Slashdot Mirror

It's a shame that you are focusing on quantity over quality - see if you can condense your mess of thoughts into the key points.

For the sake of any possible Slashdot audience I have to answer the crap you post. It's not like I want to reply to your troll-trash.

Yes, that is a standard problem when you try to fit the data to your perceptions. Try doing it the other way around.

The data exist some others have created been able to compile their numbers from it. It's just that I don't know where-from those numbers are.
If it's from a report it has to be an older report than the 2005 one because the Aftonbladet article about them is from year 2000.
https://www.facebook.com/tino....
Seem like those numbers are from the period 1985-1989, 0.0002% of the Swedes registered for rape, 0.0046% of the people from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia and 0.004% of those from Iraq.
0.004% make them 20 times more common than the 0.0002% of the Swedes, of course it still mean 99.6% of them hadn't been sentenced for rape-offences and 99.98% of the Swedes haven't either.
Among gang-rapes 1991-1999, 58% of the offenders were Swedish-born and 1/4 was foreigners. I would assume by now the foreigners stand for the majority but since the government doesn't want to process the data and reveal how it is now we don't know. Whatever one could get it for each case from the police I don't know. The political forces in Sweden doesn't want data collected based on ethnicity and once people have gotten a Swedish citizenship maybe they would be counted as Swedes in the statistics regardless of what they actually were/are.
In the case of the troubles with sex-offenders in swimming halls which we've had recently asylum seekers dominate completely.
https://www.facebook.com/tino....
https://www.facebook.com/tino....

The confounding factors are never irrelevant to the issue of what the data tells us vs what we project onto it. Do you understand what the confounding factors are in attempting to draw an interpretation from these raw statistics?

The data is the data. It's 100% accurate and the real-deal. It doesn't need any "massaging."

This is demonstrably false. You seem to be mixing relative and absolute measures, which is understandable given your weak grasp of what has been measured.

It may be true but of course I mean relatively speaking. I don't mix them. I just was too fast when stating the point. And the relative measure is the only one which is really interesting anyway. Otherwise it would be like stating that the Chinese own more pants than the Sami people, or watch a lot more TV, and sure enough, they do, because they are so many, but ..

The opinion piece from DN in 2005 is not data. Can you not tell the difference?

BRÃ... has the data and the "opinion piece" is DN cover of that data, the "cultural heritage" claim of it is likely made because adjusting the data for social and economical differences between the groups of people still doesn't put them on equal level. As for doing any such adjustment I just think that result in false values anyway because the reality is that the immigrants are employed less, work less, live on welfare more, have lower education, are mostly men and so on. The real outcome of them coming here include the effect of such factors because they are what they are. Their over-representation is higher than the data isn't adjusted and it's most of it remain even when it is.

The problem isn't the text in DN or "my failure to provide good links", the problem is rather that the data is so fucking hard to find.
This one is available as is likely what the DN text block is about:
https://www.bra.se/download/18...
It's of course a longer read than the DN piece.

http://wwwc.aftonbladet.se/nyh...
Lots of places contain the piece saying those with the highest over-representation is from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia, I've seen claims with specific numbers for them somewhere but that one is hard to find because there's so many places which bring up those four on this subject so I don't know what to google for to find the one with the actual numbers. But those numbers and those repeated claims must come from somewhere but I don't know where.
Sweden used to be a world-leader in statistics and it's nothing weird that we've had statistics of these things previously. Statistics people could access and share and make people understand how it was. By now the government however isn't interested in creating such reports over the statistics.
That I don't know how to find the number (Feel free to call BRÃ... since it's most likely from them and maybe they know, I just don't manage to find the original source numbers by a simple google search and within seconds / by visiting the first hit) doesn't make the data or claim incorrect. It just mean I don't know where it is.

what were the confounding factors in the study?

Irrelevant and just an attempt to excuse the raw data. The immigrants are like they are. They aren't Swedes. Any adjusted data would be false data. And the thing is that even if you adjust it they won't be on par with Swedes anyway.
Sadly we've got Jerzy Sarnecki as researcher and professor in criminology who seem to be of his own political opinion and don't tell how it is and the data in the raw but have to mix in his own political views when "explaining" things ruining the Swedes understanding of these things.
The over-representation of being registered for any crime whatsoever was 2.5 times and when adjusted (= false) it become 2.1 times. In Swedish media, by people who wanna lie, by people like you, that result in claims that make it sound like that adjustment would make all the difference go away, like it even mattered if it did because THE DIFFERENCE IS THERE, the last time I heard about it in more serious media and not just a communist trolling on social media the claim wasn't that it was completely removed, just that "a large share", the larger share or the majority or something such was removed if one considered socio-economic factors, but that's not the truth, the truth is that it dropped from 2.5 times to 2.1 times, which is a difference but a small one not explaining the majority of it.
https://www.facebook.com/tino....
Had the fucking invading parasite plague which it is not been provided with help from the Swedish s

good lord. You continue to speak without any real knowledge. The geysers was an OPEN system. That is the steam was brought up, spun the generator than then dumped on the ground. That dumping on the ground is what brought up all of the pollutants. Once they started re-injecting the water back into the ground (mostly because they had depleted it faster than it could regenerate), they were no longer undergoing massive pollution.

You continue to fight it because your state and utility running them were lazy and cutting corners. Oddly, it was the same issue up in yellowstone by a religious group that did not care about the environment or about the harm to the rest of yellowstone. However, if a geo-thermal is done with re-injection, this solves many issues.
And by not building on fault lines, I would have little fear of drilling/fracking causing issues.
As it is, volcano being used for geo-thermal is already started and going forward in oregon

THe only real problem with geo-thermal are the far left weanies that have NO CLUE of what they are talking about and run around screaming about how horrible all geo-thermal sites based on one site.

The reaction on Facebook is also interesting, in a "what the fuck is going on?" kind of way.

I saw "Hillary Clinton" was a trending topic and was wondering why so clicked on it (something I rarely do). I was amazed to see it was basically wall-to-wall coverage of some comments Hillary made about bombing Syria, followed by gems like this person basically blaming Hillary for the bombing.

From a quick glance there appear to be many people citing this story and abusing Hillary for this action. I am not American so maybe I'm missing some detail, but - she didn't win the election right? She's not somehow in charge of deciding where to drop bombs through some other agency?

Of course, collecting and selling the information gained from those conversations to advertisers, that I'm pretty sure they would (and do) do.

There is no evidence whatsoever that they have done this. They have stated unequivocally that they do not sell your data and never will.

Selling data to advertisers would be stupid, and expose them to consumer backlash and lawsuits. It would make no sense. They make a ton of money by using that data to target ads, so why would they sell it to someone else who could undercut their business? If you were in the milk business, would you sell your cows?

As Elon said at the post-launch press conference, they plan to save this one and donate it to the Cape as a museum piece.

While time will tell the extent of this, I have been recommending the following to my friends (copied verbatim from https://www.facebook.com/stuar... ).

As a precaution, here are some prudent tips:
1. Log into your Apple Account at https://appleid.apple.com/ and enable two-factor authentication if you haven't already (see https://support.apple.com/en-a...) .
2. While you are there, if you have not changed your password in a while, consider doing that too (https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT201355).
3. As the threats include the threat of remotely wiping devices, you can disable this on each of your iCloud connected devices. See Macworld's good article on how to do this for each device type: http://www.macworld.co.uk/how-... . Note that if you do this, you will also be unable to use the Find my iPhone/iPad/Mac feature. Until more details come out, personally I feel this is acceptable given the risk.
4. When you are logged in at https://appleid.apple.com/acco..., check to ensure there are no devices you do not recognise under 'Devices'.
5. For the next few weeks, periodically do a local backup using iTunes of your iDevices. See https://support.apple.com/en-a... and click on 'Use iTunes'. I recommend you also set a backup password, this encrypts the backup and stores additional information making a future restore easier.
6. As always, BACKUP BACKUP BACKUP. For your Mac, I would already hope you have backups in place. If not, my favourite is CrashPlan http://crashplan.com/ and I have used it for years/put many friends onto it also.
Time will tell what will happen with these accounts, it never hurts to take a few prudent steps until the community at large knows more.

Actually, the linked video from a public page works just fine without a FB account (just checked). But don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly upvotable slashdot privacy rant. https://www.facebook.com/SXSWF...

I mean, really, who didn't see this coming?

Not Danny Sullivan. He is a Founding Editor of Marketing Land and a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Marketing Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

This is not an ad for Danny Sullivan.

You forgot Facebook. Messenger is also XMPP based (without the Federation option, just like Google Hangouts). Read the docs: Chat API (Deprecated)

Self-correction: it only had an XMPP API, it wasn't running XMPP internally. source

Something like the common use of XMPP federation is what the article was asking for and it hasn't been solved. It just needs more than a technical solution. How do we get bad faith actors like Google and Apple and Yahoo and ... to stop building walled gardens?

You forgot Facebook. Messenger is also XMPP based (without the Federation option, just like Google Hangouts). Read the docs: Chat API (Deprecated)

I'm in the same boat. I've tried teaching myself this technique, but fail every time. I can't remember the "familiar place", and I can't call up vivid imagery when I close my eyes.

There was a writeup on Aphantasia making the rounds a while ago: https://www.facebook.com/notes...

It's quite a good read. :-)

Ignore the text in my link and just check out the links, it's a collection that I've made with others of modern good music, mostly avantgarde, metal, and electronic. I'm not sure if we have the same tastes, but I think it's still worthwhile to check a few just because it shows that there are still artists who invest effort in their music.

https://www.facebook.com/lnate...

Well then, how about one called The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party? www.facebook.com/groups/545267922328106/ Though on a more serious note, I did put more thought into it thsn that, but couldn't determine if there might be someone who wouldn't mind creating a Democratic-Republican-Whig psrtu Facebook group with me. If someone is interested, they can contact me at https://www.facebook.com/hackw... or go it alone.

Well, go start your own web forum. If you don't like what Twitter does, there's a whole world out there. Go to it. But I guarantee you, if you simply allow the cranks to control your medium, it will fester into nothingness.

Someone did, it's called Gab.ai, and it's specifically a haven for free speech.

Their version of censoring is to let everyone censor what *they* see on the site. An individual can "mute" other users or specific words, so if someone keeps posting things that bother you you can "mute" them so that you don't see them. If individual words trigger an unpleasant memory for you, you can mute individual words and you'll never see them.

The thing about calling people racist/sexist/nazi is definitely real.

Kellyanne Conway typing on her cell phone during a meeting of black dignitaries is definitely racist!

From that facebook post:

I sincerely doubt that Kellyanne Conway would be on the couch, shoes off, on her knees, looking at her phone, if the room was full of white dignitaries or CEOs that she actually actually respected.

Here's the full context which shows that she was setting her phone to take a group photo.

People are seeing racism everywhere right now, even where it doesn't exist!

If you try logging in you reset the counter.

https://www.facebook.com/help/...

Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.

How is that even relevant? In this case it was ABC that was redistributing the footage.

you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Someone shared your sh*t? Too bad - you have ZERO control over it at that point, even if you delete it.

I used to think that way too. But intelligent people dispassionately analyzed his policy statements during the election, and arrived at two conclusions: 1. The few concrete policy statements he made, would never work. (Ex: Building a wall, tax plans, etc.)

Here's the thing. You didn't even read what he said. Here it is again. If you don't want to read it, that's fine, but be aware that if you don't, you're not contributing to the conversation, you're detracting from it.

2. He made so few coherent statements that it was hard to figure out what his policy objectives are.

That might have been an excuse during the election, but actions speak louder than words, and it's pretty clear that he meant some of the words he said during the election. Do you really think he didn't mean it when he said he would block Muslim countries from coming into the US? Or that he wouldn't build the wall?

I'll be honest, I didn't particularly take him seriously during the election, but at this point, it's a lot easier to see what his policy objects are because he's actually implementing them.

Hillary's speech about this was right on the money. She said all of us will now, if we're smart, will try to support good policies that he proposes and oppose bad ones

Yeah, I really wish we were more focused on the policies. Here is what Trump said about his recent executive order. Instead of just calling him a big baby, or racist, or narcissistic whatever, I'd like to see some actual analysis of his policies. For example, here are some questions worth discussing:

1) Is there a better to way to keep terrorists from entering the country? Is that a worthy goal? How would you do it?
2) Is Trump aware of the problems he's caused to some immigrants stuck in the airport? (I think the answer is yes)
3) Will immigration really resume in ~90 days, when "we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies?"

At this point there's no reason to continue hating on Trump. Yes, he seems rather despicable, but dispassionately analyzing goals and policy objectives will be more effective (the protests are falling on deaf ears).

There was some debate about what to do, and we proposed a compromise where resources with a long max-age would never get revalidated, but that for resources with a shorter max-age the old behavior would apply

This seems like a reasonable change. Now I can sleep better without having to worry about a million calls tomorrow about "your web-based product no longer works in Chrome".

Are we that different now? How about this generation? https://www.facebook.com/myian...

https://www.facebook.com/Steph...
This is a post by Stephen Crab - who was at the time the person in charge of UK disability allowances, complaining about an incident of vandalism at his office.

The edited post is " A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are considered able to work with support in the future."

The original post is "A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are able to work. "

The original version is a completely wrong statement. This post lead to people looking at other tweets and social media, which revealed that MPs making a critical vote about removing disability payments likely believed that the group in question was found able to work, when this is not so.

An example (somewhat contrived) of the people who benefit is being removed from in this case might be someone who can slowly wheel themselves 200m several times a day in a wheelchair, understands only short sentences, can talk to people only a couple of hours a day, is blind but can read braille, can just about understand how to use a washing machine, who shouts out randomly. They have not been found 'able to work'.

They have failed to pass the most stringent criteria in order to have no requirements as to things they must do to be "work ready" placed on them, and there is no requirement for them ever to be able to realistically work in the future.

Because sometimes important people post on facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/Steph...
This is a post by Stephen Crab - who was at the time the person in charge of UK disability allowances, complaining about an incident of vandalism at his office.

The edited post is " A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are considered able to work with support in the future."

The original post is "There has been a lot of miscommunication about this vote which I want to put right. A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are able to work. "

The original version is a completely wrong statement, and especially with the line about 'miscommunication' makes it especially illuminating. This post lead to people looking at other tweets and social media, which revealed that MPs making a critical vote about removing disability payments likely believed that the group in question was found able to work, when this is not so.

An example (somewhat contrived) of the people who benefit is being removed from in this case might be someone who can slowly wheel themselves 200m several times a day in a wheelchair, understands only short sentances, can talk to people only a couple of hours a day, is blind but can read braille, can just about understand how to use a washing machine, who shouts out randomly. They have not been found 'able to work'.
They have failed to pass the most stringent criteria in order to have no requirements as to things they must do to be able to work in the future placed on them, and there is no requirement for them ever to be able to realistically work in the future.

Your suggestion:

2) Always lie about your age, use a fake name, and never provide a real address

Facebook's Terms of Service:

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

I don't think that complies with the CFAA. Violating the terms of service is illegal. You are teaching them to be criminals!!!

Besides this little detail, your simplification for kids seems pretty good. Changing the law so that they aren't considered criminals for following it is the solution.

I have the following blocked:

http://ads.rubiconproject.com/...
http://adserver-us.adtech.adve...;
http://ak.sail-horizon.com/hor...
http://ak.sail-horizon.com/sco...
http://cdn.krxd.net/controltag...
http://cdn.taboola.com/libtrc/...
http://cdn.tinypass.com/xbuild...
http://player.ooyala.com/ooyal...
http://player.ooyala.com/stati...
http://staticxx.facebook.com/c...
http://www.googletagmanager.co...
http://www.googletagservices.c...
https://bam.nr-data.net/1/4b41...
https://static.chartbeat.com/j...
https://staticxx.facebook.com/...

Maybe the tinypass is the thing to block?

I also have RefControl and GreaseMonkey installed. Those might help.

I have the following blocked:

http://ads.rubiconproject.com/...
http://adserver-us.adtech.adve...;
http://ak.sail-horizon.com/hor...
http://ak.sail-horizon.com/sco...
http://cdn.krxd.net/controltag...
http://cdn.taboola.com/libtrc/...
http://cdn.tinypass.com/xbuild...
http://player.ooyala.com/ooyal...
http://player.ooyala.com/stati...
http://staticxx.facebook.com/c...
http://www.googletagmanager.co...
http://www.googletagservices.c...
https://bam.nr-data.net/1/4b41...
https://static.chartbeat.com/j...
https://staticxx.facebook.com/...

Maybe the tinypass is the thing to block?

I also have RefControl and GreaseMonkey installed. Those might help.

It is/was called partner categories - "Available Targeting Types" should tell you what kind of data are available.
Especially data from credit cards operators seem to be quite scary: you even may target people with expiring car insurance.
And if you wonder: "Moms" are "green moms", "techno moms" and so on.

I wonder if shanen's friends know of this creepy side of his personality?

One wonders if shanen's friends know of this creepy side of his personality?

You do grok that people who sign up for Facebook are fully aware of all that shit as stated right there in the signup process?

o Privacy
o Cookies
o Ad Choices
o Terms

As to why people use Facebook, it's none of your fucking business.

You do grok that people who sign up for Facebook are fully aware of all that shit as stated right there in the signup process?

o Privacy
o Cookies
o Ad Choices
o Terms

As to why people use Facebook, it's none of your fucking business.

You do grok that people who sign up for Facebook are fully aware of all that shit as stated right there in the signup process?

o Privacy
o Cookies
o Ad Choices
o Terms

As to why people use Facebook, it's none of your fucking business.

You do grok that people who sign up for Facebook are fully aware of all that shit as stated right there in the signup process?

o Privacy
o Cookies
o Ad Choices
o Terms

As to why people use Facebook, it's none of your fucking business.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/yelp-extortion/

http://nypost.com/2014/10/13/restaurant-fights-yelps-alleged-extortion/

https://www.facebook.com/YelpExtortion/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3046136/Is-Yelp-scared-bad-review-Company-defensive-filmmaker-nears-completion-documentary-exposing-website-s-extortion-small-businesses.html

And 126,000 other results on Google from a search for "Yelp extortion." Took all of 0.50 seconds.

Grammar saves lives.

Let's eat, gramma!
Let's eat gramma!

https://matthewsavides.wordpre...

Nice pic
https://www.facebook.com/Lets-...

btw.

https://www.facebook.com/hasht...

#mercedesstanowskiego

Use google translate for reading. Mercedes social meda (and real media) fail for fun and (lack of) profit.

I wonder why no one has challenged the constitutionality of said "scheduling" of drugs and their prohibition?

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.293792274019430.69649.100001659783339&type=3&l=642688d04e

One problem is that much that is disputed is also time-sensitive, what is "fact" changes over time, sometimes because more "facts" become known, sometimes because they turn out to be false. You can try and check that something was factual _when_ it was published, but on the web publications can be trivially updated.

Take this: https://www.facebook.com/thein...

Lovely video on fact-checking, except that it doesn't fact-check itself, the google search shown in the video turns up loads of results that are reporting the story as news (and about an equal number reporting it as fake), the video claims a google search will not find the story, maybe it didn't when the video was made, but the video is _now_ demonstrably false itself.

At the end of the day whether you use Google, Snopes or Upworthy for fact checking, you are still trusting someone else to curate your news and therefore are subject to their biases and agendas.

Yep

Clearly not! https://www.facebook.com/NowTh... Reality distortion field engaged!

The timeline is well explained in some of the stories. If you don't understand, that's a personal fault of yours, and in no way affects the well documented incident (with medical reports, and confirmation/denials from Apple) all consistent and well explained.

Medical records which don't indicate anything other than the patient reporting the burns to have come from an iPhone7. Let's review the time as reported by the patient:

• Melanie Tan Pelaez had her iPhone 7 plugged into the charger and was watching movies from her device when she fell asleep
• In the morning, she woke up to pins and needles down her arm and knew something was wrong.
• “I went to get dressed and realised my arm was very red, so I then went to the GP and they advised me I needed to go straight to the hospital”
• “The hospital did a number of tests and told me the mark was a burn from a foreign object and told me to check around my bed to see what could be the cause of the injury.”
• Patient posts photo on facebook
• Patient returns for a follow up with a discharge note that suggested burn came from iPhone 7 but doesn't indicate how this was determined as referenced in this photo.
• Patient takes phone to Apple Store. They indicate the phone shows no signs of having caught fire
• Apple sends the phone to California to have an engineer analyze the phone.
• Ms Tan Pelaez said she has been offered a new iPhone 7 from Apple, but that is all that has come from the tech giant. She declined the phone. One would assume that Apple offered her a new phone since they have the old one.

So where is there some sort of forensic analysis that the burns match an iPhone? They sure as hell don't look anything like an iPhone to me. Where did Apple confirm anything? There's nothing in the timeline to suggest that any of this is related to an iPhone. And where in all of this did she stop to take a picture of the phone? Wouldn't you document it if you thought your phone caught fire and burned you? Or is she suggesting that the phone got so hot that it caused the burns pictured but that it did not cause the battery pack to swell or any other signs of damage to show on the phone?

https://www.facebook.com/Chris...

Yes! Here's a facebook group I started years ago about this topic.

https://www.facebook.com/Aboli...

This was after having to write a scheduling app and dealing with timezones/area codes/zip codes. It was a nightmare.

Are you talking about the same US that shoots journalists who interview someone who isn;t liked by the government?

https://www.facebook.com/erins...

As a reminder for anyone who may need Facebook for communication of any kind (especially in countries attempting to prevent free speech), Facebook officially runs a Tor hidden service.

Details: https://www.facebook.com/faceb...

Tor Hidden Service: https://facebookcorewwwi.onion...
(or as they call it, Facebook Core WWW Infrastructure)

And here it is, November 1, and I was watching the Cubs game in the back yard with tiki torches and lemonade. I thought I would hate Houston, but I really like it a lot.

Don't worry. You will hate it next year, when the weather is more typical.

Plus, there are terrific taco trucks here. I mean, tacos that can make you weep.

You are in the land of tacos.

And people are really nice, unlike the people where I was in New England, who are insular, judgmental assholes.

Houston is not too bad, although a lot of those people are not actually nice. They are just playing nice. They would just as soon sell you up the river for a dollar. People pretending to be nice is slightly more pleasant, though.

I keep getting friend request spam on facebook from obviously fake accounts, and when I report them, facebook responds with a message to the effect of "we reviewed the account and it is a real person", including ones with obvious spam posts like this one:

https://www.facebook.com/profi...

Either facebook's reviewers are fucking retarded or they get paid to keep accounts like this active.

In Schlosberg's case, the charges don't even make sense. For example, theft of property or service. Do they allege that she stole the pipeline? Or that she caused it to carry her own crude oil without paying?

As for Goodman, here's the video.

His argument for the riot charge is that she did not fairly (in his view) cover both sides and therefore was not engaged in journalism. You can judge for yourself by watching the video in question.

By that argument, FoxNews is guilty of inciting riots, as is MSNBC. That's not a reasonable standard.