It's already bad enough that hardware manufacturers tweak and skew their drivers to eke out another dot at some artificial benchmark program, I don't want them to actually produce their hardware to fit an arbitrary metric that has nothing to do with real world problems because they have to since some illiterates want to compare numbers instead of finding out what they mean.
People can't perform when they're asleep on the job? Now that's a new discovery, who would have guessed that lacking sleep and rest would make people perform worse?
Where do you apply for grants for such discoveries, I have plenty more that I'd really love to present. Next week: Water is wet and it's cold up North.
Our ancestors worked a few hours a day hunting game and then went back to doing nothing. Pretty much like most predators in the wild.
The main difference is that we today have a LOT more to spend our time and money on so we have to work more to get that shit paid. But if you consider what you really need, you'll notice that working just a few hours a day is plenty.
If everything is critical, nothing is. If everything is important, nothing is. If everything is a carcinogen, nothing is.
Unless you put a qualifier next to it, it's meaningless because it voids any importance the label could originally have had. There is a difference in how likely it's gonna kill you, and this has to be stressed. Yes, working as a liquidator for Chernobyl, smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee are all likely going to cause cancer in you. But one is quite certainly going to kill you quite soon, one is likely to kill you somewhere in the future and one is... well, we don't know but might kill you... at some point in time.
And unless we establish some kind of way to differentiate between them, such labels will lose all meaning they might have had. If I can't avoid doing or eating something that is labeled as "causes cancer", why bother trying to avoid any of them?
First, it it those people's duty to look up the possible references, if they want to style themselves as, you know, scientists;
No. Sorry, but no. You make a claim, you have the burden of proof.
I've seen people trying to reverse the burden of proof (i.e. "I claim and if you don't believe me, prove me wrong"), but asking people to prove your statement if they want to believe it, that's... new.
Yes, any technology can be used for good and bad. What can be used to find a self-help group of people suffering from the same rare disease you have can be used for fringe loonies looking for equally deranged individuals. But that is NOT the problem with Facebook.
Don't try to deflect the discussion now onto whether FB's effect on people is good or bad, hoping that someone will come and defend Facebook akin to "Facebook doesn't kill people, the Terrorists using it do, it's just like guns, ya see?". That isn't the problem with Facebook. The problem with Facebook is not how its users (ab)use it.
I have an account for exactly one reason: So nobody can register one under my (fairly unique) name and start putting bullshit up.
I was tempted to use it to post bullshit myself to let prospective employers that think they're clever by looking me up on Facebook read what they are supposed to think about me... but instead I decided that LinkedIn would be the better place for that.
If he tried to protect anything, he would change the fucking laws that allow Amazon et al to avoid paying taxes. It's not like they're breaking the laws or anything. They are using the laws that exist.
What you're looking at here is the PRESIDENT complaining about a company following the law. I applaud him for identifying the law to be a bad one. Now, let's ponder for a moment: What could maybe be the next step the PRESIDENT OF THE USA could take if he wanted to change this?
Just like every other large company they evade taxes (by using the loopholes that YOU POLITICIANS create) and abuse our system to save money (which YOU POLITICIANS allow them to).
Hey, Trump. In case you didn't notice it yet: You can change the rules of the game. Shit or get off the pot.
Let's face it: Anyone trusting them on ANYTHING anymore cannot be helped. If you still can't understand how you're nothing but a commodity to that company, well, there's no amount of evidence, argument or convincing going to be of any use.
And if you really believe them when they say that they will "improve", there isn't anything left to be said either. Their whole business model is to sell your privacy to whoever is willing to hand them money. That is their business model. In case you don't believe it, just tell me what else this company could possible sell to make money.
And if that doesn't work for you, how about greed and miserliness. Ponder how much Facebook is "worth". Ponder what you got for being sold by them. Now tell me you don't feel like you've been getting a raw deal. They sell you for thousands of dollars and you get... umm... a place to put pictures of your lunch.
There is a reason for the old East Bloc joke. It loses a bit in translation but it's still good:
Don't think. If you think, don't speak. If you think and speak, don't write. If you think, speak and write, don't sign. If you think, speak, write and sign, don't be surprised.
I enjoy the solution our government over here came up with (as did many others in Europe).
Our cables were originally put into the ground by a government monopoly. In other words, we (taxpayers) paid for them. When it was time to privatize the cables, what they did was to privatize the former government monopolist and handed over the cables BUT at the same time created a law (and a regulatory body that watches over it) that those cables have to be rented to everyone competing with them at the same rates and conditions that they themselves have for their ISP.
Of course it ain't perfect, and of course they tried to circumvent the regulations repeatedly. But it did work out in the end, we're a small country in Europe with 3 national ISPs competing with a sizable number of small, local providers (and I mean SMALL, with customer numbers in the hundreds or thousands), and with 3 national mobile providers.
Slashdot Mirror
It's already bad enough that hardware manufacturers tweak and skew their drivers to eke out another dot at some artificial benchmark program, I don't want them to actually produce their hardware to fit an arbitrary metric that has nothing to do with real world problems because they have to since some illiterates want to compare numbers instead of finding out what they mean.
People can't perform when they're asleep on the job? Now that's a new discovery, who would have guessed that lacking sleep and rest would make people perform worse?
Where do you apply for grants for such discoveries, I have plenty more that I'd really love to present. Next week: Water is wet and it's cold up North.
Our ancestors worked a few hours a day hunting game and then went back to doing nothing. Pretty much like most predators in the wild.
The main difference is that we today have a LOT more to spend our time and money on so we have to work more to get that shit paid. But if you consider what you really need, you'll notice that working just a few hours a day is plenty.
You honestly expect them to argue for both sides of the debate?
If everything is critical, nothing is. If everything is important, nothing is. If everything is a carcinogen, nothing is.
Unless you put a qualifier next to it, it's meaningless because it voids any importance the label could originally have had. There is a difference in how likely it's gonna kill you, and this has to be stressed. Yes, working as a liquidator for Chernobyl, smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee are all likely going to cause cancer in you. But one is quite certainly going to kill you quite soon, one is likely to kill you somewhere in the future and one is ... well, we don't know but might kill you ... at some point in time.
And unless we establish some kind of way to differentiate between them, such labels will lose all meaning they might have had. If I can't avoid doing or eating something that is labeled as "causes cancer", why bother trying to avoid any of them?
First, it it those people's duty to look up the possible references, if they want to style themselves as, you know, scientists;
No. Sorry, but no. You make a claim, you have the burden of proof.
I've seen people trying to reverse the burden of proof (i.e. "I claim and if you don't believe me, prove me wrong"), but asking people to prove your statement if they want to believe it, that's ... new.
Yes, any technology can be used for good and bad. What can be used to find a self-help group of people suffering from the same rare disease you have can be used for fringe loonies looking for equally deranged individuals. But that is NOT the problem with Facebook.
Don't try to deflect the discussion now onto whether FB's effect on people is good or bad, hoping that someone will come and defend Facebook akin to "Facebook doesn't kill people, the Terrorists using it do, it's just like guns, ya see?". That isn't the problem with Facebook. The problem with Facebook is not how its users (ab)use it.
The problem is how its owners abuse its users.
The price is too high, sorry.
Hope not, moving targets are harder to hit.
I have an account for exactly one reason: So nobody can register one under my (fairly unique) name and start putting bullshit up.
I was tempted to use it to post bullshit myself to let prospective employers that think they're clever by looking me up on Facebook read what they are supposed to think about me... but instead I decided that LinkedIn would be the better place for that.
Purely for research reasons and so I an avoid doing anything bad, of course.
Let's put it that way: He's got enough influence that it would be trivial to get it changed if he wanted to.
If he tried to protect anything, he would change the fucking laws that allow Amazon et al to avoid paying taxes. It's not like they're breaking the laws or anything. They are using the laws that exist.
What you're looking at here is the PRESIDENT complaining about a company following the law. I applaud him for identifying the law to be a bad one. Now, let's ponder for a moment: What could maybe be the next step the PRESIDENT OF THE USA could take if he wanted to change this?
Hint: It's not lamenting about it on Twitter.
Just like every other large company they evade taxes (by using the loopholes that YOU POLITICIANS create) and abuse our system to save money (which YOU POLITICIANS allow them to).
Hey, Trump. In case you didn't notice it yet: You can change the rules of the game. Shit or get off the pot.
Nah. An Easter joke is this:
Hey Jesus, what you gonna do for Easter?
Dunno. Prolly just hangin' 'round.
Let's face it: Anyone trusting them on ANYTHING anymore cannot be helped. If you still can't understand how you're nothing but a commodity to that company, well, there's no amount of evidence, argument or convincing going to be of any use.
And if you really believe them when they say that they will "improve", there isn't anything left to be said either. Their whole business model is to sell your privacy to whoever is willing to hand them money. That is their business model. In case you don't believe it, just tell me what else this company could possible sell to make money.
And if that doesn't work for you, how about greed and miserliness. Ponder how much Facebook is "worth". Ponder what you got for being sold by them. Now tell me you don't feel like you've been getting a raw deal. They sell you for thousands of dollars and you get ... umm... a place to put pictures of your lunch.
Should've held it at April 1st.
Any claims about privacy would have been so much more topical that day.
The one that breaks the easiest if smashed against a hard surface.
The world is not divided by age but by intelligence. Whether you're 15 or 50, stupid is stupid.
There is a reason for the old East Bloc joke. It loses a bit in translation but it's still good:
Don't think.
If you think, don't speak.
If you think and speak, don't write.
If you think, speak and write, don't sign.
If you think, speak, write and sign, don't be surprised.
The most swearing i heard on any of their platforms was directed at their products.
What public? The public that has already been shown to be comprised mostly of telco sock puppets?
I feel like testing their structural integrity.
I enjoy the solution our government over here came up with (as did many others in Europe).
Our cables were originally put into the ground by a government monopoly. In other words, we (taxpayers) paid for them. When it was time to privatize the cables, what they did was to privatize the former government monopolist and handed over the cables BUT at the same time created a law (and a regulatory body that watches over it) that those cables have to be rented to everyone competing with them at the same rates and conditions that they themselves have for their ISP.
Of course it ain't perfect, and of course they tried to circumvent the regulations repeatedly. But it did work out in the end, we're a small country in Europe with 3 national ISPs competing with a sizable number of small, local providers (and I mean SMALL, with customer numbers in the hundreds or thousands), and with 3 national mobile providers.
The problem is that it would take a sociopath to actually do this.
Catch 22 at its finest.