You can go to jail for lying to Congress even if you're not under oath. I completely believe that Facebook is scraping audio from recording for advertising, but not eavesdropping on us otherwise.
I posted this in another thread the other day. Some similarities & differences between what the Obama campaign did and what Cambridge Analytica did.
The Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica both gained access to huge amounts of information about Facebook users and their friends, and in neither case did the friends of app users consent.
But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.
If you believe that Trump has spurred the job market, you're a Trumpette. If you think people should be fed even if they can't afford it, you're a libtard. There is no middle ground.
Using binary for your user name is almost as irritating as using 'Anonymous Coward' as your user name.
He's the only one I know using a string of 1s & 0s for his username with a 6-digit UID. His username is easier to recognize than 'rickb928' or 'gnick'.
'Anonymous Coward' is someone I know and personally have good reason to despise. Their politics merely reinforce that opinion.
What did AC do to you? AC seems to be a little schizo, since I've seen him take pretty extreme positions in every direction of politics. Not sure how you can disagree with everything. Seems like too much effort to "despise" anonymous posters.
There are famous people on twitter, some (maybe most) of them aren't the actual people, just their PR teams, or interns...
I follow DJT; he's the only reason I have a Twitter account. He SHOULD have a team managing his Tweets, but I'm quite confident that many come straight from him.
The only thing crypto currency is good for is generating hype stories and bubble inflation...
...and buying contraband. As long as it's good for this, it's not going to disappear entirely. Cryptocurrency is still the primary trading medium for the dark web.
Drivers that are deaf or hard of hearing can adjust their driver safety habits by relying more on their seeing sense to compensate for the loss of hearing.
On a comic page, the illustrator could embellish those seven words with whatever context strikes him as appropriate. One great aspect of a graphic novel is the marriage of prose and illustration.
If you're going to scribble on my book with blood, I'd prefer a pentagram or some Wakandan tribal art to a forged signature. Even just a round blot with a note that says, "Aim cloning ray here." I'd prefer a book still in mint condition to one with a fake autograph.
Why would I want to go down to an overcrowded, smelly convention centre to spend time with muppets dressed up in costume?
I kept hearing about this TV show "Star Trek". People seemed really excited about it and I wanted to learn more. Since I assume that none of my friends or coworkers have ever watched an episode, I naturally booked a flight to Vegas and went to the convention. Turns out that every single Star Trek fan is freaking obsessed with that show.
tl;dr: Convention attendees are not representative of all fans and "normal" fans are easy to find.
You are attempting to argue that a postcard (IE visual novel) can contain more information and a longer story line compared to a tiny 30 book encyclopedia set...
A photograph could easily contain more information than a page of text describing that photograph. I don't know how you're leaping to the encyclopedia set.
The result of various studies were that violent video games were not proven to cause violence. This is not the same as "proven to not cause violence."
Can you PROVE that one thing does not cause another when the actual cause is unknown? There's no evidence that vaccines cause autism, and I have no reason to think that they do. There are even studies showing no significant link. But can you PROVE that they don't?
We would line up against a brick wall with our arms and legs spread like a giant letter "X".
We played butt's up with a racquetball. Three outs meant taking position facing the wall and getting pegged. No flinching. A racquetball can bruise, but a football sounds worse.
There is not one word in your statement about users knowing who or what they were turning over.
Here, let me refresh the context of my statement since you seem unable to find it yourself. I wrote:
...in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
I quoted 2 differences cited in PolitiFact's article. You seem to be consistently missing this one.
THAT statement, which I quoted when I initially replied, is the context in which I made my statement about "the only difference" and it making no difference.
Right. While ignoring the other difference I quoted, and the others in TFA, and announcing inaccurately that the difference you were addressing was the only one.
That's right. "Most people on Facebook" includes the people whose data was leaked. The comment was about "public profile data", and that was the context in which I wrote about "public profile data".
You made it pretty clear you were talking about the Cambridge Analytica leak. There's no shame in the fact that you were confused, only in the fact that you're trying to revise your statement now that it's been pointed out.
If you don't want someone getting information about you, don't take their "personality quiz" because it will reveal data about you.
The vast majority of the people compromised by Cambridge Analytica did not take the survey. Haven't we been here before?
I'm sorry you're still confused, but I'm starting to think that's a permanent condition.
Slashdot Mirror
You can go to jail for lying to Congress even if you're not under oath. I completely believe that Facebook is scraping audio from recording for advertising, but not eavesdropping on us otherwise.
I posted this in another thread the other day. Some similarities & differences between what the Obama campaign did and what Cambridge Analytica did.
The Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica both gained access to huge amounts of information about Facebook users and their friends, and in neither case did the friends of app users consent.
But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.
This would seem to suggest that Despacito is popular with a wider audience than just Spanish speakers. It made a pretty big splash all over.
there is an "us" and "them"
If you believe that Trump has spurred the job market, you're a Trumpette. If you think people should be fed even if they can't afford it, you're a libtard. There is no middle ground.
...recognizing your faults and deciding to make a major lifestyle change to correct them...
That's a fine thing to do and it's to be commended. Until you say:
I made this change and my life is better for it. Now you'd damned well better make the same change. Let's pass a law.
Then it's a problem and it happens too much.
Using binary for your user name is almost as irritating as using 'Anonymous Coward' as your user name.
He's the only one I know using a string of 1s & 0s for his username with a 6-digit UID. His username is easier to recognize than 'rickb928' or 'gnick'.
'Anonymous Coward' is someone I know and personally have good reason to despise. Their politics merely reinforce that opinion.
What did AC do to you? AC seems to be a little schizo, since I've seen him take pretty extreme positions in every direction of politics. Not sure how you can disagree with everything. Seems like too much effort to "despise" anonymous posters.
Marxist Hacker 42 was perfectly happy until you stepped in with your terrorist comment.
There are famous people on twitter, some (maybe most) of them aren't the actual people, just their PR teams, or interns...
I follow DJT; he's the only reason I have a Twitter account. He SHOULD have a team managing his Tweets, but I'm quite confident that many come straight from him.
That's not affecting its popularity.
The only thing crypto currency is good for is generating hype stories and bubble inflation...
...and buying contraband. As long as it's good for this, it's not going to disappear entirely. Cryptocurrency is still the primary trading medium for the dark web.
I thought surely you were mistaken. You're not.
Drivers that are deaf or hard of hearing can adjust their driver safety habits by relying more on their seeing sense to compensate for the loss of hearing.
What's it worth? Black Pather's taken in better than $650M. That's what it's worth.
On a comic page, the illustrator could embellish those seven words with whatever context strikes him as appropriate. One great aspect of a graphic novel is the marriage of prose and illustration.
I could take a screenshot right now and illustrate those 7 words, a bunch more, and some album covers all in one picture.
If you're going to scribble on my book with blood, I'd prefer a pentagram or some Wakandan tribal art to a forged signature. Even just a round blot with a note that says, "Aim cloning ray here." I'd prefer a book still in mint condition to one with a fake autograph.
Why would I want to go down to an overcrowded, smelly convention centre to spend time with muppets dressed up in costume?
I kept hearing about this TV show "Star Trek". People seemed really excited about it and I wanted to learn more. Since I assume that none of my friends or coworkers have ever watched an episode, I naturally booked a flight to Vegas and went to the convention. Turns out that every single Star Trek fan is freaking obsessed with that show.
tl;dr: Convention attendees are not representative of all fans and "normal" fans are easy to find.
1) Signed with the writer's blood.
My question is, signed by who . TFA doesn't address this point, but surely these are all forged signatures.
You are attempting to argue that a postcard (IE visual novel) can contain more information and a longer story line compared to a tiny 30 book encyclopedia set...
A photograph could easily contain more information than a page of text describing that photograph. I don't know how you're leaping to the encyclopedia set.
A very large amount of a prose novel is tied up in descriptions of visuals, or elements that are redundant to the pictures in the medium...
You took a roundabout path to "A picture is worth a thousand words."
The result of various studies were that violent video games were not proven to cause violence. This is not the same as "proven to not cause violence."
Can you PROVE that one thing does not cause another when the actual cause is unknown? There's no evidence that vaccines cause autism, and I have no reason to think that they do. There are even studies showing no significant link. But can you PROVE that they don't?
We would line up against a brick wall with our arms and legs spread like a giant letter "X".
We played butt's up with a racquetball. Three outs meant taking position facing the wall and getting pegged. No flinching. A racquetball can bruise, but a football sounds worse.
...trick you into thinking they are a hot girl or whatever.
If he says he's a guy? He's a guy.
If she says she's a hot chick? She's a guy.
If she says she's a hot underage chick? She's a cop. And also a guy.
There are no women on the internet, just pics and videos of them. Put there by guys. Women posting to the internet are a myth.
It is too tiresome trying to correct you.
It is painfully obvious why you're having such a difficult time trying to correct me.
There is not one word in your statement about users knowing who or what they were turning over.
Here, let me refresh the context of my statement since you seem unable to find it yourself. I wrote:
...in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
I quoted 2 differences cited in PolitiFact's article. You seem to be consistently missing this one.
THAT statement, which I quoted when I initially replied, is the context in which I made my statement about "the only difference" and it making no difference.
Right. While ignoring the other difference I quoted, and the others in TFA, and announcing inaccurately that the difference you were addressing was the only one.
That's right. "Most people on Facebook" includes the people whose data was leaked. The comment was about "public profile data", and that was the context in which I wrote about "public profile data".
You made it pretty clear you were talking about the Cambridge Analytica leak. There's no shame in the fact that you were confused, only in the fact that you're trying to revise your statement now that it's been pointed out.
If you don't want someone getting information about you, don't take their "personality quiz" because it will reveal data about you.
The vast majority of the people compromised by Cambridge Analytica did not take the survey. Haven't we been here before?
I'm sorry you're still confused, but I'm starting to think that's a permanent condition.
It got by me until about the time I hit "Submit". Apologies.