That's the whole point of the site, sharing private moments with the public or with their "friends".
That's the whole point of all social media. Facebook just did it the most effectively and the quickest. Just wait until people realize the Twitter tantrums from their 20s can prevent them from getting jobs in their 30s.
Why is the world designed for "morning larks?" We have telecommuting, electric light, etc -- not all jobs need to be done on 18th century farmers' hours. Is this just the human knack for self flagellation?
Because of children and parents. Sorry if you think that's discriminatory, but life must go on.
That's not it at all. Let's say that 10 different people have you listed as a contact in their phones, and that those 10 people are on Faceplant. Facebook will create a shadow profile for you that connects you to these 10 people. And of those 10 people start sending you text messages? Facebook has that as well.
Wait, so you mean when people give an app full access to their contacts, the developer of that app has full access to their contacts? Shocking. I'm not seeing the troubling part, other than how quick people are to provide full access to apps on their devices. I don't think Facebook really has to connect many dots to suggest contacts, based on the crazy volume of data people provide to them willingly.
But even if every company tried to hire good people, there aren't enough good people to fill every company. So they hire not good people. Unfortunate.
Seems like they hire nobody. There are no entry level security positions and few mid-level. The vast majority of job postings are senior level, or what should be senior level based on the ridiculous requirements. And that's where the shortage is so of course they end up with nobody at all.
Actually some websites do try to force it's use. And there are even employers who strongly suggest getting a linkedin or facebook account. I have one of those, but I'm not complying with their "wishes".
Again, same logic applies. If my job requires me to have a social media account, and my job is not social media, I should find a new job. If a website requires me to log in with Facebook and provides no other method, I should find a new website.
Mobile games are shit. Why would I ever be subject to a timer and spend years getting anywhere in a game? Unless you're a millionaire, modern mobile games are very often unnecessarily protracted grinds.
I think the point of the article is that teens will always be bored. It's a time in your life when you start to desire experiences that you aren't mature enough to have had. You want independence, but you can't take care of yourself. You want relationship, but you often don't know how to put others first. You want fulfillment, but you can't really see much of the big picture.
Really, it's connection to others that teens need, and the majority of that comes through a loving family. Social media (and games, I guess) is just a crappy imitation of the real thing.
Your mistake was in thinking we are their customers.
Uh, except if you buy an Apple product you are their customer by definition. As opposed to Facebook or Google, where you are by definition the product.
...then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people...
I can afford to pay. I doubt that FB make more than $10/year by selling me out, and would easily pay $10/year for the utility of FB if they excluded me from all sell-out activity.
Just tell us the price and give us the option.
Don't be naive. You would not pay them because you would not trust them.
1. a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position.
By taking classes when they are at their sharpest, they are putting themselves in the most favorable position to perform better in the class. Does that make sense? I didn't mean as a competitive advantage. Source: I googled "definition of advantage."
Perhaps the better students already prioritize their schedule to give themselves an advantage? I would even venture so far as to say this conclusion is obvious.
Explain what the need is and you'll have your answer. This is a solution to a proposed need. It is a bad solution. No one needs a bad solution. Someone may or may not have the need that drove this completely ludicrous solution, but regardless the solution is terrible and no one needs that.
This is what I was getting at. The need may be separate secure and insecure computing, but the proposed solution is not the need.
I don't buy the argument that unlocking one phone is tantamount to a backdoor to all phones. Cook said
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
He obviously had the PR department go over this with him. "The FBI wants us to apply dev firmware to a single phone in a controlled environment? Let's say it's a hacker tool that will get out on the internet and put everyone at risk." It really seems most likely that the reason Apple resisted this court order was because they wish for you to think your data is safe from them when, in reality, they have not yet figured out how to make their devices manageable without also giving themselves a way to bypass your data encryption. It wasn't about privacy, it was about PR.
TLDR: The FBI and Apple both chose to appeal to the public. Apple inserted privacy and security language in their response, and won. That sounds great except next time the request won't be public so you won't even know how it turns out, and Apple will be just fine with that, because the illusion is maintained.
If you don't discuss the topic then the people who want to remove your rights will succeed in doing so
What rights exactly are you referring to? What is the difference between the FBI reading a dead gunman's postal mail, and the FBI having Apple send an over the air update to unlock the dead gunman's phone. They already had full authority to seize all of the gunman's correspondence. I guess it makes us feel better that Apple didn't want to comply, but then aren't we just pinning our hopes on the whims of a corporation?
Rather, it seems the sole reason they chose not to comply with the FBI was to continue the charade that your secure data is beyond even their reach, when it almost certainly is not.
If he had a storage unit, would you oppose the FBI compelling them to hand over the key?
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data...Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
So what you're saying is that in addition to investigating Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, Congress should also investigate all the Obama supporters that agreed to provide their friends lists? That's what we're after, right? Parties that give up other people's data without their consent?
Shouldn't it be fairly simple to determine when this was added to the blockchain? My assumption was this was injected early on, when single systems still had a decent chance to write a block. If we know when it was injected, we should know the wallet to which coins were issued to, then there's a decent probability this could be traced back to the individual running the system, who may (or may not) be responsible.
It doesn't matter if you find who did it, the--likely intentional--damage is done. This is was likely done to manipulate the value of bitcoin by demonstrating a very real problem with the technology. If you really want to find out who injected some of this content, look into why the university performed this research. Maybe somebody tipped them off.
Of course there are perverts out there that would do this sort of thing, but one of my first thoughts was : Maybe it was someone in the banking industry trying to discredit a competitor. And I'm not even a bitcoin fanboy!
I don't think banks are the ones with the most to gain by manipulating the price of bitcoin right now.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the whole point of the site, sharing private moments with the public or with their "friends".
That's the whole point of all social media. Facebook just did it the most effectively and the quickest. Just wait until people realize the Twitter tantrums from their 20s can prevent them from getting jobs in their 30s.
Why is the world designed for "morning larks?" We have telecommuting, electric light, etc -- not all jobs need to be done on 18th century farmers' hours. Is this just the human knack for self flagellation?
Because of children and parents. Sorry if you think that's discriminatory, but life must go on.
It should read, "Researchers Send Info Over PCs' Power Supply Cables."
That's not it at all. Let's say that 10 different people have you listed as a contact in their phones, and that those 10 people are on Faceplant. Facebook will create a shadow profile for you that connects you to these 10 people. And of those 10 people start sending you text messages? Facebook has that as well.
Wait, so you mean when people give an app full access to their contacts, the developer of that app has full access to their contacts? Shocking. I'm not seeing the troubling part, other than how quick people are to provide full access to apps on their devices. I don't think Facebook really has to connect many dots to suggest contacts, based on the crazy volume of data people provide to them willingly.
[if someone does not have a facebook account] then how can they opt out from getting their data collected?
By not visiting Facebook. He's talking about website analytics and nothing more.
I don't know what a shadow profile is, but collecting data on anonymous visitors to your website is not a privacy violation, it's practicing security.
I'm surprised that the comprehension around here seems to be about on par with the congresscritters.
But even if every company tried to hire good people, there aren't enough good people to fill every company. So they hire not good people. Unfortunate.
Seems like they hire nobody. There are no entry level security positions and few mid-level. The vast majority of job postings are senior level, or what should be senior level based on the ridiculous requirements. And that's where the shortage is so of course they end up with nobody at all.
#DeleteFacebook "But, we need to do X because money." #DeleteFacebook "But we really don't do X." #DeleteFacebook
It's so funny to use a hashtag to advocate a social media boycott. I do not think it sends the message you think it sends.
Actually some websites do try to force it's use. And there are even employers who strongly suggest getting a linkedin or facebook account. I have one of those, but I'm not complying with their "wishes".
Again, same logic applies. If my job requires me to have a social media account, and my job is not social media, I should find a new job. If a website requires me to log in with Facebook and provides no other method, I should find a new website.
I'm a Gen. X/Millenial (depending on where you draw the cut-off point...I certainly don't feel like I fit the "millenanial" definition though).
You could always call yourself a "Xennial." (I'd link articles but you're better off googling it and reading whatever source appeals to you.)
Mobile games are shit. Why would I ever be subject to a timer and spend years getting anywhere in a game? Unless you're a millionaire, modern mobile games are very often unnecessarily protracted grinds.
I think the point of the article is that teens will always be bored. It's a time in your life when you start to desire experiences that you aren't mature enough to have had. You want independence, but you can't take care of yourself. You want relationship, but you often don't know how to put others first. You want fulfillment, but you can't really see much of the big picture.
Really, it's connection to others that teens need, and the majority of that comes through a loving family. Social media (and games, I guess) is just a crappy imitation of the real thing.
Uh, except if you buy an Apple product you are their customer by definition. As opposed to Facebook or Google, where you are by definition the product.
Stockholders.
...then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people...
I can afford to pay. I doubt that FB make more than $10/year by selling me out, and would easily pay $10/year for the utility of FB if they excluded me from all sell-out activity.
Just tell us the price and give us the option.
Don't be naive. You would not pay them because you would not trust them.
1. a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position.
By taking classes when they are at their sharpest, they are putting themselves in the most favorable position to perform better in the class. Does that make sense? I didn't mean as a competitive advantage. Source: I googled "definition of advantage."
everything is a carcinogen in california...
It's kind of true. Good look finding a building that does NOT have a sign telling you it contains materials known to cause cancer.
Perhaps the better students already prioritize their schedule to give themselves an advantage? I would even venture so far as to say this conclusion is obvious.
Explain what the need is and you'll have your answer. This is a solution to a proposed need. It is a bad solution. No one needs a bad solution. Someone may or may not have the need that drove this completely ludicrous solution, but regardless the solution is terrible and no one needs that.
This is what I was getting at. The need may be separate secure and insecure computing, but the proposed solution is not the need.
The need you are describing is apparently not widespread nor strong enough for anyone to invest in implementing it in the way you describe.
More simply, it is not really a need.
That costs them money
1. Yes, in sales
or indeed they would have to cut back security on their phones
2. That's the illusion
which their customers wouldn't like.
3. See #1
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
He obviously had the PR department go over this with him. "The FBI wants us to apply dev firmware to a single phone in a controlled environment? Let's say it's a hacker tool that will get out on the internet and put everyone at risk." It really seems most likely that the reason Apple resisted this court order was because they wish for you to think your data is safe from them when, in reality, they have not yet figured out how to make their devices manageable without also giving themselves a way to bypass your data encryption. It wasn't about privacy, it was about PR.
TLDR: The FBI and Apple both chose to appeal to the public. Apple inserted privacy and security language in their response, and won. That sounds great except next time the request won't be public so you won't even know how it turns out, and Apple will be just fine with that, because the illusion is maintained.
If you don't discuss the topic then the people who want to remove your rights will succeed in doing so
What rights exactly are you referring to? What is the difference between the FBI reading a dead gunman's postal mail, and the FBI having Apple send an over the air update to unlock the dead gunman's phone. They already had full authority to seize all of the gunman's correspondence. I guess it makes us feel better that Apple didn't want to comply, but then aren't we just pinning our hopes on the whims of a corporation?
Rather, it seems the sole reason they chose not to comply with the FBI was to continue the charade that your secure data is beyond even their reach, when it almost certainly is not.
If he had a storage unit, would you oppose the FBI compelling them to hand over the key?
What the hell would I want this for?
You wouldn't. Others will.
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data...Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
So what you're saying is that in addition to investigating Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, Congress should also investigate all the Obama supporters that agreed to provide their friends lists? That's what we're after, right? Parties that give up other people's data without their consent?
Shouldn't it be fairly simple to determine when this was added to the blockchain? My assumption was this was injected early on, when single systems still had a decent chance to write a block. If we know when it was injected, we should know the wallet to which coins were issued to, then there's a decent probability this could be traced back to the individual running the system, who may (or may not) be responsible.
It doesn't matter if you find who did it, the--likely intentional--damage is done. This is was likely done to manipulate the value of bitcoin by demonstrating a very real problem with the technology. If you really want to find out who injected some of this content, look into why the university performed this research. Maybe somebody tipped them off.
Of course there are perverts out there that would do this sort of thing, but one of my first thoughts was : Maybe it was someone in the banking industry trying to discredit a competitor. And I'm not even a bitcoin fanboy!
I don't think banks are the ones with the most to gain by manipulating the price of bitcoin right now.