A number of years back the computer industry tried pulling this stunt with UCITA. It provided a uniform license for software that in theory greatly simplified licensing.
It sounded great in the soundbites the tech giants put out at the time. However, once you got into the details it quickly became apparent that the law that was completely tilted in their favor. For example it made it legal to remotely shut off users software in the event of a contract dispute.
This is effectively UCITA 2.0 and must be opposed just as strongly as UCITA was. Don't allow the tech giants sell out your privacy rights. UCITA was defeated, this too can be defeated.
Saying someone was trying to hack the DNC doesn't mean anything. Any organization of a certain size or reputation deals with hack attempts 24/7/365. Many organizations have their own SOC just to deal with the non stop attempts. Smaller organizations will often outsource their SOC to a specialist company when they don't have the resources.
Low level hack attempts are a bit like CMB. It's everywhere you look, in any direction you look, it never ever stops and quickly becomes background noise.
I once bought a canister of oxygen for doing some plumbing work. While hooking it up I noticed warning label stating that the contents were known to cause cancer in the state of California. If oxygen can cause cancer, than anything can cause cancer.
While I am a strong supporter of net neutrality, in the end some things are even more important...
- opposes net neutrality + understands that the people who wrote the constitution should be deferred to when legal questions arise about the document that they wrote. + firm supporter of the 2nd amendment, without which all other amendments become moot
Certain companies (Mercedes etc.) that have the resources to do so have been working in Africa for decades. The Chinese companies that have been investing in Africa are doing so with government support: http://www.cadfund.com/en/News...
My point was the typical lay company or person doesn't have the resources to take that risk. More to the point, even if my thinking was outdated, that doesn't change the perception that people have. Until Africa gets serious about tackling corruption they will continue to have these issues.
How many companies write off doing business with Africa due to rampant and persistent fraud from Nigeria alone? Whether your buying or selling to Africa, the risk of theft and fraud is more than a lot of businesses and people want to deal with. How much business is lost in Africa due to these concerns? Africa needs to deal with corruption if it ever wants to truly prosper.
It's all about the use case. Just because I need a portable computer, doesn't mean I need to sit at a cafe all day.
Most people that use laptops for work leave them plugged in most of the time. While I appreciate a long battery life, I need the ability to perform my work to begin with.
Please have some courage and release a pro version of your laptop. If IBM and Dell can do this, you can do the same. It's the year 2018, 16 GB should be a base, not the maximum.
It's a myth that you can solve problems in education by just giving schools more money. It's not the amount of money that schools have, it's how they spend the money they have.
"Money alone does not guarantee success any more than a lack of it guarantees failure. Paul Reville, the former Massachusetts education secretary, says not all districts there were able to translate funding increases into academic gains. Often, the difference was how they spent the extra money."
Internet sites are at least in some part responsible for the divisions within society increasing. The reason is simple enough, when you visit the site, it immediately tries to learn what you like and give your more of it.
The idea is innocuous enough, they simply want to increase engagement between the user and the site. The result is that the user is quickly exposed only to those things that the site thinks are of interest to you.
It is quite is easy to create an experiment and see for yourself. Clear your cookies (flash based etc.) and create a new user, ideally on a different browser than you normally use. Compare what you see to your existing user and browser and you will see just how far your experience has been curated just for you. The problem is that in doing this users quickly lose exposure to different ideologies.
The result is that instead of connecting society, Facebook, Google etc have instead created echo chambers. They are so efficient at telling people what they think people want to see that people no longer even see the headlines for anything else. When people only hear things from one ideology they tend to become less rounded and more partisan. The longer the ideological echo chamber is allowed to persist, the more partisan society will become.
Actually the robot attendant (technician) probably makes better money than whatever their old job was. The issue becomes when companies use robots to reduce total head count. Some companies reduce the work force, others train their works to do things that can't readily be done with robots and expand their business.
It's a lesson I learned year ago when I first saw what automation could do in the computer field. It was a blunt lesson that I would either be automated out of a job or I could be the one doing the automation.
A breach has a specific technical meaning. This is a technical site. This wasn't a breach, this was at most a contract violation. This page does a decent job of describing incidents, breaches and the like:
Microsoft finally comes up with a way for the user to potentially have some level of control over their patches. All you have to do is mess around with a registry key and forgo all patches altogether. People have been demanding to have some level of control and this is what Microsoft comes up with...
Anybody who thinks Facebook doesn't have the opportunity and means to abuse this data is either a fool or willfully ignorant (otherwise known as your congress critter).
Just imagine what Gawker can do with ethics and credibility. Gawker exhibited the worst of ethics free reporting and had the audacity to call it journalism. The potential of what Gawker could be under the right management is incredible.
They are specifying CNN as a preferred source for a fact theme website? The same CNN that made the term fake news a household name. The same CNN that had a reputation for fake news bad enough to require a marketing campaign for damage control?
CNN alone gets over 6 million hits for fake news on google. To put this in comparison one of the few notable right wing sites, Breitbart has fewer than 700,000. Even with partisan politics in play that is a huge disparity.
If they want this site to have any credibility at all they have to do better than CNN. They have to get sites that at least make an effort not to be biased. As it stands this website is no better that an AP or Reuters news feed. They need to hire fact checkers that are not blatantly biased in one direction or another. Better yet they need to publish the bias of their fact checkers as well as the methods they use to for checks and balances against their fact checkers bias. At best this site is a cheap Snopes knock off with just as much political bias in play.
Acceptance as a source of truth requires credibility. Credibility requires owning and mitigating your bias.
To quote Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics
I think most people are well aware that Puerto Rico is in no position to pay for an island wide solar power. Consider that an island of 3.4 million people recently declared bankruptcy on $70 billion of debt. This was in the news and people are well aware just how destitute they are, therefore they realize just how absurd it is for the island to pay for solar power.
There is also the matter of looking at their power needs. The people their can't afford the cost of solar energy as they already pay higher electrical costs than 49 out of 50 states. They pay these costs when making far less money than people in the United States - and that's before the hurricane wiped out far too many jobs.
Their problem isn't their power plants, they are largely intact. Their problem is the power lines, lines that would still have to be rebuilt even if they did use solar.
Even MIT has debunked the ludicrous idea of Puerto Rico rebuilding with solar. In short they need about 20 billion megawatt hours per year. Tesla's south Australia facility will produce 129 million megawatt hours. The two are an order of magnitude apart in scale.
To quote MIT on the matter "And given estimates that restoring the grid could take up to six months (not including Teslaâ(TM)s involvement), one is left wondering if the cost, complexity, and longevity issues donâ(TM)t make the suggestions rather more bluster than substance."
To say that Tesla could or would actually build out something that would meet the needs of Puerto Rico is absurd for anyone other than Tesla to say.
Facebook's discrimination against anyone that isn't progressive or liberal is very well documented. Unfortunately this is an issue as they have a monopoly on social media the likes of which the world has never seen. This gives them the ability to manipulate public discussion and discord that is the envy of many nation states. An example of Facebook abusing their monopoly is their attempts to redefine the truth using progressive political activists as fact checkers.
People are waking up and realizing that the facebook ministry of truth is more focused on propaganda than facts. It hasn't even been a year and their fact checking efforts are having only a very slight difference or even backfiring.
However, Facebook will unquestionably learn to be more subtle in their political manipulations in the future. When you privatize the public square you also effectively privatize constitutional rights. Should facebook be broken up or regulated? Their position, power and propensity to abuse their power has created a threat to our democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
You hit the nail on the head.
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
A number of years back the computer industry tried pulling this stunt with UCITA. It provided a uniform license for software that in theory greatly simplified licensing.
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.co...
It sounded great in the soundbites the tech giants put out at the time. However, once you got into the details it quickly became apparent that the law that was completely tilted in their favor. For example it made it legal to remotely shut off users software in the event of a contract dispute.
This is effectively UCITA 2.0 and must be opposed just as strongly as UCITA was. Don't allow the tech giants sell out your privacy rights. UCITA was defeated, this too can be defeated.
Saying someone was trying to hack the DNC doesn't mean anything. Any organization of a certain size or reputation deals with hack attempts 24/7/365. Many organizations have their own SOC just to deal with the non stop attempts. Smaller organizations will often outsource their SOC to a specialist company when they don't have the resources.
Low level hack attempts are a bit like CMB. It's everywhere you look, in any direction you look, it never ever stops and quickly becomes background noise.
I once bought a canister of oxygen for doing some plumbing work. While hooking it up I noticed warning label stating that the contents were known to cause cancer in the state of California. If oxygen can cause cancer, than anything can cause cancer.
While I am a strong supporter of net neutrality, in the end some things are even more important...
- opposes net neutrality
+ understands that the people who wrote the constitution should be deferred to when legal questions arise about the document that they wrote.
+ firm supporter of the 2nd amendment, without which all other amendments become moot
Certain companies (Mercedes etc.) that have the resources to do so have been working in Africa for decades. The Chinese companies that have been investing in Africa are doing so with government support: http://www.cadfund.com/en/News...
My point was the typical lay company or person doesn't have the resources to take that risk. More to the point, even if my thinking was outdated, that doesn't change the perception that people have. Until Africa gets serious about tackling corruption they will continue to have these issues.
How many companies write off doing business with Africa due to rampant and persistent fraud from Nigeria alone? Whether your buying or selling to Africa, the risk of theft and fraud is more than a lot of businesses and people want to deal with. How much business is lost in Africa due to these concerns? Africa needs to deal with corruption if it ever wants to truly prosper.
It's all about the use case. Just because I need a portable computer, doesn't mean I need to sit at a cafe all day.
Most people that use laptops for work leave them plugged in most of the time. While I appreciate a long battery life, I need the ability to perform my work to begin with.
Dear Apple,
Please have some courage and release a pro version of your laptop. If IBM and Dell can do this, you can do the same. It's the year 2018, 16 GB should be a base, not the maximum.
It's a myth that you can solve problems in education by just giving schools more money. It's not the amount of money that schools have, it's how they spend the money they have.
Spending more money doesn't improve quality.
https://www.americanexperiment...
Schools actually spend more on minority students than white students
https://www.brookings.edu/blog...
The GAO has something to say:
https://www.gao.gov/products/G...
Even NPR came to the conclusion that simply adding more money doesn't neccasarily help:
https://www.npr.org/sections/e...
"Money alone does not guarantee success any more than a lack of it guarantees failure. Paul Reville, the former Massachusetts education secretary, says not all districts there were able to translate funding increases into academic gains. Often, the difference was how they spent the extra money."
Internet sites are at least in some part responsible for the divisions within society increasing. The reason is simple enough, when you visit the site, it immediately tries to learn what you like and give your more of it.
The idea is innocuous enough, they simply want to increase engagement between the user and the site. The result is that the user is quickly exposed only to those things that the site thinks are of interest to you.
It is quite is easy to create an experiment and see for yourself. Clear your cookies (flash based etc.) and create a new user, ideally on a different browser than you normally use. Compare what you see to your existing user and browser and you will see just how far your experience has been curated just for you. The problem is that in doing this users quickly lose exposure to different ideologies.
The result is that instead of connecting society, Facebook, Google etc have instead created echo chambers. They are so efficient at telling people what they think people want to see that people no longer even see the headlines for anything else. When people only hear things from one ideology they tend to become less rounded and more partisan. The longer the ideological echo chamber is allowed to persist, the more partisan society will become.
Censorship on Reddit is alive and well. Freedom on Reddit only exists for politically correct opinions. This has been going on for a few years now...
https://themerkle.com/reddit-c...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...
https://www.change.org/p/reddi...
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Actually the robot attendant (technician) probably makes better money than whatever their old job was. The issue becomes when companies use robots to reduce total head count. Some companies reduce the work force, others train their works to do things that can't readily be done with robots and expand their business.
It's a lesson I learned year ago when I first saw what automation could do in the computer field. It was a blunt lesson that I would either be automated out of a job or I could be the one doing the automation.
I made my claim and provided citations to support it. You made your claim, you provide the citations.
Bad example, the Koch brothers hate Trump
https://www.vanityfair.com/new...
When they agreed with Trump on something Politico actually found it newsworthy and posted a story about it
https://www.politico.com/story...
Trump has a low opinion going back to at least the election
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
Their strong dislike of Trump is still very current
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
A breach has a specific technical meaning. This is a technical site. This wasn't a breach, this was at most a contract violation. This page does a decent job of describing incidents, breaches and the like:
https://iapp.org/news/a/is-it-...
This isn't CNN, these things matter. Please keep your politics out of our technology news site. Is that too much to ask?
Where's the option to mark a story with a -1 Troll? If this story were any more inflammatory it would contain trigger warnings for snowflakes.
Microsoft finally comes up with a way for the user to potentially have some level of control over their patches. All you have to do is mess around with a registry key and forgo all patches altogether. People have been demanding to have some level of control and this is what Microsoft comes up with...
To quote Homer (Simpson)
D'oh!
Anybody who thinks Facebook doesn't have the opportunity and means to abuse this data is either a fool or willfully ignorant (otherwise known as your congress critter).
Just imagine what Gawker can do with ethics and credibility. Gawker exhibited the worst of ethics free reporting and had the audacity to call it journalism. The potential of what Gawker could be under the right management is incredible.
The public disagrees with you, which is reflected in their ratings. CNN's ratings have been in a downward spiral for quite some time now.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/S...
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
http://press.foxnews.com/2017/...
They are specifying CNN as a preferred source for a fact theme website? The same CNN that made the term fake news a household name. The same CNN that had a reputation for fake news bad enough to require a marketing campaign for damage control?
http://variety.com/2017/tv/new...
CNN alone gets over 6 million hits for fake news on google. To put this in comparison one of the few notable right wing sites, Breitbart has fewer than 700,000. Even with partisan politics in play that is a huge disparity.
If they want this site to have any credibility at all they have to do better than CNN. They have to get sites that at least make an effort not to be biased. As it stands this website is no better that an AP or Reuters news feed. They need to hire fact checkers that are not blatantly biased in one direction or another. Better yet they need to publish the bias of their fact checkers as well as the methods they use to for checks and balances against their fact checkers bias. At best this site is a cheap Snopes knock off with just as much political bias in play.
Acceptance as a source of truth requires credibility. Credibility requires owning and mitigating your bias.
To quote Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics
I think most people are well aware that Puerto Rico is in no position to pay for an island wide solar power. Consider that an island of 3.4 million people recently declared bankruptcy on $70 billion of debt. This was in the news and people are well aware just how destitute they are, therefore they realize just how absurd it is for the island to pay for solar power.
There is also the matter of looking at their power needs. The people their can't afford the cost of solar energy as they already pay higher electrical costs than 49 out of 50 states. They pay these costs when making far less money than people in the United States - and that's before the hurricane wiped out far too many jobs.
https://www.eia.gov/state/anal...
Their problem isn't their power plants, they are largely intact. Their problem is the power lines, lines that would still have to be rebuilt even if they did use solar.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Even MIT has debunked the ludicrous idea of Puerto Rico rebuilding with solar. In short they need about 20 billion megawatt hours per year. Tesla's south Australia facility will produce 129 million megawatt hours. The two are an order of magnitude apart in scale.
https://www.technologyreview.c...
To quote MIT on the matter "And given estimates that restoring the grid could take up to six months (not including Teslaâ(TM)s involvement), one is left wondering if the cost, complexity, and longevity issues donâ(TM)t make the suggestions rather more bluster than substance."
To say that Tesla could or would actually build out something that would meet the needs of Puerto Rico is absurd for anyone other than Tesla to say.
Never let a disaster go to waste. $$$$$$$
Facebook's discrimination against anyone that isn't progressive or liberal is very well documented. Unfortunately this is an issue as they have a monopoly on social media the likes of which the world has never seen. This gives them the ability to manipulate public discussion and discord that is the envy of many nation states. An example of Facebook abusing their monopoly is their attempts to redefine the truth using progressive political activists as fact checkers.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12...
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...
http://www.breitbart.com/radio...
People are waking up and realizing that the facebook ministry of truth is more focused on propaganda than facts. It hasn't even been a year and their fact checking efforts are having only a very slight difference or even backfiring.
https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
However, Facebook will unquestionably learn to be more subtle in their political manipulations in the future. When you privatize the public square you also effectively privatize constitutional rights. Should facebook be broken up or regulated? Their position, power and propensity to abuse their power has created a threat to our democracy.