not likely to give them much more than my shopping habits, which are pretty benign. There was also mention that the result of not hiding your info "[cannot] be better than neutral," but I submit that most of the time the result is just neutral, with exceptions for when someone is seeking you out. We already addressed the last situation above, and given a situation that neither benefits nor harms me, why should I expand significant effort to ensure that I go from one neutral situation, to another neutral situation? However, none of this explains exactly what I do not understand, and why I do not understand it.

Now, I did not portray all privacy advocates as any of those things you mentioned. Instead, I was discussing those that truly go to extreme lengths to protect their privacy, at least without due cause. If you have a real reason to want privacy, then obviously you are entitled to it, or if you already have your privacy ensured, then there is no reason to turn off the system, as long as it does not get in the way of your browsing. However, if you spend a significant portion of your day worrying about what others might find out about you online, and thinking of ways to hide it, then you are paranoid, unrealistic, and egotistical. The definition fits, so there is not much to discuss.

And to finish off, we have an obvious insult. You are clearly well educated, at least try to conceal your taunts a bit.

I am also waiting for at least a few links links on this really simple, easily-researched, easily-verified issue. It should be enlightening. To finish off, I would like to point out that most of the really big privacy breaches that I have read about recently have been leaks perpetrated insiders. Perhaps, the best first step to ensuring privacy is controlling who you tell the things you REALLY don't want others to find out. Hint: if the first thing on that list is "The Internet," you're doing it wrong.

Good point, there is indeed a difference between active investigation, and the generic crawling. However, that was not the point of the paragraph where that sentence appeared, nor is it related to my argument as a whole. The fact that you see this tidbit three paragraphs in should be testament to that. The purpose of that section was to serve as a specific example, used to illustrate the hypothetical situation of someone purposefully investigating you. That is probably the most popular concerns when discussing this topic, so it needed to be addressed.

By contrast, you appear to be describing a situation where you don't want the data going to Google simply for the sake of not letting Google have that data. If that is the case, then I refer you to the last paragraph of my original post. If all you want is to ensure no one has a profile of you, then you are welcome to forgo the services in favor of your privacy. If you want the services, you pay for it by giving them a profile of your character. However, no one has yet to explain how this data is actually detrimental to you, beyond the stuff I already mentioned. As such, while the point may be good, to account for it would be to account for some specific quirks of a small number of very paranoid individuals.

Actually, no. There really is little to no middle ground in this. The internet, by its nature, is an open platform. When you are on the internet, you are going to be leaving traces, unless you go to extreme measures not to; be those traces on google computers, or in the logs of hotgoatsex.com. Of course you probably could figure out a way to use some complex series of multi-level encrypted proxies, bouncing around the world before getting to what you want, but to be honest, that's the type behavior and time investment I would expect from either a real tin-foil-hat freak, or a bot-net owner. (Tor does not count, for technical reasons that have been mentioned numerous times already)

You say that the only Google service you use is their engine. That must mean that you block every single ad tracking cookie, all the Google APIs, Google Analytics, and the loads of useful services they offer. Services, I would like to remind you, are used in more and more sites, because they give site owners important data. All this, because of a view that you, and specifically you are interesting enough to follow. Of course I do not know anything about you, but I find it quite unlikely that you show up as anything more than a tiny blip on the radar, unless you make a habit of talking about making bombs, killing presidents, or other stupid stuff such as that.

Granted, perhaps you really do take all these steps. However, let's be frank. If the government wanted to learn something about you, they would just go to your friendly neighborhood telecom oligopoly. The ISPs, after all, have long proven themselves more than ready to give out whatever data they have, for pennies per request. They already have the ready made infrastructure to track every single byte you, or anyone, send out. Google, on the other hand, does have their little "do no evil" mantra that they try to follow as much as a huge corporation can. As such, they are much more likely to demand a full warrant before sharing what they know. After all, this knowledge is their lifeblood, it would pay to keep it as secret as they can.

Regarding the idea of the slashdot fallacy that you keep pushing around, perhaps I could bring up such novel concepts as a Metaphor, Sarcasm, and even Exaggeration. I believe those might be pertinent to the example at hand. I'm sure you can figure out that no one REALLY thinks you need to pack your bags, and move to South America. Instead, they are trying to convey the idea that by going this far out of your way to ensure what illusion of privacy you chose to maintain (Which, considering you chose to post on a message board on the internet really is not that much), you are likely missing out on some of the features that make the internet the amazingly useful tool that it is. You could almost say that you are "living in the jungle." So, yes, you could continue practicing exposing the sarcastic musings of the slashdot population, but I would argue that if this is what you were after, your time may be better spent on a debater's forum. I'm sure you could even find a few that do not use anything google yet.

Now please, don't take this as an argument for why you should use google. If you have concerns, then it is entirely within your right to try to ensure your privacy as much as you can. Instead, I am trying to illustrate that this illusion of privacy that you maintain is most likely just that, an illusion. At most, you are ensuring that one of the myriad of third parties that potentially has access to your info has a bit less than they would otherwise. Of course, I may be wrong, and you really might be an internet ninja. In that case, congratulations, you have successfully hidden data that no one would really care about anyway. Unfortunately, in doing so you probably raised some flags somewhere, and may now be significantly higher on the "to track" list than many others.

Or, more likely, they will abandon the project as hopeless, especially when one of the TOR nodes is in another country.

Very good post. I do so hope that people will figure out that every company needs at least some source of income. However, I disagree with your statement that Google is an advertisement company. From what I have seen and learned of them, Google is an engineering company more than anything else. They get market share and good will by offering services, and then make money by selling products that make use of those services to accomplish very specific tasks.

I also think your view on Google and Microsoft's strategies is right on for the short term, but a bit limited for the long term. In my view, there is much more going on than what you suggested, in both companies. I'm sure we will find out in the coming years though.

Well appreciated, but some of these people are so lazy and uninformed because they quite literally do not understand that there is something they can do to help the situation.

If you're someone that still does not really understand the internet, even when it's as mainstream as it is now, you must not be someone that seeks out information. Knowing that, it is likely that you would not know about any of the other places to seek out information, such as the state banking department. You would quite literally need to be explained how to fix the situation, and then have it hammered into your head that living beyond your means makes you a drain on society; too much of your money ends up going to one company, and not going to so many others that you would otherwise buy service from.

Err, sorry, did not address everything. Regarding bankrate.com. If the banks were to provide a little brochure that said "Congratulations, you totally messed up your credit. Go to bankrate.com to fix it," then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

However, I know a lot of people, mostly older, that quite literally have no idea how to use the internet. The idea that you can go on the internet, and find this info is completely foreign to them. We take it for granted, simply because we have been doing it for such a long time, but compared to us they are internet toddlers.

To answer your question, I'm an engineer, not a financier, so no, I am not intimately familiar with all the regulations of the business. Obviously you understand more about the topic than me, but you are completely focused on the current system, when I am discussing why the current system does not work, given what I know about it. Perhaps there are some new regulations that will improve the situation, but again, I do not follow this area actively. Instead I prefer to dwell on technology, politics, and the various sciences. As such, most of my understanding of this topic comes from reading political news detailing the problems faced by those suffering from bad credit card debt.

I stand corrected about capital requirements, however, I have never heard of a credit card company refusing to pay a CC bill, so in my mind, it would stand to reason that even with those requirements, they have quite a bit of leeway.

Also, the consumer should be the first person responsible for their own actions. I am not proposing that the companies watch over every action every customer takes. Instead, I want the companies to take some responsibility for helping out the ones deepest in debt, if only by offering advice, or getting them in touch with services to help them make a positive change.

And again, "don't run it up" is good advice for those starting fresh. Unfortunately, it does nothing for those that have already run it up. Also, personally, I'm perfectly fine with the policies. I pay off my bills on time, and do not have any outstanding debt that could harm me. But I am not trying to come up with solutions for me, since I have no reason to change a system I am sufficiently satisfied with.

Next, I disagree that just because you can turn a bigger profit, you can. There are many factors to consider, including cost to your company, cost to society (Something many companies ignore), cost to environment, cost to the national interests, cost to international relations, and countless other costs. Balancing a bank book if you only look at it in terms of dollar values gets you more money, but I would argue that it ends up costing the race more in the long run. Now please, don't get me started on Microsoft, and Verizon, and their ilk. If you think I had a lot to say about credit card companies, just wait until you see what I have to say about a area of professional interest to me.

Finally, I did not explain it well enough, because I clearly see that we are still talking about slightly different things. I am trying to come up with random suggestions that may help the people stuck in the system, while I see you trying to convince me that the system already works. I do not mean to suggest that the system is completely broken, simply that it can be optimized for better performance, and reduced overall cost.

If they owe so little that they can repay it quickly, they are not really suffering from the 30% interest rates. At most, they might eat a month or two of interest, which will not kill them. I agree with you that the problem lies in giving the people the credit. However, I'm more interested in fixing the problems already experienced by those deep in debt.

As for why these companies should shoulder at least some of the responsibility, let us look even more deeply at how they work. First, paying of a credit card is not like paying off a loan. If you pay off the minimum amount, you are not actually doing anything to your principal. Instead, you merely pay off the interest you may accumulate for that segment of time. That means you are trapped with the same interest rate each month, until you can save up enough to start paying that off. Further, having an outstanding debt is not stopping them from lending money to others.

It is not correct to imagine a credit card company as an entity that can only lend out from the specific pool of money they have assigned. The money that they loan to one person has little direct effect on what they loan to another. It is simply numbers floating in a database, that are agreed on by a lot of people to represent this abstract debt. Obviously, if the problem gets out of hand, with the majority of your customers owing you huge sums of money, the company can suffer too, but it is their responsibility to watch over that aspect of their own business. Meanwhile, if a few customers are slow to pay off, you will probably put them in the high risk pool, which you budgeted for at the beginning of each year.

Now, since they are in such a powerful position, I would argue that they have an obligation to help resolve issues that may be caused by their draconian policies. If for no reason than the fact that they have readily available all the information, contact info, and history to provide this service.

Also, I do not consider bankruptcy a bad thing. If you are really having trouble, then it is something you must consider. It is, however, a bad thing if you are a credit card company, because then you are likely to lose your investment completely. Therefore, it is in your best interest to provide some protection to your customers, in order to serve your own interests.

As for reasonable interest rates, you can open any economics text book, and it will state approximately what a company can expect to make in a given market segment. Similarly, you can go to the bank, and check the terms on a line of credit for your given credit rating. Therefore, reasonable is defined by market forces.

For my 401(k), if you take away the profits from credit card companies, it will simply have to diversify some more, and may even end up with more money for me. Just because some people benefit from it, does not automatically imply that it is reasonable to expect that there are no better alternatives. Worst, if I am getting too much from credit card companies, and they collapse under the weight of these policies, I will be the one to suffer.

Finally, remember, I am not saying that credit card companies need to become non-profit entities. They can still turn a profit, it's just that this profit, and the wages they take in needs to be more in line with other businesses. Just because you work in the financial market, does not automatically entitle you to taking more of that money for yourself. By that logic, if you do not work for a computer hardware company, you should pay 10x what I do for anything that exists on silicone.

This mess may be a bit hard to read, but I'm getting a bit weary of having to explain the same thing over and over again, so I will not be going over my post to clean it up and re-order it. Please understand, I am not calling for the utter destruction of the current system. Instead, I would like people up top to take more responsibility, and help those with problems to do the same. In short, I think the system can work pretty well, it just needs to be optimized.

If you make such a mistake, you are not likely to be able to pay it off for the rest of your life without some help. But hey, shut the fuck up, and pay it off like a man. It will only take all eternity, but that builds character.

Well, perhaps it should be. Clearly, the people that get into debt with these credit cards are not aware of how they work.

You are speaking as a logical and intelligent person, so of course for you these sort of things are clear as day. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same skills and know-how that you are gifted with. In the end, they end up suffering endlessly for it. Worst of all, even if they really do want to improve their situation, there is next to no recourse, because to find a solution they need to obtain these skills the might not even know are missing.

I am not trying to argue that they are blameless, and deserve no punishment for what the did. I think we can all agree that they screwed something up pretty bad. Instead, I want to give these people the ability to fix these mistakes. If that means treating them like elementary school students, then so be it. It beats having them live their entire life hating the world, and teaching their kids that hate too.