Why shouldn't the kids see these videos? It's not like it's porn or bloody murder. So they get to see a kook, and their parents get a lot of questions for a week.
No, it's not a breach, Facebook is correct on that point. The real issue here, and one that Facebook seems to be pulling off successfully judging by some of the replies so far, is that Facebook's response to 50m user profiles being harvested and abused is to turn it into a discussion about semantics.... a bad actor like Cambridge Analytics in the mix.
It seems like you are lost in the same fight against semantics. User profiles were harvested, because that is what they are there for. But how are the users abused, other than receiving campaign attention? And how do you judge that Cambridge Analytics is a bad actor in establishing that attention?
These people were not scammed of their life savings, no one opened credit cards in their names, and no one lost their house over this. But because it favored one political candidate, it causes outrage. Why?
Some of us don't use Facebook. I don't care what Facebook knows about me. And I'm sure they know something, since my family members use it. But they con't track my location, calls, emails, and other personal stuff that could only come from me.
It helped me understand how anyone could call someone who was quite apparently making bombs "not a bomb maker".
When I was in the military, one of the guys in base housing decided he could make a lot of money cooking up drugs in his kitchen. Like Breaking Bad, but a decade earlier.
Well, when the military police busted him, and saw what chemicals he had already bought to make the drugs, the prosecutors decided it was easier to prosecute him for explosives than for drugs. So he got sentenced to a decade in prison for bomb making, when all he wanted to do was sell drugs.
This isn't any different from pulling over all the people driving red cars because a red car was used to rob a convenience store. Unless there's more than just a car color, there's no legal cause for pulling them over.
A coupe years back, a guy robbed a bank. He took off just before the cops got there, but stopped at a red light. The police realized he was in one of the cars waiting for the red light, but with 25 cars, they had no idea which one. Should they just let all of them go because there's no legal cause to stop the innocent people in the other two dozen cars?
No, the cops did not let them go. They blocked the traffic, got dozens of officers on site, and then proceeded to search each car one at a time. Each driver was taken out and handcuffed, the car was searched for weapons and cash, and as it was cleared the cops moved to the next one. Eventually they got to the car with the bank robber, who was arrested. No shots were fired, no one was hurt.
That is what is legal in finding and arresting someone when you don't know who is the guilty one.
So that's the blocks to each side of the crime site, around the time of the crime. Since they aren't asking for info not near the crime site, and not around the time of the crime, I think that is where you will find a line.
Of, you can just pull the battery out, assuming you've gone one of the last 3 models of phone that allows you to do it. Within a very short period of time, any capacitors in the phone will be discharged as well, making it impossible for the phone to tattle.
The real problem here though is that we have two globalist leftist parties in the US that think it's OK to ignore the entire US Constitution.
"American media giving trump 6 billion dollars of free air time" hissing and spitting on him the whole time. Even Fox News, for those who think it supported Trump.
It's funny to see Spotify mentioned. Last week I looked at my bank balance, and found out someone charged a Spotify subscription to my debit card. Must be for a year because it was $119 and change. Went right to my bank and reported it. Thankfully I don't subscribe to any of those services, so could state clearly it wasn't maybe some old auto-renew I had forgotten about. The bank just finished removing the charge from my account today.
That would seem to be the best argument, but the story says that even in those densely populated cities Google Fiber only has a half million subscribers.
Maybe going to the remote towns across the midwest would give better return after all.
"So why have two conditions named the same thing, when they are only related by the word "insulin"?"
They don't have the same name. One is called type 1, the other type 2.
Types of what disease? Diabetes. Yes, they have the same name.
Furthermore, people who matter aren't confused by this, even if you are.
I didn't say I was confused, I said people argue semantics because different conditions have the same name.
Also, this "research" does not suggest that diabetes is "actually five separate diseases", it "showed the patients could be separated into five distinct clusters". Those are not remotely the same thing.
This research still wants to call different and unrelated conditions with the same name. It just has a different grouping than Type I and Type II.
I see so much arguments over this that boils down to having completely different conditions having the same name. It would be similar if all kidney issues were lumped into one category of "kidney failure", when one is from a treatable bacterial infection, one is from a genetic birth defect, one is from a severe car accident, and three are from different types of tumors or cancers. Calling them all "kidney failure" because the kidney isn't working would be senseless from a treatment or prevention point of view.
This is why I think they should split diabetes into two (or more) different conditions. Traditionally, diabetes meant the body didn't produce insulin, so patients had to take insulin shots. Obviously they have to watch their sugar intake and blood sugar levels. That was Type 1, and would correlate with the Clusters 1 and 2 in the post.
Type 2 diabetes is different in that the body produces insulin, but the cells don't use it as they should. Adding an injection of insulin will do no good for these people, as they do have insulin already. This would be the Clusters 3 and 4 above.
So why have two conditions named the same thing, when they are only related by the word "insulin"?
He wasn't talking about children stricken with Type 1 diabetes. He was talking about 'adult onset' or Type 2 diabetes, which is a totally different condition.
Well, speaking of down modding, would it be possible to mod those repetitive racist crap posts to -2, so we never even see them while browsing at -1? I'm not talking about the usual flamebait posts among normal users, just those that have cropped up lately that take advantage of the system knowing most of us browse at -1.
Right, that is my point. It isn't some arcane situation that only experienced programmers would know from similar experience. It is a rather strange yet simple task.
As I mentioned, I am not a programmer, but I have had programming classes going back to BASIC in grade school, RGP in high school, COBOL in high school and college, Pascal thru Delphi in college, C++ class at some point with a smattering of self-paced (in 24 Hours (yeah, right)) books. I haven't touched Java, Perl, or any of the other 'newer' languages, because that's not my occupation. But if I was fresh out of those college courses I could certainly make a script to return fizz or buzz as needed. Even in BASIC it wouldn't be too hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Why shouldn't the kids see these videos? It's not like it's porn or bloody murder. So they get to see a kook, and their parents get a lot of questions for a week.
No, it's not a breach, Facebook is correct on that point. The real issue here, and one that Facebook seems to be pulling off successfully judging by some of the replies so far, is that Facebook's response to 50m user profiles being harvested and abused is to turn it into a discussion about semantics.... a bad actor like Cambridge Analytics in the mix.
It seems like you are lost in the same fight against semantics. User profiles were harvested, because that is what they are there for. But how are the users abused, other than receiving campaign attention? And how do you judge that Cambridge Analytics is a bad actor in establishing that attention?
These people were not scammed of their life savings, no one opened credit cards in their names, and no one lost their house over this. But because it favored one political candidate, it causes outrage. Why?
Some of us don't use Facebook. I don't care what Facebook knows about me. And I'm sure they know something, since my family members use it. But they con't track my location, calls, emails, and other personal stuff that could only come from me.
It helped me understand how anyone could call someone who was quite apparently making bombs "not a bomb maker".
When I was in the military, one of the guys in base housing decided he could make a lot of money cooking up drugs in his kitchen. Like Breaking Bad, but a decade earlier.
Well, when the military police busted him, and saw what chemicals he had already bought to make the drugs, the prosecutors decided it was easier to prosecute him for explosives than for drugs. So he got sentenced to a decade in prison for bomb making, when all he wanted to do was sell drugs.
This isn't any different from pulling over all the people driving red cars because a red car was used to rob a convenience store. Unless there's more than just a car color, there's no legal cause for pulling them over.
A coupe years back, a guy robbed a bank. He took off just before the cops got there, but stopped at a red light. The police realized he was in one of the cars waiting for the red light, but with 25 cars, they had no idea which one. Should they just let all of them go because there's no legal cause to stop the innocent people in the other two dozen cars?
No, the cops did not let them go. They blocked the traffic, got dozens of officers on site, and then proceeded to search each car one at a time. Each driver was taken out and handcuffed, the car was searched for weapons and cash, and as it was cleared the cops moved to the next one. Eventually they got to the car with the bank robber, who was arrested. No shots were fired, no one was hurt.
That is what is legal in finding and arresting someone when you don't know who is the guilty one.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
So that's the blocks to each side of the crime site, around the time of the crime. Since they aren't asking for info not near the crime site, and not around the time of the crime, I think that is where you will find a line.
Of, you can just pull the battery out, assuming you've gone one of the last 3 models of phone that allows you to do it. Within a very short period of time, any capacitors in the phone will be discharged as well, making it impossible for the phone to tattle.
The real problem here though is that we have two globalist leftist parties in the US that think it's OK to ignore the entire US Constitution.
I just watched the video. Thanks for the link.
I just watched the video. Thank you for the link.
"American media giving trump 6 billion dollars of free air time" hissing and spitting on him the whole time. Even Fox News, for those who think it supported Trump.
It's funny to see Spotify mentioned. Last week I looked at my bank balance, and found out someone charged a Spotify subscription to my debit card. Must be for a year because it was $119 and change. Went right to my bank and reported it. Thankfully I don't subscribe to any of those services, so could state clearly it wasn't maybe some old auto-renew I had forgotten about. The bank just finished removing the charge from my account today.
They found Jonathon Livingston Seagull.
All but one of the victims will see an appropriate punishment.
That would seem to be the best argument, but the story says that even in those densely populated cities Google Fiber only has a half million subscribers.
Maybe going to the remote towns across the midwest would give better return after all.
Healthcare has been mostly private ownership and control for most of our history. Nothing was ceded to them.
Yes, but I was responding to another AC who specifically was talking about his child who had Type 1, and it not being caused by Starbucks.
"So why have two conditions named the same thing, when they are only related by the word "insulin"?"
They don't have the same name. One is called type 1, the other type 2.
Types of what disease? Diabetes. Yes, they have the same name.
Furthermore, people who matter aren't confused by this, even if you are.
I didn't say I was confused, I said people argue semantics because different conditions have the same name.
Also, this "research" does not suggest that diabetes is "actually five separate diseases", it "showed the patients could be separated into five distinct clusters". Those are not remotely the same thing.
This research still wants to call different and unrelated conditions with the same name. It just has a different grouping than Type I and Type II.
Do you understand where insulin comes from?
I see so much arguments over this that boils down to having completely different conditions having the same name. It would be similar if all kidney issues were lumped into one category of "kidney failure", when one is from a treatable bacterial infection, one is from a genetic birth defect, one is from a severe car accident, and three are from different types of tumors or cancers. Calling them all "kidney failure" because the kidney isn't working would be senseless from a treatment or prevention point of view.
This is why I think they should split diabetes into two (or more) different conditions. Traditionally, diabetes meant the body didn't produce insulin, so patients had to take insulin shots. Obviously they have to watch their sugar intake and blood sugar levels. That was Type 1, and would correlate with the Clusters 1 and 2 in the post.
Type 2 diabetes is different in that the body produces insulin, but the cells don't use it as they should. Adding an injection of insulin will do no good for these people, as they do have insulin already. This would be the Clusters 3 and 4 above.
So why have two conditions named the same thing, when they are only related by the word "insulin"?
Just my non-medical two cents worth.
He wasn't talking about children stricken with Type 1 diabetes. He was talking about 'adult onset' or Type 2 diabetes, which is a totally different condition.
Knowing that someone sees I downvoted ridiculous crap from "those guys" wouldn't stop me from honestly downvoting ridiculous crap.
Well, speaking of down modding, would it be possible to mod those repetitive racist crap posts to -2, so we never even see them while browsing at -1? I'm not talking about the usual flamebait posts among normal users, just those that have cropped up lately that take advantage of the system knowing most of us browse at -1.
The Ukrainians.
It was weird.
I went for a walk outside. I think I got a bit sunburned.
You should sue. I would, but it was snowing so I just bought a dog.
Is that what you kids are calling it nowadays? What was wrong with 'the monkey'?
Right, that is my point. It isn't some arcane situation that only experienced programmers would know from similar experience. It is a rather strange yet simple task.
As I mentioned, I am not a programmer, but I have had programming classes going back to BASIC in grade school, RGP in high school, COBOL in high school and college, Pascal thru Delphi in college, C++ class at some point with a smattering of self-paced (in 24 Hours (yeah, right)) books. I haven't touched Java, Perl, or any of the other 'newer' languages, because that's not my occupation. But if I was fresh out of those college courses I could certainly make a script to return fizz or buzz as needed. Even in BASIC it wouldn't be too hard.