Did this (unnamed) bank have a $10 router as well, because someone thought it would be enough, and why spend money on security that isn't thick walls and guards with guns and truncheons?
I also see a problem with "Sorry, boss, I didn't email you last night saying I was going to be out sick today, because it was after work hours. But giving you zero warning is okay, right?"
I mean, it does cut both ways. No email after work hours can hamper necessary communication.
I'm shocked. Shocked that legislation would have loopholes in them that could be done through incompetence. Normally, those loopholes are due to lobbyists.
There have been studies that show that lower corporate taxes (which can lead to higher profits) doesn't result in more jobs. Now, arguably, not all of those low taxes corps are sitting on Scrooge McDuck piles of money. But the idea that profits MUST INCREASE every quarter/fiscal year leads companies to do things that hurt them in the long term to gain a minor benefit in the short term.
Higher wages for employees allows those employees to have more buying power, which in turn, leads to a demand for goods, which companies produce. It's the circle of life, but with economics.
Stagnant wage growth and/or a stagnant jobs market means that there isn't as much buying power, and companies see drops in sales, and therefore production, and therefore cut jobs to keep their profit margins. Which leads to a decrease in buying power, and you see where I'm going here...
Republicans are big proponents of small government, unless it somehow involves reproductive organs, then they have to have a law about everything. Oftentimes to "protect the children".
They're not suppressing your feed (well, no more than they screw it up anyway what with posts from friends that you somehow never see), but they are supposedly suppressing conservative topics in the "Trending" section. Maybe.
Oh, hadn't you heard? Trump is now saying it was "just a suggestion" to ban Muslims. Because, now that he's ridden that wave of xenophobia and stupidity to be the presumptive nominee, he's (shockingly) walking back some of his stupidities to seem slightly more moderate.
But don't worry, it's Trump. He'll say something amazingly stupid tomorrow to make up for it.
Is this really a shock? Facebook is not really a news organization. At best, the "Trending" section is a news aggregator, and will all such aggregations, decisions are made to what gets prominence, and what doesn't.
Hell, ask any newspaper editor. Most of them will have a story or three of wishing they had more than one front page per edition because of multiple big events in the same day, and likewise, they'll have stories where technically speaking nothing big happened, but they still had to have something on the front page.
Is it a shock that humans are involved in the FB decision making process? No, not really.
And you'll notice that at any given time, there's what, 8-10 things in the Trending sidebar?
Wow, either there's only every that many things that spiked in popularity at any one time, OR.... FB chooses 8-10 things that spiked in popularity from the much larger list of things that spiked in popularity.
Did FB promise you, hand on heart, that the Trending section would contain everything, every last thing, that's actually trending, or just, oh, about 8-10 things? Because, you know, that's what I see. I see 4 or 5, and then I can click "more" and see some more. But it's never been more than 10 or so items.
And they frequently change when I reload the page. So, oh no, FB didn't show everything. Hell, they specifically excluded some things. Is it a stupid thing to do. Possibly. Is it a criminal act? No. It is "worthy" of having Congress look into it? Hell, no.
But those idiots in Congress apparently don't have anything better to do, so.....
You have noticed it's an election year, right? This is barely more than political theater.
"How DARE a corporation DO THIS THING!" even though Republicans seem to love letting corporations do pretty much anything and (some) are champions of deregulation....
Trump is Trump. He's neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. He's going to say whatever he feels like saying, and it changes from day to day. And plenty of people are lapping that up, which, for the life of me, I cannot understand.
He's barely been consistent on anything other than racism and xenophobia.
But does FB really count as a news source? I mean, okay, yes, they have a "Trending" section. They have some headline clickthroughs. People can post articles on their Timeline.
But, strictly speaking, are they a news source, or just an aggregator?
You might argue about the inherent biases at CNN, MSNBC, FOX, HuffPo, USA Today, etc., but they actually have reporters, news departments, publications and/or programs.
To the best of my knowledge, FB doesn't put out a newspaper, or have a TV show (yet). To the best of my knowledge, they don't have reporters. People making decisions about what headlines/articles should be in prominence is not the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, it's still not a great thing for FB to be doing. Hell, I'm a liberal, and I'm all too aware of the dangers of an echo chamber for news. But I don't think it's on the same level as if major news organizations were committing malfeasance.
Okay, let's get something straight. If FB chooses to show, or chooses not to show a news article under their "Trending" section, it's not abridging your freedom of speech. You are perfectly free to look anywhere else for news. They are under no obligation to provide news that you, in particular, are going to find interesting.
In other words, there is a difference between "Trending" and "Interesting".
Furthermore, having FB access is a privilege, not a right, and FB is free to allow access to all or to ban anyone they feel like, for any reason they feel like, as long as that reason (at least in the U.S.) doesn't violate a protected class. For example, they cannot ban someone based on that person's gender, religion, race, etc., but they can ban you for pretty much any other reason.
At least the corporations using this data-mining are being honest about what they're using it for. The government? "Hey, we need to look at this. For reasons. And you can't tell anyone."
Hold up a second. Media outlets in the U.S., despite not being an actual part of the government, can censor. And they have. And they do.
When they do it, however, it's not abridging your First Amendment rights.
It's when the government tells you "You can't write an article about this." that it's potentially abridging your First Amendment rights. (I say potentially, because it could involve national security, and that starts getting tricky.)
Well, they did recently add alternatives to "Like", which are (if I recall correctly), "Haha", "Love" and "Angry". There might be one or two others, but they have moved past just "Like". (Fundamentally, it works the same. It's an indication that person {x} showed some level of interest in post {y}.)
What they want, and what they get are two different things. I mean, yeah, I do notice the trending news sidebar on FB, but I still check a bunch of other news sites throughout the day. Besides which, the news has to still come from somewhere. FB (to the best of my knowledge) does not have they own journalism department writing articles and conducting interviews.
What I'm saying is that both parties play the "I don't want to hear things outside my bubble." They ignore news articles, or research papers, or whatever. Look at how many conservative politicians pretend that climate changes is a complete myth and we should ignore any possible consequences.
The difference is, there isn't a social media outlet that is broadly conservative on the level of Facebook. A group tried to create one called ReaganBook (now known as FreedomBook, I believe), but they got trolled pretty hard.
Again, both sides shut themselves off from ideas and viewpoints they don't want to see. Is it a shock that Facebook did the same? No, not really. But if your only news source is Facebook, that's a problem to begin with. (For the record, I routinely check HuffPo, CNN, USA Today, and several other news sites.)
So, I guess you've completely forgotten about the "Free Speech Zones" under Bush the Younger? Or how the Tea Party labels some politicians as RINOs? Ideas that fall outside of some mythical Republican ideal are ignored too. Doesn't make the Democratic/liberal side of things any less acceptable, but let's not pretend for a second that Republicans aren't pulling the same shit.
the short lived conservative "alternative" to Facebook called "Reaganbook"? (I believe they're rebranded it as FreedomBook...)
All conservatives, all the time. Except, of course, they got trolled immediately, because they forgot to lock off screen names of "Ronald Reagan", "Ayn Rand" and so forth, not to mention zombie variants thereof.
A legitimate patent issue would be where Company A is using one of Company B's patents without licensing it from B.
Now, could it be argued that B's patent is invalid because of prior art, or that B really doesn't own the patent, or any number of other reasons? Yes. That's what you do IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE.
But a patent case does not automatically mean a patent troll is involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Says the guy who calls anyone w SJW if they have a different opinion. (here' a hint, that's you.)
Did this (unnamed) bank have a $10 router as well, because someone thought it would be enough, and why spend money on security that isn't thick walls and guards with guns and truncheons?
I also see a problem with "Sorry, boss, I didn't email you last night saying I was going to be out sick today, because it was after work hours. But giving you zero warning is okay, right?"
I mean, it does cut both ways. No email after work hours can hamper necessary communication.
I'm shocked. Shocked that legislation would have loopholes in them that could be done through incompetence. Normally, those loopholes are due to lobbyists.
Shocked.
There have been studies that show that lower corporate taxes (which can lead to higher profits) doesn't result in more jobs. Now, arguably, not all of those low taxes corps are sitting on Scrooge McDuck piles of money. But the idea that profits MUST INCREASE every quarter/fiscal year leads companies to do things that hurt them in the long term to gain a minor benefit in the short term.
Higher wages for employees allows those employees to have more buying power, which in turn, leads to a demand for goods, which companies produce. It's the circle of life, but with economics.
Stagnant wage growth and/or a stagnant jobs market means that there isn't as much buying power, and companies see drops in sales, and therefore production, and therefore cut jobs to keep their profit margins. Which leads to a decrease in buying power, and you see where I'm going here...
Republicans are big proponents of small government, unless it somehow involves reproductive organs, then they have to have a law about everything. Oftentimes to "protect the children".
Well, everything about Donald Trump having a negative slant might be no manipulation at all. I mean, think about it.
Because it's an election year, and rabble-rousing among the electorate gets you votes?
They're not suppressing your feed (well, no more than they screw it up anyway what with posts from friends that you somehow never see), but they are supposedly suppressing conservative topics in the "Trending" section. Maybe.
Oh, hadn't you heard? Trump is now saying it was "just a suggestion" to ban Muslims. Because, now that he's ridden that wave of xenophobia and stupidity to be the presumptive nominee, he's (shockingly) walking back some of his stupidities to seem slightly more moderate.
But don't worry, it's Trump. He'll say something amazingly stupid tomorrow to make up for it.
Is this really a shock? Facebook is not really a news organization. At best, the "Trending" section is a news aggregator, and will all such aggregations, decisions are made to what gets prominence, and what doesn't.
Hell, ask any newspaper editor. Most of them will have a story or three of wishing they had more than one front page per edition because of multiple big events in the same day, and likewise, they'll have stories where technically speaking nothing big happened, but they still had to have something on the front page.
Is it a shock that humans are involved in the FB decision making process? No, not really.
And you'll notice that at any given time, there's what, 8-10 things in the Trending sidebar?
Wow, either there's only every that many things that spiked in popularity at any one time, OR.... FB chooses 8-10 things that spiked in popularity from the much larger list of things that spiked in popularity.
Did FB promise you, hand on heart, that the Trending section would contain everything, every last thing, that's actually trending, or just, oh, about 8-10 things? Because, you know, that's what I see. I see 4 or 5, and then I can click "more" and see some more. But it's never been more than 10 or so items.
And they frequently change when I reload the page. So, oh no, FB didn't show everything. Hell, they specifically excluded some things. Is it a stupid thing to do. Possibly. Is it a criminal act? No. It is "worthy" of having Congress look into it? Hell, no.
But those idiots in Congress apparently don't have anything better to do, so.....
You have noticed it's an election year, right? This is barely more than political theater.
"How DARE a corporation DO THIS THING!" even though Republicans seem to love letting corporations do pretty much anything and (some) are champions of deregulation....
Trump is Trump. He's neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. He's going to say whatever he feels like saying, and it changes from day to day. And plenty of people are lapping that up, which, for the life of me, I cannot understand.
He's barely been consistent on anything other than racism and xenophobia.
But does FB really count as a news source? I mean, okay, yes, they have a "Trending" section. They have some headline clickthroughs. People can post articles on their Timeline.
But, strictly speaking, are they a news source, or just an aggregator?
You might argue about the inherent biases at CNN, MSNBC, FOX, HuffPo, USA Today, etc., but they actually have reporters, news departments, publications and/or programs.
To the best of my knowledge, FB doesn't put out a newspaper, or have a TV show (yet). To the best of my knowledge, they don't have reporters. People making decisions about what headlines/articles should be in prominence is not the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, it's still not a great thing for FB to be doing. Hell, I'm a liberal, and I'm all too aware of the dangers of an echo chamber for news. But I don't think it's on the same level as if major news organizations were committing malfeasance.
Okay, let's get something straight. If FB chooses to show, or chooses not to show a news article under their "Trending" section, it's not abridging your freedom of speech. You are perfectly free to look anywhere else for news. They are under no obligation to provide news that you, in particular, are going to find interesting.
In other words, there is a difference between "Trending" and "Interesting".
Furthermore, having FB access is a privilege, not a right, and FB is free to allow access to all or to ban anyone they feel like, for any reason they feel like, as long as that reason (at least in the U.S.) doesn't violate a protected class. For example, they cannot ban someone based on that person's gender, religion, race, etc., but they can ban you for pretty much any other reason.
At least the corporations using this data-mining are being honest about what they're using it for. The government? "Hey, we need to look at this. For reasons. And you can't tell anyone."
Hold up a second. Media outlets in the U.S., despite not being an actual part of the government, can censor. And they have. And they do.
When they do it, however, it's not abridging your First Amendment rights.
It's when the government tells you "You can't write an article about this." that it's potentially abridging your First Amendment rights. (I say potentially, because it could involve national security, and that starts getting tricky.)
Well, they did recently add alternatives to "Like", which are (if I recall correctly), "Haha", "Love" and "Angry". There might be one or two others, but they have moved past just "Like". (Fundamentally, it works the same. It's an indication that person {x} showed some level of interest in post {y}.)
What they want, and what they get are two different things. I mean, yeah, I do notice the trending news sidebar on FB, but I still check a bunch of other news sites throughout the day. Besides which, the news has to still come from somewhere. FB (to the best of my knowledge) does not have they own journalism department writing articles and conducting interviews.
What I'm saying is that both parties play the "I don't want to hear things outside my bubble." They ignore news articles, or research papers, or whatever. Look at how many conservative politicians pretend that climate changes is a complete myth and we should ignore any possible consequences.
The difference is, there isn't a social media outlet that is broadly conservative on the level of Facebook. A group tried to create one called ReaganBook (now known as FreedomBook, I believe), but they got trolled pretty hard.
Again, both sides shut themselves off from ideas and viewpoints they don't want to see. Is it a shock that Facebook did the same? No, not really. But if your only news source is Facebook, that's a problem to begin with. (For the record, I routinely check HuffPo, CNN, USA Today, and several other news sites.)
So, I guess you've completely forgotten about the "Free Speech Zones" under Bush the Younger? Or how the Tea Party labels some politicians as RINOs? Ideas that fall outside of some mythical Republican ideal are ignored too. Doesn't make the Democratic/liberal side of things any less acceptable, but let's not pretend for a second that Republicans aren't pulling the same shit.
the short lived conservative "alternative" to Facebook called "Reaganbook"? (I believe they're rebranded it as FreedomBook...)
All conservatives, all the time. Except, of course, they got trolled immediately, because they forgot to lock off screen names of "Ronald Reagan", "Ayn Rand" and so forth, not to mention zombie variants thereof.
A legitimate patent issue would be where Company A is using one of Company B's patents without licensing it from B.
Now, could it be argued that B's patent is invalid because of prior art, or that B really doesn't own the patent, or any number of other reasons? Yes. That's what you do IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE.
But a patent case does not automatically mean a patent troll is involved.