I have a profile, mostly because I just want to have one if old friends/colleagues want to reach out to me to say hi (I don't make myself really available on other social networks). I've set it up mostly specifically for that, and to avoid getting recruiter emails (no picture, no access to my email, no real "advertising myself to get a job" thing).
So why does it suck? Because despite trying to avoid recruiters and other spam, once in a while I'll get a spam to my work email about seminars, job fairs, services, etc. that I never signed up for (I never, ever put my work email out anywhere for getting contacted).
So how did these spammers get my email? The only way I can think of is them having 'guessed' my email address based on my name and employer, which is only available together on..... (drumroll....) LinkedIn! I've never checked the email server logs, but I'm convinced they try several variations of my contact email when generating their spam.
So it's obvious that LinkedIn is just basically another place for the usual spammers to get a fresh list of people to pester about their services/products, which makes it pretty much useless as a social network.
Google, which was also asked to appear before the committee, chose not to do so. An empty chair was left at the table next to Sandberg and Dorsey to signify Google's absence.
I must say this is a nice touch, and stab at Google.
From treating perfectly good encryption algorithms as 'not good enough and warn the user immediately even though it's still perfectly safe', even though Google's own keys use the same algorithm but don't trigger a warning, to trying to freak the user out about 'this totally static site that doesn't use HTTPS must be insecure even though you can't submit info to it because it's totally static', Chrome has become the worst browser to use by a company throwing its weight around like a bully to get everything done its way.
Since there's no way for any company to take a 30% hit, they'll obviously pass that cost on to the consumer of the apps. Maybe it should be all users that should file a class-action suit.
And this is the reason Twitter has any users left at all – their own app is crappy, the website even worse. The only thing that makes Twitter useable are the third-party apps.
It's like smaller rolls of toilet paper but at the same price, because customers notice the "price point" not actual value. If you haven't noticed, toilet paper used to be 4.5"x4.5", then most switched to 4.5"x4" or 4.25"x4", now it's 4"x4" or 4"x3.92" -- but all at the same price as 4.5"x4.5". (Google: toilet paper smaller)
Slashdot Mirror
No. Sounds like their own lobbying group did.
Not if John Deere bought out the individuals of that lobby group.
Of course, I should have RTFA first since it has all three different videos already.
The second and third links, while different, seem to be the exact same video?
I have a profile, mostly because I just want to have one if old friends/colleagues want to reach out to me to say hi (I don't make myself really available on other social networks). I've set it up mostly specifically for that, and to avoid getting recruiter emails (no picture, no access to my email, no real "advertising myself to get a job" thing).
So why does it suck? Because despite trying to avoid recruiters and other spam, once in a while I'll get a spam to my work email about seminars, job fairs, services, etc. that I never signed up for (I never, ever put my work email out anywhere for getting contacted).
So how did these spammers get my email? The only way I can think of is them having 'guessed' my email address based on my name and employer, which is only available together on..... (drumroll....) LinkedIn! I've never checked the email server logs, but I'm convinced they try several variations of my contact email when generating their spam.
So it's obvious that LinkedIn is just basically another place for the usual spammers to get a fresh list of people to pester about their services/products, which makes it pretty much useless as a social network.
Did they also remove the original keynote it was mentioned in (or edit/truncate it)?
(No, didn't check).
Were these 'technical issues' due to lawyers from media companies perhaps?
Right on Cue.
I must say this is a nice touch, and stab at Google.
Like I said before, these currencies still have the problem of "99% of it being owned by the 1%" - with that 1% being the geeks this time around.
From treating perfectly good encryption algorithms as 'not good enough and warn the user immediately even though it's still perfectly safe', even though Google's own keys use the same algorithm but don't trigger a warning, to trying to freak the user out about 'this totally static site that doesn't use HTTPS must be insecure even though you can't submit info to it because it's totally static', Chrome has become the worst browser to use by a company throwing its weight around like a bully to get everything done its way.
Since there's no way for any company to take a 30% hit, they'll obviously pass that cost on to the consumer of the apps. Maybe it should be all users that should file a class-action suit.
And this is the reason Twitter has any users left at all – their own app is crappy, the website even worse. The only thing that makes Twitter useable are the third-party apps.
F: Fucktards,
B: Bitches &
I: Imbeciles
It's like smaller rolls of toilet paper but at the same price, because customers notice the "price point" not actual value. If you haven't noticed, toilet paper used to be 4.5"x4.5", then most switched to 4.5"x4" or 4.25"x4", now it's 4"x4" or 4"x3.92" -- but all at the same price as 4.5"x4.5". (Google: toilet paper smaller)
Is this where the three little shells comes from?
This makes me even happier that I ditched Facebook 9 months ago never to return.
Only 9 months ago? Pfttt! I quit Facebook well before it was the 'cool' thing to do.
..."Privacy Rapists" - seems more accurate as the days go by.
NT
We are trying that! What do you think all those trade restrictions are for?
People get all huffy when morality gets in the way of unrestricted globalization though.
Do not call it "embargoes" or "sanctions"; call it exactly "social credit score" - rub their noses in it.
And if China protests, just say we modelled it after their own, and we thought they'd be pleased/flattered we did so.
Oh, no no no. Do not call it "embargoes" or "sanctions"; call it exactly "social credit score" - rub their noses in it.
And if China protests, just say we modelled it after their own, and we thought they'd be pleased/flattered we did so.
I was, of course, being sarcastic - what's making it look worse right now is Trump's ongoing dumbassfuckery.
The problem being is, as a European looking in, I'm not sure whose social score would be lower; America's or China's.
America's.
Since China insists on inflicting a "social score" on their citizens, I think the rest of the world should do the same on China
Wanna export your products here? Sorry, our "social score" for China prohibits us from doing so
Want our companies to use your workforce? Oh, sorry, China's "social score" doesn't allow for our companies to do business with it
VNC would work for that.
Not quite sure how you'd do that on a tablet or phone, which is what most kids use these days.
This also somewhat assumes they're not using their cellular data to avoid the local network filters.
Should have added this link to connectsafely.org too.
Monitor.
Then trust.
Kids will always find ways to access what they want to see. Best to teach/explain/trust than to make them feel suppressed or constantly watched.