Talk:Consumerium Credit - Revision history

Jukeboksi: more argumentation why this is a bad idea

2003-11-26T22:37:43Z

more argumentation why this is a bad idea

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 26 November 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:That's why I put it on its own page. It's linked from [[visions]] and [[best cases]] now. Feel free to link it from [[worst cases]] and even [[threats]] with an explanation of how it could go wrong and discredit/disincentivize the whole system. Frankly I don't see any other way to actually ''know'' whether a user obeyed their own [[buying criteria]], and the '''Ubiquitous''' case actually implies more [[privacy]] exposure by revealing whether someone bought something bad to everyone ''else''.		:That's why I put it on its own page. It's linked from [[visions]] and [[best cases]] now. Feel free to link it from [[worst cases]] and even [[threats]] with an explanation of how it could go wrong and discredit/disincentivize the whole system. Frankly I don't see any other way to actually ''know'' whether a user obeyed their own [[buying criteria]], and the '''Ubiquitous''' case actually implies more [[privacy]] exposure by revealing whether someone bought something bad to everyone ''else''.

			We have more down to earth issues to deal with and besides my personal view is that paying with cash is nice. Maybe we just have to trust people that they "put their money where their mouth is" most of the time. Have you thought of this as an issue that could ruin the whole [[consumer]] [[privacy]] issue that is still a fundamental requirement for this to make any sense to a concerned individual who wants [[features\|better knowledge]] of what every [[product]] has consumed.

142.177.103.109: yeah, there's issues, so link them from worst cases or threats even, that's why this is a separate scenario/proposal on its own page

2003-11-26T22:10:10Z

yeah, there's issues, so link them from worst cases or threats even, that's why this is a separate scenario/proposal on its own page

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 26 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Oh no no no. This is not a good idea even to throw in the air. We should focus on implementing the planned [[Features]] for the [[consumer]] and [[Consumerium Services]] for more active participants and leave this kind of stuff to the technology consultant groups who are all busy trying to invent something to keep them busy in the eyes of their customers		Oh no no no. This is not a good idea even to throw in the air. We should focus on implementing the planned [[Features]] for the [[consumer]] and [[Consumerium Services]] for more active participants and leave this kind of stuff to the technology consultant groups who are all busy trying to invent something to keep them busy in the eyes of their customers.

			:That's why I put it on its own page. It's linked from [[visions]] and [[best cases]] now. Feel free to link it from [[worst cases]] and even [[threats]] with an explanation of how it could go wrong and discredit/disincentivize the whole system. Frankly I don't see any other way to actually ''know'' whether a user obeyed their own [[buying criteria]], and the '''Ubiquitous''' case actually implies more [[privacy]] exposure by revealing whether someone bought something bad to everyone ''else''.

Jukeboksi: bad idea

2003-11-26T21:56:50Z

bad idea

New page

Oh no no no. This is not a good idea even to throw in the air. We should focus on implementing the planned [[Features]] for the [[consumer]] and [[Consumerium Services]] for more active participants and leave this kind of stuff to the technology consultant groups who are all busy trying to invent something to keep them busy in the eyes of their customers