It looks fine, but it's too fancy for my taste. Personally, when a someone tries to doll up a site to make it prettier, it always kind of irks me. It feels like it's losing its quality, so they have to compensate by making it prettier. I'm sure that's not the case here, but let's drop this redesign stuff. Unless you make it easier to navigate with a text-based browser.
No. is not that simple, otherwise there wouldn't be a lawsuit (hence the point of the original post). There are lots of things you can't put or do in a contract no matter who, what, and how it gets signed (and these can include ToS). We'll see what happens.
I was think that they should call it "direct messaging". And the word "security" in the account settings probably should be changed to "wishful thinking" or something.
Ok, so I must disagree. When you don't pay for something, the person giving it to you doesn't have much of an obligation or incentive. That isn't to say that people who get paid directly for a service will do it properly, but if you don't pay for a service directly and your information is being used to support the system financially through ads, then the relationship between your information and its monetization is what's important. It's baffling that someone would look at the exploits and breaches on so many of these "free" sites that happened in 2013 and be appalled that their information wasn't being secured properly.
I used to think that IT Managers needed to be technical to be any good, but I don't think it's true anymore. I've had non-technical managers that new what it took to make things happen; 1) hire the right people and 2) make sure they had what they needed to operate. The best project manager I've had did the one thing I needed when I was working on an issue at 2am - she brought me coffee. No attitude, no, "I'm a manager, I don't do this". She went across the street and brought me coffee. That happened 7 years ago and I never forgot it. Non-technical managers come with advantages and disadvantages like everything else, but when they're good, they're VERY good.
Let's be fair, an "excessively paranoid" person wouldn't trust a free service, they'd roll their own. Second, honestly, why on earth would anyone think that any free service is unexploitable? What example do we have of a free service that's been reliable in terms of privacy and security? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of one.
I wonder if they believe that everyone gets all of their facts from media sound bites, that we're not going to question a particular form of reasoning. I guess that's a tried and true method - just throw anything out there and most people will believe it until it's true.
Maybe. Joking aside, I just want to know what this "selling" stuff is about. Who did he sell anything to? Just trying to verify the accuracy of the statement or if there's basically a general misunderstanding of the facts.
Too true. What can I say? I guess my expectation of what the news should be doesn't marry up with what it is. So, I guess there's no reason to tune in anymore.
Re:"The Newsroom" summarizes the problem ...
on
The Rise of Hoax News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is a different form of it. If you're tuning in to get information on what's going on in the world, that's a moment where the facts theselves shouldn't be related to a personal view. Like looking at a map. You're not looking at the map so that you can feel good about your views on religion, right? That's what the news is supposed to be, and it's not anymore.
Re:"The Newsroom" summarizes the problem ...
on
The Rise of Hoax News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Too true. People tune in to news not really for the purpose of getting information but to hear someone confirm that their world view is right. That's a cultural problem. I hate to say it, but the news itself isn't the problem.
I think history will view this as a blessing for surveillance. Once it was thrust into the light and put out into the open, all that remained was a choice - are you for or against it. If you're still using a smartphone or social media, you've made that choice.
There are so many things wrong with this method. First - privacy. If you don't understand what I mean, stop right there and move along, no need to read the rest. Second, "seniority" and "experience" are part of the forumula? Experience in years? If so, that's totally fakable and in fact I intereview people all the time who pass interviews by upper management who insist that they have a decade or more of experience and I when I talk to them there's no evidence of it. Seniority? Really?! In any kind of work, the only thing that matters is effectiveness. You're getting paid to do a job, and I've seen people who have less than five years experience who are A LOT better at what they do than industry "veterans". If you're using seniority as a consideration then you're making a mistake because seniority has no correlation to value.
None of Google Apps (to my knowledge) use Java. They use Javascript (totally different) and many ther technologies to emulate the desktop application experience. I highly recommend spending time with desigining something with LAMP, CSS, and Javascript to get a better understanding of what I mean. Platform agnositicism is a really important thing that's been gaining traction because it offers choice.
That's become less important over the last five years since more and more applications are starting to be developed for web browser. Remember that eventually those 10 billion business applications will see new versions (in fact, pretty much every single one of them). If the market see opputunity in becoming platform-agnostic, that's where it'll go.
I want this, if for nothing else than to not need Windows for anything anymore. I would much rather see development of games on Linux (either Android or SteamOS). Yeah, I think gaming is one of the last areas of PC dominance for Microsoft. If that goes away, it's done.
Honestly, I don't think reading any online article should get you "thinking" about anything important. They're just filling a quota for page clicks. It's mostly fluff. There isn't enough news in a 24 hour cycle to satiate us, so lots of dumb articles are written.
China SHOULD ban it, but they should have banned it because of its frequent glitches and crashing. China had a chance to be funny about this and I think they just missed it. Maybe Australia can pick up the pieces of this comedy gold.
It's kind of a silly thing to say that the net's growing up. If anything, it's regressing and for those of us who remember what things looked like in 1990, they know that this statement is out of touch. The some of the biggest sites these days are so noisy and nonsesical that anyone would be hardpressed to find any kind of maturity. And, please don't make a random argument for Facebook because, let's face it, Facebook is where you go to post pictures of your life that are really not representative of your life at all. That's not maturity, that's a desperate cry for help.
Even gamers will notice that their favorite web sites have become more gaudy. It used to be that I could go to a gaming web site and get news. Now, when I look at the front page every one of these sites have giant images that can be seen from the ISS, much less written content on the front page, content that's stuffed to the gills with spelling and gramatical errors, and a site design that's pushing its own form of social media. That's not maturity. Maturity happens on sites that push for civilised and intelligent discourse because they're designed to do that. You'll always get some bs, even on/., from ACs that wait for a post to be put up to post something vile, but that's everywhere. If someone wants to complain about immature comments on their sites, they should go look in the mirror because they're doing something wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's hard core.
It looks fine, but it's too fancy for my taste. Personally, when a someone tries to doll up a site to make it prettier, it always kind of irks me. It feels like it's losing its quality, so they have to compensate by making it prettier. I'm sure that's not the case here, but let's drop this redesign stuff. Unless you make it easier to navigate with a text-based browser.
No. is not that simple, otherwise there wouldn't be a lawsuit (hence the point of the original post). There are lots of things you can't put or do in a contract no matter who, what, and how it gets signed (and these can include ToS). We'll see what happens.
You can't call the messages private when they're not. It's like selling Vegan burgers made from Kangaroo - it just doesn't work.
I was think that they should call it "direct messaging". And the word "security" in the account settings probably should be changed to "wishful thinking" or something.
Well, that's the point - it's not just Facebook bots that are privy to the information but advertisers as well. Is it still "privacy" then?
Ok, so I must disagree. When you don't pay for something, the person giving it to you doesn't have much of an obligation or incentive. That isn't to say that people who get paid directly for a service will do it properly, but if you don't pay for a service directly and your information is being used to support the system financially through ads, then the relationship between your information and its monetization is what's important. It's baffling that someone would look at the exploits and breaches on so many of these "free" sites that happened in 2013 and be appalled that their information wasn't being secured properly.
I used to think that IT Managers needed to be technical to be any good, but I don't think it's true anymore. I've had non-technical managers that new what it took to make things happen; 1) hire the right people and 2) make sure they had what they needed to operate. The best project manager I've had did the one thing I needed when I was working on an issue at 2am - she brought me coffee. No attitude, no, "I'm a manager, I don't do this". She went across the street and brought me coffee. That happened 7 years ago and I never forgot it. Non-technical managers come with advantages and disadvantages like everything else, but when they're good, they're VERY good.
No, I mean "free" as in "you didn't pay anything, so what do you expect?"
Well, no, we're not talking about paying for something, we're talking about using a free service. Both may be innadequate.
Let's be fair, an "excessively paranoid" person wouldn't trust a free service, they'd roll their own. Second, honestly, why on earth would anyone think that any free service is unexploitable? What example do we have of a free service that's been reliable in terms of privacy and security? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of one.
I wonder if they believe that everyone gets all of their facts from media sound bites, that we're not going to question a particular form of reasoning. I guess that's a tried and true method - just throw anything out there and most people will believe it until it's true.
Maybe. Joking aside, I just want to know what this "selling" stuff is about. Who did he sell anything to? Just trying to verify the accuracy of the statement or if there's basically a general misunderstanding of the facts.
When did Snowden sell secrets? I thought he released them to the public, I never read anywhere that he SOLD them.
Too true. What can I say? I guess my expectation of what the news should be doesn't marry up with what it is. So, I guess there's no reason to tune in anymore.
This is a different form of it. If you're tuning in to get information on what's going on in the world, that's a moment where the facts theselves shouldn't be related to a personal view. Like looking at a map. You're not looking at the map so that you can feel good about your views on religion, right? That's what the news is supposed to be, and it's not anymore.
Too true. People tune in to news not really for the purpose of getting information but to hear someone confirm that their world view is right. That's a cultural problem. I hate to say it, but the news itself isn't the problem.
I think history will view this as a blessing for surveillance. Once it was thrust into the light and put out into the open, all that remained was a choice - are you for or against it. If you're still using a smartphone or social media, you've made that choice.
There are so many things wrong with this method. First - privacy. If you don't understand what I mean, stop right there and move along, no need to read the rest. Second, "seniority" and "experience" are part of the forumula? Experience in years? If so, that's totally fakable and in fact I intereview people all the time who pass interviews by upper management who insist that they have a decade or more of experience and I when I talk to them there's no evidence of it. Seniority? Really?! In any kind of work, the only thing that matters is effectiveness. You're getting paid to do a job, and I've seen people who have less than five years experience who are A LOT better at what they do than industry "veterans". If you're using seniority as a consideration then you're making a mistake because seniority has no correlation to value.
None of Google Apps (to my knowledge) use Java. They use Javascript (totally different) and many ther technologies to emulate the desktop application experience. I highly recommend spending time with desigining something with LAMP, CSS, and Javascript to get a better understanding of what I mean. Platform agnositicism is a really important thing that's been gaining traction because it offers choice.
That's become less important over the last five years since more and more applications are starting to be developed for web browser. Remember that eventually those 10 billion business applications will see new versions (in fact, pretty much every single one of them). If the market see opputunity in becoming platform-agnostic, that's where it'll go.
I want this, if for nothing else than to not need Windows for anything anymore. I would much rather see development of games on Linux (either Android or SteamOS). Yeah, I think gaming is one of the last areas of PC dominance for Microsoft. If that goes away, it's done.
"An article at The Verge got me thinking"
Honestly, I don't think reading any online article should get you "thinking" about anything important. They're just filling a quota for page clicks. It's mostly fluff. There isn't enough news in a 24 hour cycle to satiate us, so lots of dumb articles are written.
Introduce your kids to reading.
China SHOULD ban it, but they should have banned it because of its frequent glitches and crashing. China had a chance to be funny about this and I think they just missed it. Maybe Australia can pick up the pieces of this comedy gold.
It's kind of a silly thing to say that the net's growing up. If anything, it's regressing and for those of us who remember what things looked like in 1990, they know that this statement is out of touch. The some of the biggest sites these days are so noisy and nonsesical that anyone would be hardpressed to find any kind of maturity. And, please don't make a random argument for Facebook because, let's face it, Facebook is where you go to post pictures of your life that are really not representative of your life at all. That's not maturity, that's a desperate cry for help. Even gamers will notice that their favorite web sites have become more gaudy. It used to be that I could go to a gaming web site and get news. Now, when I look at the front page every one of these sites have giant images that can be seen from the ISS, much less written content on the front page, content that's stuffed to the gills with spelling and gramatical errors, and a site design that's pushing its own form of social media. That's not maturity. Maturity happens on sites that push for civilised and intelligent discourse because they're designed to do that. You'll always get some bs, even on /., from ACs that wait for a post to be put up to post something vile, but that's everywhere. If someone wants to complain about immature comments on their sites, they should go look in the mirror because they're doing something wrong.