My memory of signing up for Gmail was that Google was quite open about using the data anonymously for various purposes, a position more honest than many others who do the same without the courtesy of saying so.
When I signed up for Gmail they said they would be scanning my email so they could my adverts more relevant. The welcome email Google sent my in 2004 included this paragraph:
You may also have noticed some text ads or related links to the right of this message. They're placed there in the same way that ads are placed alongside Google search results and, through our AdSense program, on content pages across the web. The matching of ads to content in your Gmail messages is performed entirely by computers; never by people. Because the ads and links are matched to information that is of interest to you, we hope you'll find them relevant and useful.
So they certainly said they would be reading email for targeted advertizing purposes back in 2004.
Yep, they certainly did. They even had suppression algorithms so you wouldn't get funeral home ads when someone emailed you that a family member dies, and so forth.
Let me be clear - I do not agree with Trump’s short-sighted and backwards-thinking trade war. But isn’t the whole point of a trade war to put the hurt on the companies and consumers based in the other country, which increases the pressure on the other government to make concessions?
There may well be something about this that you and I don't know.
If this were a story about NASA, and you had posted "WTF, why didn't they design their rover this way instead, blah blah", someone (quite possibly me) would be replying "whew, thanks, I'll get right on the phone to NASA and straighten this out".
"The fact that errors are discovered is not evidence that science doesn't work, it's evidence that science does work, that it identifies and corrects humanity's errors -- including those generated by previous science."
No it's not. Identifying errors is not evidence of science even it applying scientific principles may lead to identifying errors. A scientist would understand this.
The fact is it's pretty shitty science when a scientist doesn't even understand his own tools. All this bloviating serves only to hide the issue.
I'm glad someone pointed that out. It's a hermetically sealed defense. "No matter how bad our science was, that proves it was actually great!"
I've no idea how it happened but I can imagine it relatively easily. Get a fake ID using your photo and a real persons name and SSN. Use said fake id to request a copy of that persons Birth Certificate and SSN card. Take your new documents to a bank and use them to open an account. From there you can just start cashing checks you intercepted for that person. If the checks are for a business you just have an extra step or two where you open a business account. The only real risk of getting caught in any of this is if the victim notices the credit checks being run on them from the bank when you open the accounts.
The person's name is UPS? Your new business account is called UPS?
I've long contemplated that we are just speculating from electromagnetic radiation that falls on us. What we confidently think we know about what's beyond our neighborhood, we do not really know.
The uncomfortable nature of this issue is that it is very difficult to quantify the impact that Russian propaganda had on the US electorate, and the big question over whether it altered the outcome of the election is probably impossible to answer.
The problem is that the losers already had a narrative that their opponents are these hick idiots. So "hick idiots swayed by idiotic Russian-purchased ads" fits right in with what they already believe. Not to mention spares them from having to deal emotionally with the fact that they lost.
The story doesn't even make any logical sense. Remember, the "hick idiots" were already going to vote for Trump, because they are hick idiots, amiright?
So who exactly did these Russian-purchased ads sway? Idiots who normally vote Dem? That's not nearly as soothing of a narrative.
why? Paris accord was a joke. It solved NOTHING. Just like Kyoto, which was supposed to slow down growth, it did NOTHING. Until we require ALL NATIONS to drop their CO2 and become more like Greenland/iceland/sweden/costa rica in terms of their CO2 emission, these accords will do NOTHING.
Well, they do signal what team you are on, the Virtuous, or the Awful Meanies. That's something, I guess...
If ads as incredibly stupid as the few that anybody has actually shown were so amazingly effective as to decide the election, then Russian/Schmussian; every US entity will be running ads just like them next time.
They'd be idiots not to.
In reality of course, the Dems just plain lost (albeit by a small margin, as is normal lately), something they just can't seem to come to grips with.
If this Russian narrative were true, I'd be hiring every single Russian involved. To advertise chewing gum, if nothing else. They are apparently the most awesome and most cost effective advertisers, ever.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you thought the trench could escape the global onslaught of plastics pollution, you would be wrong.
Why would I, or anyone, think that?
You wouldn't. But the story sounds more sensational if it's implied somebody would.
Ah ... it all makes sense now.
This particular plastic bag is not a problem, because sitting on the bottom of the ocean means that it will eventually become petroleum once again.
What we need to find is a way of making the rest of the floating plastic sink to abyssal depths.
Submarines compact their trash (along with weights) and deliberately send it to the ocean depths.
Probably like most people they commented about it but left it there for someone else to deal with.
Nope, no more than the actress who played Gloria gave the starving kid her sandwich.
(I kid ... maybe she gave the kid her sandwich. I really don't know ...)
Do education/development work in poorer parts of the US with an NGO.
Any evidence they are doing anything like that?
Go back to school, get an M.D. or nursing degree.
They might do that, since it pays well. Maybe.
Life's too short to work in the ad-tech or military murder industries for the rest of one's life.
Except they were working happily in the ad-tech data abuse business. That didn't bother them at all.
But if you thought the trench could escape the global onslaught of plastics pollution, you would be wrong.
Why would I, or anyone, think that?
My memory of signing up for Gmail was that Google was quite open about using the data anonymously for various purposes, a position more honest than many others who do the same without the courtesy of saying so.
When I signed up for Gmail they said they would be scanning my email so they could my adverts more relevant. The welcome email Google sent my in 2004 included this paragraph:
You may also have noticed some text ads or related links to the right of this message. They're placed there in the same way that ads are placed alongside Google search results and, through our AdSense program, on content pages across the web. The matching of ads to content in your Gmail messages is performed entirely by computers; never by people. Because the ads and links are matched to information that is of interest to you, we hope you'll find them relevant and useful.
So they certainly said they would be reading email for targeted advertizing purposes back in 2004.
Yep, they certainly did. They even had suppression algorithms so you wouldn't get funeral home ads when someone emailed you that a family member dies, and so forth.
Believe it or not, engaging in fraud is actually illegal. No matter how dumb you think they are.
And if you just "slap on the wrist", there's little disincentive to do it.
Let me be clear - I do not agree with Trump’s short-sighted and backwards-thinking trade war. But isn’t the whole point of a trade war to put the hurt on the companies and consumers based in the other country, which increases the pressure on the other government to make concessions?
There may well be something about this that you and I don't know.
If this were a story about NASA, and you had posted "WTF, why didn't they design their rover this way instead, blah blah", someone (quite possibly me) would be replying "whew, thanks, I'll get right on the phone to NASA and straighten this out".
We don't have all the facts.
But seriously, did any money have to change hands, or is this just Trump showing his admiration for Xi's continuing march towards tyranny?
Um ... China is already a communist dictatorship, and has been for many decades.
"The fact that errors are discovered is not evidence that science doesn't work, it's evidence that science does work, that it identifies and corrects humanity's errors -- including those generated by previous science."
No it's not. Identifying errors is not evidence of science even it applying scientific principles may lead to identifying errors. A scientist would understand this.
The fact is it's pretty shitty science when a scientist doesn't even understand his own tools. All this bloviating serves only to hide the issue.
I'm glad someone pointed that out. It's a hermetically sealed defense. "No matter how bad our science was, that proves it was actually great!"
They spent 4 years developing something that I walked into a hobby shop and purchased lot more that 4 years ago.
I'll call NASA immediately and get this straightened out. Thanks!
A smart phone is about the smallest size to show you useful stuff.
Sure, a wristwatch can show you the time without you having to take it out of your pocket, but it doesn't have to be smart for that ;)
I've no idea how it happened but I can imagine it relatively easily. Get a fake ID using your photo and a real persons name and SSN. Use said fake id to request a copy of that persons Birth Certificate and SSN card. Take your new documents to a bank and use them to open an account. From there you can just start cashing checks you intercepted for that person. If the checks are for a business you just have an extra step or two where you open a business account. The only real risk of getting caught in any of this is if the victim notices the credit checks being run on them from the bank when you open the accounts.
The person's name is UPS? Your new business account is called UPS?
I've long contemplated that we are just speculating from electromagnetic radiation that falls on us. What we confidently think we know about what's beyond our neighborhood, we do not really know.
The uncomfortable nature of this issue is that it is very difficult to quantify the impact that Russian propaganda had on the US electorate, and the big question over whether it altered the outcome of the election is probably impossible to answer.
The problem is that the losers already had a narrative that their opponents are these hick idiots. So "hick idiots swayed by idiotic Russian-purchased ads" fits right in with what they already believe. Not to mention spares them from having to deal emotionally with the fact that they lost.
The story doesn't even make any logical sense. Remember, the "hick idiots" were already going to vote for Trump, because they are hick idiots, amiright?
So who exactly did these Russian-purchased ads sway? Idiots who normally vote Dem? That's not nearly as soothing of a narrative.
Carrying 10 more states and 77 more votes isn't really close. It was only a "close" race if you ignore the actual rules and result.
If you don't like the way we elect presidents, then campaign for a change.
I like the system just fine. I was just kind of throwing them a bone, since I can be soft hearted, and they are crying so much, lol
So many questions!!
1. UPS didn't notice that they weren't getting mail, including checks ... for months??
2. A bank cashed these checks for the guy? Why?
3. "Dushuan"?
why? Paris accord was a joke. It solved NOTHING. Just like Kyoto, which was supposed to slow down growth, it did NOTHING. Until we require ALL NATIONS to drop their CO2 and become more like Greenland/iceland/sweden/costa rica in terms of their CO2 emission, these accords will do NOTHING.
Well, they do signal what team you are on, the Virtuous, or the Awful Meanies. That's something, I guess ...
The main reason it's a big deal is because it skirts campaign finance laws,
Which are themselves the problem.
The people squealing about this are the same people who say that you just can't possibly regulate the flow of drugs or humans.
But somehow you are going to regulate bits? And it's OK because the bit pipes cost money?
And that's before even mentioning that political speech is precisely what the first amendment was intended to protect.
If ads as incredibly stupid as the few that anybody has actually shown were so amazingly effective as to decide the election, then Russian/Schmussian; every US entity will be running ads just like them next time.
They'd be idiots not to.
In reality of course, the Dems just plain lost (albeit by a small margin, as is normal lately), something they just can't seem to come to grips with.
If this Russian narrative were true, I'd be hiring every single Russian involved. To advertise chewing gum, if nothing else. They are apparently the most awesome and most cost effective advertisers, ever.
Isn't it a little late for a video rental chain to have an IPO?
You beat me to it, that's startling news!
Oh dear ... so somebody at ParentCorp Central had a meeting, and it's "Slashdot reader's stream of consciousness" time?
The comments, not the story.
"The cognitive dissonance; it burns!"
How is it "censorship" to merely remove a joke? No government forced them to do so.
It's been there since the 90s? Maybe it had just served its purpose, whatever that was?
This is at least the second " Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein " story in as many days.
Both have been some kind of speculative ... stuff.
So, what's the deal? Why is she (or "she" - have you actually met her?) the new Jon Katz?