After Mark Zuckerberg was grilled on privacy during congressional hearings
Grilled? That wasn't even close to grilled. It was a farce. A series of softballs that were already public information anyway. It only cost Facebook $27,000 in campaign contributions to the chair of the Energy and Finance committee Greg Walden (R-OR) to make it farce, where nothing interesting was revealed. And it only cost them a fraction of what these other companies are shelling out.
Just so ya know, this stupid law was passed in 1986, when a Republican was governor (George Deukmejian). But hey, I don't know why I'm bothering responding to a troll who does care about facts or reality.
Interesting that you bring that up. Remember the pathetic excuse for a Facebook hearing where they intentionally asked Zuckerberg really stupid questions that didn't get to the heart of the matter at all? That was chaired by Republican Representative Greg Walden (Congressional district 2, covering Central, Eastern, and Southern Oregon), Oregon's congressional delegation's only Republican. He set the strict rules for the hearing that were intended, and did so successfully, to make sure it didn't come out what data Facebook collects and how it uses it, other than what's on the surface that everyone who uses Facebook Pages to advertise already knows.
Oh, also, Greg Walden (R-Oregon) receives many thousands of dollars each from Facebook and Telecom companies, and is a leading figure in eliminating Net Neutrality.
So yeah - to be direct, the Republican congressman from Oregon would most certainly have not have let the cat out of the bag.
Just in case any of you were still working under the false assumption that it doesn't matter which party you vote for. Keep it in mind as election season approaches.
Election season is HERE! Today is Oregon's primary. There are 7 Democrats on the ballot vying for a chance to run against Walden in the general. There are some good people running, but only one of them actually has a chance to defeat Walden. If you're registered as a Democrat in Central, Eastern, or Southern Oregon (CD-2) fill in the bubble next to Jamie McLeod-Skinner's name and get your ballot down to the ballot box before 8pm tonight.
Ok, it's a very atypical example. However, a more typical example would be in lost work, lost time, potentially lost revenue, etc. Let's say you're going on a work trip and need your laptop. So best case scenario, you take your backup drives in carry on, and after they lose your luggage or destroy your laptop, you now have to run straight to a store, buy a new laptop, and restore your backups on to it. We all know it's rarely that simple too, depending on what it is you need. And how much time have you now lost?
Does it cost more than the laptop on every scenario? Of course not. Does it result in major fuck-me-over in a lot of scenarios though? Yes. Yes it does.
Haven't food companies been studying this and known it for decades? It's how they reach the "bliss point" - how much salt and sugar can they cram in a meal to ensure that you want to eat as much as possible. It's why you can eat 1000 worth of Hamburger Helper and still feel hungry.
Yeah, alt-right is a clever name to disguise their real purpose, and apparently these authors were duped. If you're going to pretend to be a journalist, do some f'ing research in to what you're writing about.
Don't worry. There's no money in this so it will never be made. And nobody cares about Africa.
Except people are very concerned that it will spread to the US. Also, there are NGOs that actually do care about Africa that plan on buying them and having a supply to prepare for an outbreak.
No, we don't. If it was by popular vote Clinton would have won. Gore would have won in 2000. The system you describe is not popular vote. Not even sort of.
Want to get into more semantics? Not everyone's vote counts the same. If it were popular vote, then my vote would count the same as somebody in Florida. However, being from Hawaii, it literally makes zero difference because our electors are going Democrat no matter what. As a state delegate, I got to participate in voting for our electors, but 99% of the state did not. In the general, if I were in a battleground then at least my vote would count some small percentage > 0. If it were actually a popular vote, then my vote would also count some small percentage > 0 regardless of what state I'm in.
No, but you need to be there. The other 3 can be whoever you want, as long as they're with you when you pick up the tickets.
That's how my local concert venue does it. You buy the tickets online with a credit card. The credit card holder must be there to pick up the tickets. It can be an inconvenience if you plan to arrive separately - but seriously, now that everyone has a cell phone it's not hard to figure out, and nobody really cares. The only time it's really a hassle is when parents are buying tickets for their kids.
You don't think a system at a university university with over 10k students streaming video over youtube, Facebook, netflix, etc, could handle a bunch of tweeting reporters?
He's literally ignoring that Apple was the only company to ever fight against DRM in their products. Every other company just said, well they're they rights holders, they can do that.
Yeah, "they" can't do it, well, unless it benefits Apple's bottom line. You're forgetting about the DRM build in to their charging cables.
but it certainly is evidence that the burden of data has become so overwhelming that doctors need assistants specifically to help with that.
The burden isn't on the amount of data, but rather the absolutely horrible systems that doctors have to use. Every major EMR out there is a flaming pile of crap. The thing is, they really don't care about investing in improving usability. They get selected for contracts with hospitals and clinics based off a checklist of features along with getting to tell them that so many other places use it, and the initial deliverable isn't even usable. So then they charge big, big dollars for "implementation" to make it "usable," and what they end up with is something that works but takes an order of magnitude more time to use than it should.
But what about the dirty tricks companies play, such as patenting a gene sequence?
I don't have a problem with that in and of itself, the problem is lack of clarity in the law. The point of patenting it is so they don't spend 13 years and millions and millions of dollars for me to then come along, copy what they did, and sell it and undercut them because I don't have to recoup all that R&D cost. This is the real reason they patent, but all the anti-GMO zealots claim they sue for cross-contamination or whatever, which is simply not true. But, there should be clarity in the law to make it explicit. Note that there are also a lot of hybrid patents, and were before GMOs too!
Or writing contracts that forbid farmers from harvesting seed, forcing them to buy new seed each time?
Such contracts were common practice even before GMOs with hybrids. And hardly anybody cares, because hardly any farmers save seed anyway, so that point is moot except for a very small minority. And, for that small minority, there are still A LOT of varieties they can purchase and save seed. Saving seed is very time and resource intensive, it's not just a matter of putting part of your harvest in a bucket, so it's cheaper for farmers to buy new seed, regardless of whether it's patent or contract encumbered, or GMO or conventional.
Or deliberately modifying the genome so the plants are fine with respect to food, but don't produce viable seeds
That's BS. Monsanto patented a "terminator gene" but never produced. As we see on/. all the time, there are all sorts of things patented that are never produced. So somebody at Monsanto had an idea, they patented that idea, and Monsanto never created it. Maybe they didn't create it for PR reason, or maybe it's because it simply wouldn't have been profitable. It costs a lot of money for R&D and for safety testing for a GMO (well over $100million for a single trait), and since farmers aren't saving seed anyway, what would be the point? It's also possible (this part is conjecture, I haven't actually asked a farmer about it) that wasn't even the motivation. A farmer who rotates crops, as many farmers do with corn and soy, doesn't want spilled seed from the previous crop to grow. If, for example, they plant corn and there's soy growing up from the last crop, they will have to apply atrizine to kill the soy, so a "terminator" seed might actually be desirable to the farmer.
In my experience, anti-vaxxers lean both left and right, often for different reasons.
I think it varies by region. Where I live, the anti-vaxxers tend to be left wing extremists. It's the same people who believe all scientists are corrupt and Monsanto is the devil and GMOs will destroy the world, yet do believe the scientific consensus that climate change is real because science says so. They think Big Pharma is out to get them, and that cancer patients should eat avocados lemon water instead of undergoing chemo. They profess that the paleo diet is how everyone should eat, and think that eating gluten will killing them. They are rabidly anti-corporation, but spend most of their money at multi-billion dollar publicly traded Whole Foods, and those that don't have a lot of money malnourish their children because it's better to eat "clean" than eat enough.
They are part of a religion. That religion is composed of the faith that anything that seems unnatural is evil and is trying to kill them, and everything is part of a conspiracy to force unnaturalness on them.
One of them has possibly been involved in Islamist activities, has known associates involved in Islamist activities, etc.
Islamist activities, you mean like praying and celebrating holidays just like their Christian counterparts? Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"
Whenever I see another one of those Daesh videos, I have always wondered where that rogue Toyota dealership is so we can wipe it out. Who know that it was in Texas?
Better wipe out all of Texas then, just to be sure.
They didn't hear of the Fairchild XC-120 Packplane? The patent should not have been granted in the first place.
You really don't understand patents do you? The patent is not the title. The patent is a method for accomplishing the title. If it's a different method for doing it than the Fairchild XC-120 used, then the XC-120 is not prior art.
As an analogy, if I come up with a method for shutting up arrogant morons, and title the patent, "A method for shutting up arrogant morons," it doesn't mean my patent applies to all methods of shutting up arrogant morons, only the method that I specify in the patent. If somebody else comes along with another method of shutting up arrogant morons that is not the method in my patent or one that I have used before, then my method doesn't count as prior art to their patent.
whether it's the best time to bring up the topic is another matter
Given the frequency of mass shootings lately, if you talk about it at all, it's going to be right after, right before, and possibly during a mass shooting.
The kid had Crazy Parents Syndrome (CPS) and so she killed herself. See, it's a real medical condition because I gave it a TLA.
It's very likely what the daughter was actually suffering from was depression. The symptoms that the kooky mom attributed to WiFi were actually symptoms of depression. This isn't a case of blaming the WiFi after the suicide, it was blaming the WiFi all along for the daughter's depression symptoms. Instead of treating the depression, the mom went in the opposite direction and convinced the daughter her symptoms were due to external forces and focused energy on a futile battle with the school, thus exacerbating the depression and driving her to suicide. So most likely if the mom had been a responsible, non-idiotic parent and had taken the daughter to a psychologist for therapy rather than blaming WiFi, the daughter would still be alive. Therefore it is the mom's fault.
Yup, and apparently they don't care. I'm pretty sure what they are doing is the epitome of libel. It's not abuse of technology, and future president is not at question. They are intentionally trying to defame somebody by accusing them of something they haven't done.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; unless the government doesn't feel like it.
Sprint's policy is good for all its customers except Data Hogs who so narcissistic that they have no interest in anyone but themselves.
The problem is that they paid for an unlimited plan. They probably chose Sprint specifically so that they could be data hogs, and is giving sprint thousands of dollars over the course of their 2 year contract. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they didn't call it "unlimited" on new contracts and in particular if they allowed those still under contract to complete the contract they signed up for. After the contract is up, I can understand, then those people can choose a different plan or provider or choose to accept the throttling. But if you went with Sprint specifically so you could have unlimited data, and now you're stuck with them because you're under contract, well then what they are doing should be illegal (I know, it's in their contract that they can do whatever the hell they want, which should in itself be illegal). Sprint should either be required to finish out the contract with their customer, or the customer should be allowed out of their contract without penalty. There is no indication that Sprint plans to do either one of those.
Sprint has altered the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further.
Slashdot Mirror
After Mark Zuckerberg was grilled on privacy during congressional hearings
Grilled? That wasn't even close to grilled. It was a farce. A series of softballs that were already public information anyway. It only cost Facebook $27,000 in campaign contributions to the chair of the Energy and Finance committee Greg Walden (R-OR) to make it farce, where nothing interesting was revealed. And it only cost them a fraction of what these other companies are shelling out.
Just so ya know, this stupid law was passed in 1986, when a Republican was governor (George Deukmejian). But hey, I don't know why I'm bothering responding to a troll who does care about facts or reality.
Interesting that you bring that up. Remember the pathetic excuse for a Facebook hearing where they intentionally asked Zuckerberg really stupid questions that didn't get to the heart of the matter at all? That was chaired by Republican Representative Greg Walden (Congressional district 2, covering Central, Eastern, and Southern Oregon), Oregon's congressional delegation's only Republican. He set the strict rules for the hearing that were intended, and did so successfully, to make sure it didn't come out what data Facebook collects and how it uses it, other than what's on the surface that everyone who uses Facebook Pages to advertise already knows.
Oh, also, Greg Walden (R-Oregon) receives many thousands of dollars each from Facebook and Telecom companies, and is a leading figure in eliminating Net Neutrality.
So yeah - to be direct, the Republican congressman from Oregon would most certainly have not have let the cat out of the bag.
Just in case any of you were still working under the false assumption that it doesn't matter which party you vote for. Keep it in mind as election season approaches.
Election season is HERE! Today is Oregon's primary. There are 7 Democrats on the ballot vying for a chance to run against Walden in the general. There are some good people running, but only one of them actually has a chance to defeat Walden. If you're registered as a Democrat in Central, Eastern, or Southern Oregon (CD-2) fill in the bubble next to Jamie McLeod-Skinner's name and get your ballot down to the ballot box before 8pm tonight.
Ok, it's a very atypical example. However, a more typical example would be in lost work, lost time, potentially lost revenue, etc. Let's say you're going on a work trip and need your laptop. So best case scenario, you take your backup drives in carry on, and after they lose your luggage or destroy your laptop, you now have to run straight to a store, buy a new laptop, and restore your backups on to it. We all know it's rarely that simple too, depending on what it is you need. And how much time have you now lost?
Does it cost more than the laptop on every scenario? Of course not. Does it result in major fuck-me-over in a lot of scenarios though? Yes. Yes it does.
Haven't food companies been studying this and known it for decades? It's how they reach the "bliss point" - how much salt and sugar can they cram in a meal to ensure that you want to eat as much as possible. It's why you can eat 1000 worth of Hamburger Helper and still feel hungry.
Yeah, alt-right is a clever name to disguise their real purpose, and apparently these authors were duped. If you're going to pretend to be a journalist, do some f'ing research in to what you're writing about.
alt-right = terrorist hate group.
How did this kind of chicken-little the-sky-is-falling FUD make its way onto Slashdot?
You should be ashamed for posting this "article".
You must be new here...
Don't worry. There's no money in this so it will never be made. And nobody cares about Africa.
Except people are very concerned that it will spread to the US. Also, there are NGOs that actually do care about Africa that plan on buying them and having a supply to prepare for an outbreak.
We sort of do
No, we don't. If it was by popular vote Clinton would have won. Gore would have won in 2000. The system you describe is not popular vote. Not even sort of.
Want to get into more semantics? Not everyone's vote counts the same. If it were popular vote, then my vote would count the same as somebody in Florida. However, being from Hawaii, it literally makes zero difference because our electors are going Democrat no matter what. As a state delegate, I got to participate in voting for our electors, but 99% of the state did not. In the general, if I were in a battleground then at least my vote would count some small percentage > 0. If it were actually a popular vote, then my vote would also count some small percentage > 0 regardless of what state I'm in.
No, but you need to be there. The other 3 can be whoever you want, as long as they're with you when you pick up the tickets.
That's how my local concert venue does it. You buy the tickets online with a credit card. The credit card holder must be there to pick up the tickets. It can be an inconvenience if you plan to arrive separately - but seriously, now that everyone has a cell phone it's not hard to figure out, and nobody really cares. The only time it's really a hassle is when parents are buying tickets for their kids.
You don't think a system at a university university with over 10k students streaming video over youtube, Facebook, netflix, etc, could handle a bunch of tweeting reporters?
He's literally ignoring that Apple was the only company to ever fight against DRM in their products. Every other company just said, well they're they rights holders, they can do that.
Yeah, "they" can't do it, well, unless it benefits Apple's bottom line. You're forgetting about the DRM build in to their charging cables.
but it certainly is evidence that the burden of data has become so overwhelming that doctors need assistants specifically to help with that.
The burden isn't on the amount of data, but rather the absolutely horrible systems that doctors have to use. Every major EMR out there is a flaming pile of crap. The thing is, they really don't care about investing in improving usability. They get selected for contracts with hospitals and clinics based off a checklist of features along with getting to tell them that so many other places use it, and the initial deliverable isn't even usable. So then they charge big, big dollars for "implementation" to make it "usable," and what they end up with is something that works but takes an order of magnitude more time to use than it should.
But what about the dirty tricks companies play, such as patenting a gene sequence?
I don't have a problem with that in and of itself, the problem is lack of clarity in the law. The point of patenting it is so they don't spend 13 years and millions and millions of dollars for me to then come along, copy what they did, and sell it and undercut them because I don't have to recoup all that R&D cost. This is the real reason they patent, but all the anti-GMO zealots claim they sue for cross-contamination or whatever, which is simply not true. But, there should be clarity in the law to make it explicit. Note that there are also a lot of hybrid patents, and were before GMOs too!
Or writing contracts that forbid farmers from harvesting seed, forcing them to buy new seed each time?
Such contracts were common practice even before GMOs with hybrids. And hardly anybody cares, because hardly any farmers save seed anyway, so that point is moot except for a very small minority. And, for that small minority, there are still A LOT of varieties they can purchase and save seed. Saving seed is very time and resource intensive, it's not just a matter of putting part of your harvest in a bucket, so it's cheaper for farmers to buy new seed, regardless of whether it's patent or contract encumbered, or GMO or conventional.
Or deliberately modifying the genome so the plants are fine with respect to food, but don't produce viable seeds
That's BS. Monsanto patented a "terminator gene" but never produced. As we see on /. all the time, there are all sorts of things patented that are never produced. So somebody at Monsanto had an idea, they patented that idea, and Monsanto never created it. Maybe they didn't create it for PR reason, or maybe it's because it simply wouldn't have been profitable. It costs a lot of money for R&D and for safety testing for a GMO (well over $100million for a single trait), and since farmers aren't saving seed anyway, what would be the point? It's also possible (this part is conjecture, I haven't actually asked a farmer about it) that wasn't even the motivation. A farmer who rotates crops, as many farmers do with corn and soy, doesn't want spilled seed from the previous crop to grow. If, for example, they plant corn and there's soy growing up from the last crop, they will have to apply atrizine to kill the soy, so a "terminator" seed might actually be desirable to the farmer.
In my experience, anti-vaxxers lean both left and right, often for different reasons.
I think it varies by region. Where I live, the anti-vaxxers tend to be left wing extremists. It's the same people who believe all scientists are corrupt and Monsanto is the devil and GMOs will destroy the world, yet do believe the scientific consensus that climate change is real because science says so. They think Big Pharma is out to get them, and that cancer patients should eat avocados lemon water instead of undergoing chemo. They profess that the paleo diet is how everyone should eat, and think that eating gluten will killing them. They are rabidly anti-corporation, but spend most of their money at multi-billion dollar publicly traded Whole Foods, and those that don't have a lot of money malnourish their children because it's better to eat "clean" than eat enough.
They are part of a religion. That religion is composed of the faith that anything that seems unnatural is evil and is trying to kill them, and everything is part of a conspiracy to force unnaturalness on them.
The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.
If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.
One of them has possibly been involved in Islamist activities, has known associates involved in Islamist activities, etc.
Islamist activities, you mean like praying and celebrating holidays just like their Christian counterparts? Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"
Whenever I see another one of those Daesh videos, I have always wondered where that rogue Toyota dealership is so we can wipe it out. Who know that it was in Texas?
Better wipe out all of Texas then, just to be sure.
They didn't hear of the Fairchild XC-120 Packplane? The patent should not have been granted in the first place.
You really don't understand patents do you? The patent is not the title. The patent is a method for accomplishing the title. If it's a different method for doing it than the Fairchild XC-120 used, then the XC-120 is not prior art.
As an analogy, if I come up with a method for shutting up arrogant morons, and title the patent, "A method for shutting up arrogant morons," it doesn't mean my patent applies to all methods of shutting up arrogant morons, only the method that I specify in the patent. If somebody else comes along with another method of shutting up arrogant morons that is not the method in my patent or one that I have used before, then my method doesn't count as prior art to their patent.
whether it's the best time to bring up the topic is another matter
Given the frequency of mass shootings lately, if you talk about it at all, it's going to be right after, right before, and possibly during a mass shooting.
The kid had Crazy Parents Syndrome (CPS) and so she killed herself. See, it's a real medical condition because I gave it a TLA.
It's very likely what the daughter was actually suffering from was depression. The symptoms that the kooky mom attributed to WiFi were actually symptoms of depression. This isn't a case of blaming the WiFi after the suicide, it was blaming the WiFi all along for the daughter's depression symptoms. Instead of treating the depression, the mom went in the opposite direction and convinced the daughter her symptoms were due to external forces and focused energy on a futile battle with the school, thus exacerbating the depression and driving her to suicide. So most likely if the mom had been a responsible, non-idiotic parent and had taken the daughter to a psychologist for therapy rather than blaming WiFi, the daughter would still be alive. Therefore it is the mom's fault.
President? Precedent. Thanks autocorrect.
They're used to being sued, and losing.
Yup, and apparently they don't care. I'm pretty sure what they are doing is the epitome of libel. It's not abuse of technology, and future president is not at question. They are intentionally trying to defame somebody by accusing them of something they haven't done.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; unless the government doesn't feel like it.
FTFY
Sprint's policy is good for all its customers except Data Hogs who so narcissistic that they have no interest in anyone but themselves.
The problem is that they paid for an unlimited plan. They probably chose Sprint specifically so that they could be data hogs, and is giving sprint thousands of dollars over the course of their 2 year contract. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they didn't call it "unlimited" on new contracts and in particular if they allowed those still under contract to complete the contract they signed up for. After the contract is up, I can understand, then those people can choose a different plan or provider or choose to accept the throttling. But if you went with Sprint specifically so you could have unlimited data, and now you're stuck with them because you're under contract, well then what they are doing should be illegal (I know, it's in their contract that they can do whatever the hell they want, which should in itself be illegal). Sprint should either be required to finish out the contract with their customer, or the customer should be allowed out of their contract without penalty. There is no indication that Sprint plans to do either one of those.
Sprint has altered the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further.