That's the new cliche of you people - that 'reality has a Left Wing bias'. If it did, everything Obama and your side told us about the economy and how great we were doing would have been true. Our kids would have been at the top of the world in education, and companies wouldn't have been searching for talent abroad.
The Alt-Right is just a faction on the Right that has differences w/ other conservatives. Breitbart hardly equals all, or even most of the portion of the media that is conservative
Point Cook made was that in the past, only 3 or 4 people told us the news, and all of them were, for want of a better term, Left-of-Center. This had been borne out election after election, where 90+% of journalists would reveal that they voted for the Democrats. In no walk of life do you get such homogeneous opinions, so when that happens, people who disagree w/ them are justified in wondering whether they are lying to them. That's why we had things like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge Report, Blaze TV, Breitbart, et al. While that may look like a lot, keep in mind that if you have just basic TV, FNC is not a part of the deal, in which case your only choices are ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. Even the Fox Broadcast Channel does not have the same bent as FNC, and even FNC has its share of Liberals like Sheppard Smith, Juan Williams and Julie Rogansky. So even w/ all this, the Left certainly had an overwhelming advantage when it came to the media.
The way Social Media changes all this is that everybody is a potential news source, and w/ that, comes all the trolling, but seriously, this is no different from Usenet - for those who remember. Flame wars are just a part of it. Also, w/ media bias being what it's been, people on the right who are disgusted by it have left them in droves, and are either turning to these alternate sources, or even hearing directly from the horse's mouth. I mean, why would a Trump supporter go to CNN or NBC or even FNC when they can directly read his Twitter account. And the same goes for Trump haters - they can go to Hilary, Bernie, Schumer, Warren or any number of Trump haters out there.
The thing that the Left is bitter about is that their monopoly and control on information flow is gone. If anyone can pull out their smartphone, videotape something and then put it on Facebook, how do their 'journalists' who simply sit in their studios and bloviate justify their 6-7 figure salaries?
LTE is OFDMA, which is a completely different technology. It's however a point of convergence for both CDMA and GSM, but companies do have to support their old networks for places that do not have LTE or even 3G coverage, b'cos there, their legacy tech would be the fallback
We just completed 8 years of the Obamanation. So what was it that stopped everything from flourishing - be it education, infrastructure, jobs, et al? If it was so great, this election would have been identical to 2008, w/ not only Hilary Clinton getting elected, but Schumer would have become Majority Leader and Pelosi Speaker
So why didn't you? We had the most Leftist government in the US in President Obama - more to the left of leaders like Harper and Cameron. So what stopped you? Yeah, I'm sure the tourist industry types are crestfallen that there is no longer lucrative business to be had from tourists from Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Libya.
It's a matter of opinion. Half of people would consider not liking the US as equivalent to not liking the former administration of President Obama. If you consider the US turning a blind eye towards illegal immigration, Jihad and the like good, it may be opposed to the current administration, but it's certainly not liking the US by any sane definition of 'like'
Actually, the above reason is why the US tried banning (which is currently in the courts) people from these 7 countries. Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria don't have reliable records. In fact, w/ Syria, it's tough to expect that the Assad regime, which the US had been trying to topple (not sure if that's still Trump's policy) would want to share anything w/ the US, and even if they did, they can't have records for the eastern half of their country that's run by ISIS. Same goes for Iraq: their government may or may not be friendly, but how would Baghdad know whether someone in Tikrit supports ISIS or not? Iran too - it's impossible to know, since Teheran would have every reason to allow in terrorists, while preventing genuine refugees from Islam from coming. And Sudan is still listed as a terror sponsoring state, even though Obama removed sanctions just before leaving (similar to his moves on Cuba and Israel)
Anyway, the reason they probably want to know their social media activities is that for now, they are forced to let in people from these countries that they can't vet.
You make it sound like that is a bad thing. If people who don't like the US avoid the US, that's one of the desirable outcomes, the attempts of Dem AGs notwithstanding.
That seems to be the least of the problems. Even if you assume good faith (and you can't... too many stories of individual immigration officers, possibly with the encouragement of higher ups, acting inhumanely towards would-be immigrants), the request doesn't make sense: if I say I don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, are they going to believe me? What are the chances I have one if I live in a part of the world with no Internet?
And if I do, and I'm actually using my Facebook account to meet up with terrorists, preparing to be the first person ever from any of those seven countries to commit an act of terrorism in the US, what makes you think I'd use the same account for that as I do talking with friends and family? I mean, having one account used for both seems like it'd be asking for trouble. Guess which password you'd end up with...
What a waste of time and resources, and a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy.
For the 7 countries in question, you'd be right: chances are very likely that someone from Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen doesn't have internet
Also, you're right about the terrorist thing: a terrorist would maintain a personal profile for friends & family, and another for his Ansar al Jihad comrades. And he won't turn over the latter. But one reason for this is undoubtedly San Bernardino, where Tasfeen Malik used her personal page to promote Jihad
I can imagine Facebook, Twitter etc. blowing up over this.
Besides, if they get password access how can they use ANYTHING they find as evidence of anything? They've got WRITE access, for crying out loud! The evidence chain isn't just poisoned, it's rotted right through.
That's the point I made above - they can see things w/o a password, particularly in FB.
Your latter point is right on. But one implication of this - if a person claims that he doesn't have a social media profile, and later on, it turns out that at the time of questioning, he actually did, that would be a reason to scrutinize him further. Of course, if he created one after coming to the US, it would be another story. But the main point is to make sure that anyone w/ a social media profile is looked at, so that you wouldn't have more Tasfeen Maliks.
I recently opened a new facebook profile w/ a fake name (Facebook disallowed certain names), and running it that way. In Twitter, it was even easier, since they don't seem to insist that one uses his/her real name while posting.
For FB, why do they need a password? If they want to check out Mohammed Islam's account, they can just visit his home page and see what he has written. Or even ask to befriend him temporarily so that they can see his private messages as well, and unfriend them once the background check is over.
No, residential areas are created to provide places to live. Period. Full Stop.
You don't get a veto over your neighbors, only who stays at YOUR house. . . ..
This is how it should be, but ain't. Just take a look at homeowners associations, and all the regulations they lay out - like you can't paint your house mauve. The pretext being that it alters the value of other houses in the neighborhood, hence the 'greater good' argument.
Anyway, it's funny how AirBnB, which wants to defy the travel ban, is now running into rough weather w/ Comrade deBlassio just for doing their own thing
Unless the company were private, in which case there wouldn't technically be 'shareholders'. Seriously, if they want a company focused more on those 'global issues', they should keep the company private, and make it clear to their customers that their goal is not so much to sell a product or service, but to raise money for their pet issues w/o going into the red doing it
Blowing it - as the director of the company - would mean he is doing things that cause FaceBook to lose money. Is that what SumOfUs is complaining about?
From the summary, I'm guessing 'No'. They seem to be against him b'cos he's not on the same page as them on issues such as climate change, workers' rights, discrimination, human rights, corruption, and corporate power grab. But if a company wants to be dedicated to those things, they should be private and carefully distribute ownership only to people who are on the same page as them as far as that goes
Third party organization wants to oust founder of company from board of directors because of their activism in the area of "power grab."
Actually, it's more like Liberal Activists want to oust founder of company from board of directors b'cos despite his own Liberal bent, he decided to listen to conservative subscribers who had issues w/ the way Facebook censored some of their voices
While I normally support the rights of a founder to run an organization any way he pleases, I'm somewhat gleeful at this Alien vs Predator show
Honestly, the party is split on this. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others, are Libertarian leaning, while Little Marco is all for an intrusive government. Trump - well, after the leaks as well as the 'dossier', is probably against privacy violations as well, even if he supports it for national security exemptions
If you can get 512Gbits on one chip why are they expensive? Unless yields are low chips are not expensive to manufacture.
I think they are expensive to manufacture, particularly depending on which process node. Also, are these NAND chip 1-bit, 2-bit or more bits per cell? That translates into very sensitive voltage sensing, which increases the manufacturing complexity
India's Narendra Modi trounced the opposition with a campaign that included holograms of his speeches in villages across the country.
He did? I thought he ran a campaign that was high on constant texting to citizens everywhere, and during the time that he was banned from the US, he used video-conferencing to attend the places he was invited to, but this is the first time I'm reading about him in a hologram image
Slashdot Mirror
That's the new cliche of you people - that 'reality has a Left Wing bias'. If it did, everything Obama and your side told us about the economy and how great we were doing would have been true. Our kids would have been at the top of the world in education, and companies wouldn't have been searching for talent abroad.
The Alt-Right is just a faction on the Right that has differences w/ other conservatives. Breitbart hardly equals all, or even most of the portion of the media that is conservative
Point Cook made was that in the past, only 3 or 4 people told us the news, and all of them were, for want of a better term, Left-of-Center. This had been borne out election after election, where 90+% of journalists would reveal that they voted for the Democrats. In no walk of life do you get such homogeneous opinions, so when that happens, people who disagree w/ them are justified in wondering whether they are lying to them. That's why we had things like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge Report, Blaze TV, Breitbart, et al. While that may look like a lot, keep in mind that if you have just basic TV, FNC is not a part of the deal, in which case your only choices are ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. Even the Fox Broadcast Channel does not have the same bent as FNC, and even FNC has its share of Liberals like Sheppard Smith, Juan Williams and Julie Rogansky. So even w/ all this, the Left certainly had an overwhelming advantage when it came to the media.
The way Social Media changes all this is that everybody is a potential news source, and w/ that, comes all the trolling, but seriously, this is no different from Usenet - for those who remember. Flame wars are just a part of it. Also, w/ media bias being what it's been, people on the right who are disgusted by it have left them in droves, and are either turning to these alternate sources, or even hearing directly from the horse's mouth. I mean, why would a Trump supporter go to CNN or NBC or even FNC when they can directly read his Twitter account. And the same goes for Trump haters - they can go to Hilary, Bernie, Schumer, Warren or any number of Trump haters out there.
The thing that the Left is bitter about is that their monopoly and control on information flow is gone. If anyone can pull out their smartphone, videotape something and then put it on Facebook, how do their 'journalists' who simply sit in their studios and bloviate justify their 6-7 figure salaries?
LTE is OFDMA, which is a completely different technology. It's however a point of convergence for both CDMA and GSM, but companies do have to support their old networks for places that do not have LTE or even 3G coverage, b'cos there, their legacy tech would be the fallback
We just completed 8 years of the Obamanation. So what was it that stopped everything from flourishing - be it education, infrastructure, jobs, et al? If it was so great, this election would have been identical to 2008, w/ not only Hilary Clinton getting elected, but Schumer would have become Majority Leader and Pelosi Speaker
So why didn't you? We had the most Leftist government in the US in President Obama - more to the left of leaders like Harper and Cameron. So what stopped you? Yeah, I'm sure the tourist industry types are crestfallen that there is no longer lucrative business to be had from tourists from Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Libya.
Enjoy your vacation in Yemen. Or Libya.
It's a matter of opinion. Half of people would consider not liking the US as equivalent to not liking the former administration of President Obama. If you consider the US turning a blind eye towards illegal immigration, Jihad and the like good, it may be opposed to the current administration, but it's certainly not liking the US by any sane definition of 'like'
Whoooooosh!!!!
People who are against the US keeping itself safe can shove their 'liking' up their hiney!!!
Actually, the above reason is why the US tried banning (which is currently in the courts) people from these 7 countries. Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria don't have reliable records. In fact, w/ Syria, it's tough to expect that the Assad regime, which the US had been trying to topple (not sure if that's still Trump's policy) would want to share anything w/ the US, and even if they did, they can't have records for the eastern half of their country that's run by ISIS. Same goes for Iraq: their government may or may not be friendly, but how would Baghdad know whether someone in Tikrit supports ISIS or not? Iran too - it's impossible to know, since Teheran would have every reason to allow in terrorists, while preventing genuine refugees from Islam from coming. And Sudan is still listed as a terror sponsoring state, even though Obama removed sanctions just before leaving (similar to his moves on Cuba and Israel)
Anyway, the reason they probably want to know their social media activities is that for now, they are forced to let in people from these countries that they can't vet.
Yeah, but will you remember them? I had enough trouble at one of my past employers, where we were required to change passwords every 90 days
I'm sure it will be a surprise to all the people of Arabic, Turkic, Indo-Iranian or East Indian peoples to know that they are of Negroid ancestry
You make it sound like that is a bad thing. If people who don't like the US avoid the US, that's one of the desirable outcomes, the attempts of Dem AGs notwithstanding.
That seems to be the least of the problems. Even if you assume good faith (and you can't... too many stories of individual immigration officers, possibly with the encouragement of higher ups, acting inhumanely towards would-be immigrants), the request doesn't make sense: if I say I don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, are they going to believe me? What are the chances I have one if I live in a part of the world with no Internet?
And if I do, and I'm actually using my Facebook account to meet up with terrorists, preparing to be the first person ever from any of those seven countries to commit an act of terrorism in the US, what makes you think I'd use the same account for that as I do talking with friends and family? I mean, having one account used for both seems like it'd be asking for trouble. Guess which password you'd end up with...
What a waste of time and resources, and a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy.
For the 7 countries in question, you'd be right: chances are very likely that someone from Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen doesn't have internet
Also, you're right about the terrorist thing: a terrorist would maintain a personal profile for friends & family, and another for his Ansar al Jihad comrades. And he won't turn over the latter. But one reason for this is undoubtedly San Bernardino, where Tasfeen Malik used her personal page to promote Jihad
I can imagine Facebook, Twitter etc. blowing up over this.
Besides, if they get password access how can they use ANYTHING they find as evidence of anything? They've got WRITE access, for crying out loud! The evidence chain isn't just poisoned, it's rotted right through.
That's the point I made above - they can see things w/o a password, particularly in FB.
Your latter point is right on. But one implication of this - if a person claims that he doesn't have a social media profile, and later on, it turns out that at the time of questioning, he actually did, that would be a reason to scrutinize him further. Of course, if he created one after coming to the US, it would be another story. But the main point is to make sure that anyone w/ a social media profile is looked at, so that you wouldn't have more Tasfeen Maliks.
I recently opened a new facebook profile w/ a fake name (Facebook disallowed certain names), and running it that way. In Twitter, it was even easier, since they don't seem to insist that one uses his/her real name while posting.
For FB, why do they need a password? If they want to check out Mohammed Islam's account, they can just visit his home page and see what he has written. Or even ask to befriend him temporarily so that they can see his private messages as well, and unfriend them once the background check is over.
No, residential areas are created to provide places to live. Period. Full Stop.
You don't get a veto over your neighbors, only who stays at YOUR house. . . . .
This is how it should be, but ain't. Just take a look at homeowners associations, and all the regulations they lay out - like you can't paint your house mauve. The pretext being that it alters the value of other houses in the neighborhood, hence the 'greater good' argument.
Anyway, it's funny how AirBnB, which wants to defy the travel ban, is now running into rough weather w/ Comrade deBlassio just for doing their own thing
Nothing like advocating murder when things don't go one's way
Unless the company were private, in which case there wouldn't technically be 'shareholders'. Seriously, if they want a company focused more on those 'global issues', they should keep the company private, and make it clear to their customers that their goal is not so much to sell a product or service, but to raise money for their pet issues w/o going into the red doing it
Blowing it - as the director of the company - would mean he is doing things that cause FaceBook to lose money. Is that what SumOfUs is complaining about?
From the summary, I'm guessing 'No'. They seem to be against him b'cos he's not on the same page as them on issues such as climate change, workers' rights, discrimination, human rights, corruption, and corporate power grab. But if a company wants to be dedicated to those things, they should be private and carefully distribute ownership only to people who are on the same page as them as far as that goes
Third party organization wants to oust founder of company from board of directors because of their activism in the area of "power grab."
Actually, it's more like Liberal Activists want to oust founder of company from board of directors b'cos despite his own Liberal bent, he decided to listen to conservative subscribers who had issues w/ the way Facebook censored some of their voices
While I normally support the rights of a founder to run an organization any way he pleases, I'm somewhat gleeful at this Alien vs Predator show
Honestly, the party is split on this. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others, are Libertarian leaning, while Little Marco is all for an intrusive government. Trump - well, after the leaks as well as the 'dossier', is probably against privacy violations as well, even if he supports it for national security exemptions
If you can get 512Gbits on one chip why are they expensive? Unless yields are low chips are not expensive to manufacture.
I think they are expensive to manufacture, particularly depending on which process node. Also, are these NAND chip 1-bit, 2-bit or more bits per cell? That translates into very sensitive voltage sensing, which increases the manufacturing complexity
India's Narendra Modi trounced the opposition with a campaign that included holograms of his speeches in villages across the country.
He did? I thought he ran a campaign that was high on constant texting to citizens everywhere, and during the time that he was banned from the US, he used video-conferencing to attend the places he was invited to, but this is the first time I'm reading about him in a hologram image