Oh, he is not an idiot, he has an agenda. You can download this interview with him he made on the 7th of August 2012. He has an agenda, and this agenda is about increasing the number of people studying his subject in college settings and to do this he wants more people to stop studying algebra and other math and sciences.
He is interested in arguing in class for Obamacare and he wants to use statistics and no other math, and he wants this to be the environment for the young kids to learn in.
He is talking about indoctrination and dumbing down and at the end it's about money and power.
- only a publicly 'educated' AC conflates 'hating' education and being against public funding and regulations for education, same applies to health care.
Civil rights don't exist, there are only individual rights.
Minimum wage shouldn't exist either by the way.
Oh, you are right on the entire 'regulations' thing.
As I said, the term 'full disclosure' sounds very funny coming from an AC. My point is simple - don't trust everything you see just because it's written down with a pen or with bytes.
and this is a story about baseball now, not about a bunch of teenagers that are depressed out of their lives, spending 14-19 hours playing videogames they are hooked on in a country that subsidises Internet access to all schools and preschools? Ha, I didn't see that coming.
Only in your empty head things happen without cause. How is it, living with a belief that everything happens independently and regardless of any preceding events? Must be a surprise, every time.
Except it is not a story about 'gaming' in South Korea, it is a story about addictions fuelled by government subsidies that ensure that the kids in primary, junior and high schools have Internet access.
It is a story about addictions, and this very story talks about how government is searching for the 'cure' completely oblivious that it is the cause of the disease. The root cause of this is subsidies on the one hand that channel kids into the Internet addictions and on the other hand it is about laws and regulations that prevent kids from being engaged in anything but their ridiculous school work, with all the pressure, which probably adds to the stress enough that kids look for the way to get out of it.
I suppose the Internet is better than drugs, that's the only redeeming quality of the story.
As for you - way to miss the big picture... probably always.
A wise choice, seeing how it's the workers who produce the wealth, and businessmen merely manage it (at best; usually they just loot it).
- ignorant comment.
Get a bunch of workers into one location and nobody who wants to run a business with them, no investment capital, no tools provided by the investment capital, no direction, no idea what to do, see how that turns out for you.
What a great opportunity: instead of getting an education you get to be an unpaid child laborer.
- did I say anything about forcing people out of schools and into jobs? Or are you under impression that parents are interested only in exploiting their children, and thus they cannot be trusted and their children cannot be trusted, but the government can?
I think you're confusing artists and businessmen. Artists experiment to figure out what interests them, businessmen try to maximize some variable (such as profits or test scores). An entrepreneur who prioritizes based on what happens to interest him is not going to be in business for very long.
- you have no idea, completely ignorant of how the businesses are created, who stands behind them, how much time and capital investment it takes to get a business moving, what types of decisions must be taken to make ANY profit, forget about 'maximising' profits, how about getting 1 dollar in profit first.
What I can't figure out is if you're serious, or doing some kind of absurd parody of libertarianism.
- luckily I am not confused about you and your complete ignorance.
South Korea was the first country in the world to provide high-speed internet access to every primary, junior, and high school.
- well, as per usual the government creates the problem! You get more of what you subsidise and less of what you tax, so they get more Internet addicts because they are subsidising Internet access from primary school and on.
Seems to me that these kids need something to do, they are actually into accomplishing something (playing for the higher score I guess), it's just that their motivation is screwed up.
Of-course many people have addictive personalities, if it weren't for the games, they might have been into addictive drugs, but again, they need something to do.
(1)A person under the age of 15 shall not be employed as a worker. However, this shall not apply to a person with a employment permit issued by the Minister of Labour.
(2)The employment permit referred to in paragraph (1) may be issued at the request of the person himself only by designating the type of occupation in which he is engaged, provided that such employment will not impede compulsory education.
Article 63 (Prohibition of Employment)
Female wokers and those who are under 18 shall not be employed for any work detrimental to morality or health. The prohibited type of work shall be determined by the Presidential Decree.
Article 64 (Minor Certificate)
For each minor worker under 18, an employer shall keep at each workplace a copy of the census register testifying to his age and a written consent of his parent or guardian.
Given that there is also compulsory education, (which I think has to do with teacher unions, that want to secure their positions) and it is a very 'heated' and competitive environment, in a way that requires very high marks to be able to get a job apparently, there is obviously too much stress.
This type of education process combined with these types of labour laws are aimed at producing workers, employees, not businessmen, not owners of business.
I think if South Korea wants to give more opportunities to its young people, to reduce this stress and increase entrepreneurship and independence, they need to allow people to opt out of the compulsory education process and to allow people to hire minors as apprentices and they need to wave all sorts of regulations, starting with the minimum wage.
There has to be a way for a business to advertise to kids younger than 15, maybe 11-12, to get kids interested in what the business is doing and to allow the kids to get experience in that business (even if this means they don't get paid much and they have to forgo the compulsory education).
I think we are creating robots, not individuals with this compulsory education and pressure to get highest scores on exams rather than allowing people to experiment with their interests in different types of businesses early on. I think the kids who are into these games are actually goal oriented and they are suppressed and depressed by the system, they could be entrepreneurs, but they are robbed of that chance.
IT Security Auditors can use the tool to evaluate the risk of a particular piece of software installed on the Windows platform during threat risk reviews... The tool takes snapshots of the system before and after an application was installed, and compares them to identify changes made when new applications were installed.... The tool also gives an overview of changes to the system that Microsoft considers important... The tool analyzes changed or newly added files, registry keys, services, ActiveX Controls, listening ports, access control lists and other parameters.
Analyzer does not appear to rely on signatures or try to exploit known vulnerabilities. Instead, it just looks at classes of security weaknesses where programs commonly fall short, or are exposed to attack vectors.
This is for Windows only and it does not test applications for security problems, it looks at the entire system and how it is affected by the installation.
Every single industry that sells tangible products
- yeah, but in some cases it's not the industry that prevents tangible products from being resold. How is that secondary market for used condoms doing?
Yeah, well I also compared it to a news site, ABC in this case, where they are running a story about Sikh temple shooting, read the comments, there are all sorts of things there that can be classified as 'derogatory' etc. Should ABC be forced to moderate the forum and should a government legislation exist to make ABC news specifically liable for what people post there? How much time before 'derogatory' means you talking smack about Obama or Bush or Romney or any political event, etc?
There are countries where you can be thrown to jail for a very very long and unpleasant time for leaving 'derogatory' comments about people in power.
- well, you can call it what you want, but here it is. accc.GOV.au It doesn't matter if they are 'self-regulation' or whatever kind of regulation, it's about licensing and regulations and it's backed by the government legislation. This is not free-market solution at all, with a free market solution people wouldn't be forced into any such 'self-governing' bodies.
FINRA is another so called 'self-governing body' in USA, but try and become a broker or an investment advisor, you are immediately under their governance, you can't get your licensing without being governed by them, and if you want to run a business helping people to invest, you can't do it without getting those types of licenses.
So you can call it 'self-regulation' all you like, but people can't do business legally without being regulated by these organisations, and these organisations have power of government legislation behind them.
Why? They maybe absolutely wrong and not doing the reporting the 'right' way, maybe they are not even a news site, maybe they are just another 'yellow tabloid', masquerading as a news site, but why should they be in trouble with regulators? Why should there be regulators above them, not their audience, not their clients and investors, but government regulators?
Really, you think government is what is needed to regulate business behaviour? ABC is only catering to its audience, whatever their niche is, if the people are offended they can stop reading, stop watching and that business will wither and die.
But maybe there is a huge number of people who watch Jersey Shore for entertainment and go to ABC for news. Why should they be regulated by the government? When is it ever a good idea to have government power regulating the business and not its clients and investors and basically market - money? Profit is the best regulator, if they stop making profit they'll change or die.
By the way, here is an ABC report on the shootings in a Sikh temple, read the comments.
Half of the comments there could be considered 'derogatory' if not worse, one way or another. This is a news site, so it is one huge advertising vehicle for the news channel, isn't it?
So with this new law in Australia would the news sites be eventually liable for the comments that people leave? You think not? Isn't it getting very political, very fast? How about dissent, can't dissenting opinion be considered 'derogatory' to people in power? You don't think so?
So what? First: what's a 'normal' website? How is posting ads on/. different from FB or anywhere else where people can leave comments?
Second: what's 'advertising'? How about you mention your product or service on/. (in Australia) and then what, why would it be different? If this is specifically about FB, then it's camel's nose under the tent, gov't just needs one instance of regulation that covers something specific and then it expands it to everything. Aren't we all 'terrorists' and guilty by some gov't definition already?
Third: this is it - why is this branch of government now forcing moderation of people's comments on websites?
I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from
- sure, that's fine, that's what liability is about, your business should be responsible for what it does and how it does it, and the business is responsible.
The business is responsible to the customers first, it's responsible to the owners, shareholders, whoever the investors are.
However it's NOT what this ruling is about. This is not about a business having to be responsible for WHAT IT DOES. This is NOT what the business does.
Anybody, a client or not a client of a business can come and post a comment. Anybody, a client or not can come to a store front and write shit on the doors and windows and the walls.
IF the writings on the wall are such, that they prevent CLIENTS from coming into the store, if it hurts the bottom line, then the business knows that it is held responsible for not cleaning up the mess that somebody else left.
However this does not meant that the government (or whatever ruling body in this case) should be walking street to street, store front to store front and looking for 'offensive' writing and images (offensive in quotes, because what is offensive to one person in one case is not something somebody else cares about).
This is a way to shut down business that has no resource at the moment (or at all maybe) to clean up writings on the wall, but this does not mean that the business is bad. Maybe it is very efficient and that's how it provides lowest prices and best choices and people disregard the writing on the wall and they shop there because to them low prices are important.
So the business IS responsible to the clients and the clients can easily stop going there. Isn't it what 'Chick-fil-a' controversy is about - it IS being held responsible BY THE CLIENTS who may not go there again, and in that case it was the president of the company I think who made remarks, and it's a franchise, so he hurt independent owners of the restaurant.
So the company is being held responsible by the discriminating clients, and what more do you want? Do you really want mayors of cities to stop the restaurants from being opened?
What do you want, to throw the guy in jail for his opinions? He just may cost himself untold amounts of money by being a dumb ass, isn't that a PERFECT EXAMPLE of FREE MARKET REGULATIONS?
Isn't this a much more serious regulation than a government could ever impose on a company?
So you want responsibility, that's fine, why do you want government to decide on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? You don't think the people themselves can decide and held others responsible?
This is just the worst that comes out of courtrooms.
Think about it - you start a business, it doesn't even have to be big or anything, maybe you are giving advice, maybe you are selling toy airplanes, hell, maybe you are giving away toy airplanes (I don't know why I chose airplanes here), and somebody posts comments on your forum that are 'derogatory'.
Well those comments just may be derogatory, but how can the person hosting the forum be held responsible for derogatory comments made by other people?
What about/.? It's a business, after all, people are getting paid to run it, there are ads here (I think), so what would happen if/. was held personally responsible for all the derogatory shit that people spill here?
"Fuck nigger cocksucker dyke blow me." - so somebody leaves comments like that or whatever on a forum and all of a sudden a person or a business hosting it is responsible and is liable to all sorts of lawsuits.
THAT stifles innovation. THAT prevents innovative people from starting businesses that rely on new ideas how to promote their business, it sure HELPS the monopolies (and that's how monopolies are created - with government interference in the market in the first place, and this IS government interference with the market, and this will prevent innovation and stifle competition and help monopolies).
ALL basic freedoms are important to have a vibrant economy, freedom of speech, association, private property ownership, speedy trial, not being thrown in jail without a trial, not being harassed by the government, etc.
Take one of those freedoms out and you stop the economy from innovating, and this is important. Think about the Mars mission with Curiosity. Is it important to have a vibrant economy to be able to freaking afford a mission like that? Is Zimbabwe running a mission like that?
I think given the fake business model and the fake valuation, Zuckerberg could have at least keep something real, but then again, he may just be totally incapable of actual human communications with people and if he started writing his own journal entries, people would be even more turned off by what he has to say.
After all, isn't that the guy who said:
I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS," he said. "People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb f----.
I knew that FB had fake accounts, but apparently it also has fake Zuckerberg and more importantly a fake market valuation and probably a fake business model.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, he is not an idiot, he has an agenda.
You can download this interview with him he made on the 7th of August 2012. He has an agenda, and this agenda is about increasing the number of people studying his subject in college settings and to do this he wants more people to stop studying algebra and other math and sciences.
He is interested in arguing in class for Obamacare and he wants to use statistics and no other math, and he wants this to be the environment for the young kids to learn in.
He is talking about indoctrination and dumbing down and at the end it's about money and power.
hates education
- only a publicly 'educated' AC conflates 'hating' education and being against public funding and regulations for education, same applies to health care.
Civil rights don't exist, there are only individual rights.
Minimum wage shouldn't exist either by the way.
Oh, you are right on the entire 'regulations' thing.
As I said, the term 'full disclosure' sounds very funny coming from an AC. My point is simple - don't trust everything you see just because it's written down with a pen or with bytes.
I don't have any problems with your comment, I just find this hilarious
Full disclosure here: I work on a Geek Squad, one of the few women in the business
coming from an AC.
and this is a story about baseball now, not about a bunch of teenagers that are depressed out of their lives, spending 14-19 hours playing videogames they are hooked on in a country that subsidises Internet access to all schools and preschools? Ha, I didn't see that coming.
Who said I am pro-NASA?
Don't you know, the government likes the robots.
Except that it likes them in the form of weapons, so that they can kill more people with those robots.
Mars?
Oil and other loot.
Only in your empty head things happen without cause. How is it, living with a belief that everything happens independently and regardless of any preceding events? Must be a surprise, every time.
Except it is not a story about 'gaming' in South Korea, it is a story about addictions fuelled by government subsidies that ensure that the kids in primary, junior and high schools have Internet access.
It is a story about addictions, and this very story talks about how government is searching for the 'cure' completely oblivious that it is the cause of the disease. The root cause of this is subsidies on the one hand that channel kids into the Internet addictions and on the other hand it is about laws and regulations that prevent kids from being engaged in anything but their ridiculous school work, with all the pressure, which probably adds to the stress enough that kids look for the way to get out of it.
I suppose the Internet is better than drugs, that's the only redeeming quality of the story.
As for you - way to miss the big picture... probably always.
A wise choice, seeing how it's the workers who produce the wealth, and businessmen merely manage it (at best; usually they just loot it).
- ignorant comment.
Get a bunch of workers into one location and nobody who wants to run a business with them, no investment capital, no tools provided by the investment capital, no direction, no idea what to do, see how that turns out for you.
What a great opportunity: instead of getting an education you get to be an unpaid child laborer.
- did I say anything about forcing people out of schools and into jobs? Or are you under impression that parents are interested only in exploiting their children, and thus they cannot be trusted and their children cannot be trusted, but the government can?
I think you're confusing artists and businessmen. Artists experiment to figure out what interests them, businessmen try to maximize some variable (such as profits or test scores). An entrepreneur who prioritizes based on what happens to interest him is not going to be in business for very long.
- you have no idea, completely ignorant of how the businesses are created, who stands behind them, how much time and capital investment it takes to get a business moving, what types of decisions must be taken to make ANY profit, forget about 'maximising' profits, how about getting 1 dollar in profit first.
What I can't figure out is if you're serious, or doing some kind of absurd parody of libertarianism.
- luckily I am not confused about you and your complete ignorance.
Hi Mark.
Oh, and by the way, check this out:
South Korea was the first country in the world to provide high-speed internet access to every primary, junior, and high school.
- well, as per usual the government creates the problem! You get more of what you subsidise and less of what you tax, so they get more Internet addicts because they are subsidising Internet access from primary school and on.
Seems to me that these kids need something to do, they are actually into accomplishing something (playing for the higher score I guess), it's just that their motivation is screwed up.
Of-course many people have addictive personalities, if it weren't for the games, they might have been into addictive drugs, but again, they need something to do.
I looked up the labour laws in South Korea, here is something to note
Article 62 (Minimum Age and Employment Permit)
(1)A person under the age of 15 shall not be employed as a worker. However, this shall not apply to a person with a employment permit issued by the Minister of Labour.
(2)The employment permit referred to in paragraph (1) may be issued at the request of the person himself only by designating the type of occupation in which he is engaged, provided that such employment will not impede compulsory education.
Article 63 (Prohibition of Employment)
Female wokers and those who are under 18 shall not be employed for any work detrimental to morality or health. The prohibited type of work shall be determined by the Presidential Decree.
Article 64 (Minor Certificate)
For each minor worker under 18, an employer shall keep at each workplace a copy of the census register testifying to his age and a written consent of his parent or guardian.
(and there is more there).
Also they have a minimum wage law there as well, it's over 4 bucks per hour.
Given that there is also compulsory education, (which I think has to do with teacher unions, that want to secure their positions) and it is a very 'heated' and competitive environment, in a way that requires very high marks to be able to get a job apparently, there is obviously too much stress.
This type of education process combined with these types of labour laws are aimed at producing workers, employees, not businessmen, not owners of business.
I think if South Korea wants to give more opportunities to its young people, to reduce this stress and increase entrepreneurship and independence, they need to allow people to opt out of the compulsory education process and to allow people to hire minors as apprentices and they need to wave all sorts of regulations, starting with the minimum wage.
There has to be a way for a business to advertise to kids younger than 15, maybe 11-12, to get kids interested in what the business is doing and to allow the kids to get experience in that business (even if this means they don't get paid much and they have to forgo the compulsory education).
I think we are creating robots, not individuals with this compulsory education and pressure to get highest scores on exams rather than allowing people to experiment with their interests in different types of businesses early on. I think the kids who are into these games are actually goal oriented and they are suppressed and depressed by the system, they could be entrepreneurs, but they are robbed of that chance.
IT Security Auditors can use the tool to evaluate the risk of a particular piece of software installed on the Windows platform during threat risk reviews ... ... ...
The tool takes snapshots of the system before and after an application was installed, and compares them to identify changes made when new applications were installed.
The tool also gives an overview of changes to the system that Microsoft considers important
The tool analyzes changed or newly added files, registry keys, services, ActiveX Controls, listening ports, access control lists and other parameters.
Analyzer does not appear to rely on signatures or try to exploit known vulnerabilities. Instead, it just looks at classes of security weaknesses where programs commonly fall short, or are exposed to attack vectors.
This is for Windows only and it does not test applications for security problems, it looks at the entire system and how it is affected by the installation.
Every single industry that sells tangible products
- yeah, but in some cases it's not the industry that prevents tangible products from being resold. How is that secondary market for used condoms doing?
Yeah, well I also compared it to a news site, ABC in this case, where they are running a story about Sikh temple shooting, read the comments, there are all sorts of things there that can be classified as 'derogatory' etc. Should ABC be forced to moderate the forum and should a government legislation exist to make ABC news specifically liable for what people post there? How much time before 'derogatory' means you talking smack about Obama or Bush or Romney or any political event, etc?
There are countries where you can be thrown to jail for a very very long and unpleasant time for leaving 'derogatory' comments about people in power.
The ASB is a non-government organisation.
- well, you can call it what you want, but here it is. accc.GOV.au It doesn't matter if they are 'self-regulation' or whatever kind of regulation, it's about licensing and regulations and it's backed by the government legislation. This is not free-market solution at all, with a free market solution people wouldn't be forced into any such 'self-governing' bodies.
FINRA is another so called 'self-governing body' in USA, but try and become a broker or an investment advisor, you are immediately under their governance, you can't get your licensing without being governed by them, and if you want to run a business helping people to invest, you can't do it without getting those types of licenses.
So you can call it 'self-regulation' all you like, but people can't do business legally without being regulated by these organisations, and these organisations have power of government legislation behind them.
Why? They maybe absolutely wrong and not doing the reporting the 'right' way, maybe they are not even a news site, maybe they are just another 'yellow tabloid', masquerading as a news site, but why should they be in trouble with regulators? Why should there be regulators above them, not their audience, not their clients and investors, but government regulators?
Really, you think government is what is needed to regulate business behaviour? ABC is only catering to its audience, whatever their niche is, if the people are offended they can stop reading, stop watching and that business will wither and die.
But maybe there is a huge number of people who watch Jersey Shore for entertainment and go to ABC for news. Why should they be regulated by the government? When is it ever a good idea to have government power regulating the business and not its clients and investors and basically market - money? Profit is the best regulator, if they stop making profit they'll change or die.
By the way, here is an ABC report on the shootings in a Sikh temple, read the comments.
Half of the comments there could be considered 'derogatory' if not worse, one way or another. This is a news site, so it is one huge advertising vehicle for the news channel, isn't it?
So with this new law in Australia would the news sites be eventually liable for the comments that people leave? You think not? Isn't it getting very political, very fast? How about dissent, can't dissenting opinion be considered 'derogatory' to people in power? You don't think so?
So what? /. different from FB or anywhere else where people can leave comments?
First: what's a 'normal' website? How is posting ads on
Second: what's 'advertising'? How about you mention your product or service on /. (in Australia) and then what, why would it be different? If this is specifically about FB, then it's camel's nose under the tent, gov't just needs one instance of regulation that covers something specific and then it expands it to everything. Aren't we all 'terrorists' and guilty by some gov't definition already?
Third: this is it - why is this branch of government now forcing moderation of people's comments on websites?
I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from
- sure, that's fine, that's what liability is about, your business should be responsible for what it does and how it does it, and the business is responsible.
The business is responsible to the customers first, it's responsible to the owners, shareholders, whoever the investors are.
However it's NOT what this ruling is about. This is not about a business having to be responsible for WHAT IT DOES. This is NOT what the business does.
Anybody, a client or not a client of a business can come and post a comment. Anybody, a client or not can come to a store front and write shit on the doors and windows and the walls.
IF the writings on the wall are such, that they prevent CLIENTS from coming into the store, if it hurts the bottom line, then the business knows that it is held responsible for not cleaning up the mess that somebody else left.
However this does not meant that the government (or whatever ruling body in this case) should be walking street to street, store front to store front and looking for 'offensive' writing and images (offensive in quotes, because what is offensive to one person in one case is not something somebody else cares about).
This is a way to shut down business that has no resource at the moment (or at all maybe) to clean up writings on the wall, but this does not mean that the business is bad. Maybe it is very efficient and that's how it provides lowest prices and best choices and people disregard the writing on the wall and they shop there because to them low prices are important.
So the business IS responsible to the clients and the clients can easily stop going there. Isn't it what 'Chick-fil-a' controversy is about - it IS being held responsible BY THE CLIENTS who may not go there again, and in that case it was the president of the company I think who made remarks, and it's a franchise, so he hurt independent owners of the restaurant.
So the company is being held responsible by the discriminating clients, and what more do you want? Do you really want mayors of cities to stop the restaurants from being opened?
What do you want, to throw the guy in jail for his opinions? He just may cost himself untold amounts of money by being a dumb ass, isn't that a PERFECT EXAMPLE of FREE MARKET REGULATIONS?
Isn't this a much more serious regulation than a government could ever impose on a company?
So you want responsibility, that's fine, why do you want government to decide on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? You don't think the people themselves can decide and held others responsible?
This is just the worst that comes out of courtrooms.
Think about it - you start a business, it doesn't even have to be big or anything, maybe you are giving advice, maybe you are selling toy airplanes, hell, maybe you are giving away toy airplanes (I don't know why I chose airplanes here), and somebody posts comments on your forum that are 'derogatory'.
Well those comments just may be derogatory, but how can the person hosting the forum be held responsible for derogatory comments made by other people?
What about /.? It's a business, after all, people are getting paid to run it, there are ads here (I think), so what would happen if /. was held personally responsible for all the derogatory shit that people spill here?
"Fuck nigger cocksucker dyke blow me." - so somebody leaves comments like that or whatever on a forum and all of a sudden a person or a business hosting it is responsible and is liable to all sorts of lawsuits.
THAT stifles innovation. THAT prevents innovative people from starting businesses that rely on new ideas how to promote their business, it sure HELPS the monopolies (and that's how monopolies are created - with government interference in the market in the first place, and this IS government interference with the market, and this will prevent innovation and stifle competition and help monopolies).
ALL basic freedoms are important to have a vibrant economy, freedom of speech, association, private property ownership, speedy trial, not being thrown in jail without a trial, not being harassed by the government, etc.
Take one of those freedoms out and you stop the economy from innovating, and this is important. Think about the Mars mission with Curiosity. Is it important to have a vibrant economy to be able to freaking afford a mission like that? Is Zimbabwe running a mission like that?
I think given the fake business model and the fake valuation, Zuckerberg could have at least keep something real, but then again, he may just be totally incapable of actual human communications with people and if he started writing his own journal entries, people would be even more turned off by what he has to say.
After all, isn't that the guy who said:
I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS," he said. "People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb f----.
--
As to me, I am happy I don't have an FB account, but then again, governments may now consider me a 'mass murderer' for that reason.
I knew that FB had fake accounts, but apparently it also has fake Zuckerberg and more importantly a fake market valuation and probably a fake business model.
Here is what they want this for:
This revolutionary advance would give U.S. warfighters an advantage in an especially challenging portion of the RF spectrum
As per usual, it's all for war, it's all that government is interested in.