It's important that people's information is kept secure and private when they use Facebook," Alex Stamos, Facebook's chief information security officer, told Motherboard in a statement.
... you are SO working for the wrong company. (But of course this is PR, not a recitation of true principles.)
Personally, I don't give a damn about who knows when my date of birth was, what I last bought from Amazon or whether I "liked" a particular posting or not. It seems to me that the only people who do worry, do so about how other people might be losing their privacy - not about their own.
So because you don't care about your privacy, nobody else does? I care very much about losing my privacy, and I give all kinds of damns about whether someone knows my birthdate, my purchases, or what I like.
It seems to me that there is a pretty big differences between keeping other players "honest" and suggesting to the government that other players will need to be broken up, in order to make them honest.
Sure, why not. But in the scope of what we're talking about, that hardly makes them hypocrites, and certainly doesn't validate your central thesis about their motivation.
Don't you think that Mozilla is demonstrating a clear and unadulterated bias, specifically by advising the government to step in and rip to pieces those other mega-corporations with which Mozilla can no longer compete on equal footing?
You keep simply going back to your original thought, presuming it's obvious and shared by all who examine this situation. To answer your question: No, I don't think they're demonstrating a bias, at least not any that would lend to validating your point. What they're doing is perfectly consistent with wanting to improve the common good, and -- once again -- is not objective evidence of them seething about not being the most widely used browser.
The EFF is another fine organization that, in my belief, is driven by the want to improve the common good. I don't see why Mozilla's DNA must be particularly different; that they operate more in an applied technical landscape than a legal one seems beside the point.
"Evidence" of Mozilla seething would be internal memos from Mozilla execs talking about lost glory days and how it's important they reclaim their rightful throne, or some drivel like that. And wrt the event we're talking about (Mozilla's call for regulation), those memos would need to be recent. THEN we could have a discussion about how widely internally embraced they are, etc. But that scenario is not even out of the starting gate. You of course are welcome to conjecture, and you can base those conjectures on your own psychological makeup ("aren't we all crazy? I know *I* am...") or anecdotes from your life or whatever, and that's perfectly fine... just don't act so surprised when someone points out that you're pushing a personal belief as opposed to an objective or verifiable truth.
if you genuinely believe that the current regime over at the Mozilla Foundation has absolutely no memory at all of those "glory days," than I'd suggest that maybe you're discounting human nature a bit too much.
I'm not saying they have "absolutely no memory" (a strawman in its absolutism), nor am I even saying they don't remember it daily and miss it in some fashion. But I think it very plausible that the people working there don't have a goal of "dominate the market", but instead feel well-motivated/validated by being the org that keeps the other players honest.
We are all prone to reflect upon our past successes, now and than; that's just a given. It seems to me that one of the "measures of a man" could be found in how you deal with the passing of those successes: do you gripe about someone else who has managed to pick up the torch that you've now lost?
You're going back to your premise that they're "griping" about their "loss". You seem to think that they're hung up on not being the top in market share. It is that leap of faith (or lack of it) that I ask for evidence for. Saying that they must remember being the top browser proves that they're resentful now and that said resentment drove the construction of their report. You have not evidenced that one bit. You have instead demonstrated your assumptions, which actually says a lot more about you and your tendencies than it says about Mozilla.
(Also, no... I have no desire to copulate with you. Have a nice day!)
Touché. Apologies, I was in a mood. Your humorous response is appreciated.
Lujan: It's been admitted by Facebook that you do collect data points on non-[Facebook users]. My question is, can someone who does not have a Facebook account opt out of Facebook's involuntary data collection?
Zuckerberg: Anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection
HOW? How can someone, who isn't a facebook user, opt out of this data collection? If by "turn off" he means "not use the internet", that's not an answer. Zucktard.
It really sounds to me like the few people still remaining at the Mozilla Foundation are expressing some passive aggressive bitterness, over their own loss of prominence in the market.
What's your offered argument supporting the above statement? And it better be more than numbers about FF's browser share; you're theorizing about motivations, and I want some evidence.
And fuck you for making me ask after you used the same question on someone else without having given any evidence yourself.
Showing that harm happens to a nation (or if you prefer, to all the consumers in a nation) is perfectly sufficient, and that's precisely why zucktard is in the hotseat on capitol hill right now.
Zuckerberg... Though clearly an incredible mind...
I'm not buying it. He probably falls into the category of "competent" at programming, somewhat ruthless garden-variety sociopath, and IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME.
I wonder if -- eons from now -- science will be so much more advanced that they'll look back at this prediction the way we look back at the Mayans' 2012 prediction. Maybe they'll make a scary thriller movie about the end of the universe, titled simply "10**139".
Human decency keeps a lot of people from otherwise "doing what they want", and the fact that its absence still surprises some people, that people still expect it, is -- in its own way -- one of the most encouraging things one can hear. Yes, putting down the beast that Facebook is will require widespread realization that Facebook lacks human decency (or even corporate decency), but don't dismiss the hopers and dreamers altogether... the world they want is the only one worth fighting for.
Get over it, dude. They'd sell you and your loved ones down a river in a heartbeat. If they could find a legal way to deprive you of oxygen for profit, they'd do it.
Had this not made the news I would have been surprised if this had even reached Elon's desk.
You lost me. If Musk didn't make it his business to know about a 40% defect ratio, that makes him at minimum an absolutely terrible manager.
I'll never understand how or why the markets are absolutely eager for anything remotely bad about Tesla Motors
dear god I've seen almost nothing but the opposite. People are taking whatever Musk says as gospel, hook line and sinker. People believe he's going to put them on Mars, for fuck's sake. I'm so tired of the insane fawning over Musk that even his company failing wouldn't be enough to correct the karmic books.
Some people seem to need heroes to worship, and Musk has apparently stepped into a void left by Steve Jobs' death (Tim Cook isn't quirky enough). Great. After Musk falls, there'll be someone else. Whatever.
Hmm. A lot is conflated in the above statement, and since I've got time on my hands, here's the scoop:
* Apple has had three distinct OS architecture phases: Systems 1-6 (1984-1993), System 7-9 (1994-1997), and OSX (1997-present).
* The third/last of those phases (OSX) was not released in 1988 but in 1997.
* 1988 -- the date in your post -- does not correspond to the start or end of any significant OS architecture phase of Apple's.
Not trying to be pedantic, but if the intent was to name a year corresponding to the current OS as we know it coming online (which I assume is the intent since WindowsNT was named rather than Windows3.x or Dos, for example), then the 1988 figure is off by ten years.
Slashdot Mirror
It's important that people's information is kept secure and private when they use Facebook," Alex Stamos, Facebook's chief information security officer, told Motherboard in a statement.
... you are SO working for the wrong company. (But of course this is PR, not a recitation of true principles.)
:) I was just trying to rationalize the "That's head to the arctic" headline. I made up what I wrote.
What BeauHD is trying to convey is that this power plant will popularize the arctic, in effect being a nice blowjob for the region's economy.
... that Amazon will begin a new delivery service called "Amazon Suppository".
any one who was "shocked" by what Snowden etc "revealed" are idiots and/or uninformed.
You're a dipshit.
We will keep going until the Model 3 build precision is a factor of ten better than any other car in the world.
That's so ordinary. When you're 10x better than everyone else, you're fully cranked up, you want to go further, where can you go? Nowhere...
Personally, I don't give a damn about who knows when my date of birth was, what I last bought from Amazon or whether I "liked" a particular posting or not. It seems to me that the only people who do worry, do so about how other people might be losing their privacy - not about their own.
So because you don't care about your privacy, nobody else does? I care very much about losing my privacy, and I give all kinds of damns about whether someone knows my birthdate, my purchases, or what I like.
It seems to me that there is a pretty big differences between keeping other players "honest" and suggesting to the government that other players will need to be broken up, in order to make them honest.
Sure, why not. But in the scope of what we're talking about, that hardly makes them hypocrites, and certainly doesn't validate your central thesis about their motivation.
Don't you think that Mozilla is demonstrating a clear and unadulterated bias, specifically by advising the government to step in and rip to pieces those other mega-corporations with which Mozilla can no longer compete on equal footing?
You keep simply going back to your original thought, presuming it's obvious and shared by all who examine this situation. To answer your question: No, I don't think they're demonstrating a bias, at least not any that would lend to validating your point. What they're doing is perfectly consistent with wanting to improve the common good, and -- once again -- is not objective evidence of them seething about not being the most widely used browser.
The EFF is another fine organization that, in my belief, is driven by the want to improve the common good. I don't see why Mozilla's DNA must be particularly different; that they operate more in an applied technical landscape than a legal one seems beside the point.
"Evidence" of Mozilla seething would be internal memos from Mozilla execs talking about lost glory days and how it's important they reclaim their rightful throne, or some drivel like that. And wrt the event we're talking about (Mozilla's call for regulation), those memos would need to be recent. THEN we could have a discussion about how widely internally embraced they are, etc. But that scenario is not even out of the starting gate. You of course are welcome to conjecture, and you can base those conjectures on your own psychological makeup ("aren't we all crazy? I know *I* am...") or anecdotes from your life or whatever, and that's perfectly fine... just don't act so surprised when someone points out that you're pushing a personal belief as opposed to an objective or verifiable truth.
Peace to you.
if you genuinely believe that the current regime over at the Mozilla Foundation has absolutely no memory at all of those "glory days," than I'd suggest that maybe you're discounting human nature a bit too much.
I'm not saying they have "absolutely no memory" (a strawman in its absolutism), nor am I even saying they don't remember it daily and miss it in some fashion. But I think it very plausible that the people working there don't have a goal of "dominate the market", but instead feel well-motivated/validated by being the org that keeps the other players honest.
We are all prone to reflect upon our past successes, now and than; that's just a given. It seems to me that one of the "measures of a man" could be found in how you deal with the passing of those successes: do you gripe about someone else who has managed to pick up the torch that you've now lost?
You're going back to your premise that they're "griping" about their "loss". You seem to think that they're hung up on not being the top in market share. It is that leap of faith (or lack of it) that I ask for evidence for. Saying that they must remember being the top browser proves that they're resentful now and that said resentment drove the construction of their report. You have not evidenced that one bit. You have instead demonstrated your assumptions, which actually says a lot more about you and your tendencies than it says about Mozilla.
(Also, no... I have no desire to copulate with you. Have a nice day!)
Touché. Apologies, I was in a mood. Your humorous response is appreciated.
Lujan: It's been admitted by Facebook that you do collect data points on non-[Facebook users]. My question is, can someone who does not have a Facebook account opt out of Facebook's involuntary data collection?
Zuckerberg: Anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection
HOW? How can someone, who isn't a facebook user, opt out of this data collection? If by "turn off" he means "not use the internet", that's not an answer. Zucktard.
It really sounds to me like the few people still remaining at the Mozilla Foundation are expressing some passive aggressive bitterness, over their own loss of prominence in the market.
What's your offered argument supporting the above statement? And it better be more than numbers about FF's browser share; you're theorizing about motivations, and I want some evidence.
And fuck you for making me ask after you used the same question on someone else without having given any evidence yourself.
Showing that harm happens to a nation (or if you prefer, to all the consumers in a nation) is perfectly sufficient, and that's precisely why zucktard is in the hotseat on capitol hill right now.
Zuckerberg... Though clearly an incredible mind...
I'm not buying it. He probably falls into the category of "competent" at programming, somewhat ruthless garden-variety sociopath, and IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME.
Save the dick-sucking for someone better.
I wonder if -- eons from now -- science will be so much more advanced that they'll look back at this prediction the way we look back at the Mayans' 2012 prediction. Maybe they'll make a scary thriller movie about the end of the universe, titled simply "10**139".
Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why would anybody be surprised?
Human decency keeps a lot of people from otherwise "doing what they want", and the fact that its absence still surprises some people, that people still expect it, is -- in its own way -- one of the most encouraging things one can hear. Yes, putting down the beast that Facebook is will require widespread realization that Facebook lacks human decency (or even corporate decency), but don't dismiss the hopers and dreamers altogether... the world they want is the only one worth fighting for.
acknowledged the existence in Washington of what appear to be rogue devices that foreign spies and criminal.
That sentence sure went off the rails.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
To fail to do so would be stupid.
For once I feel a little bad for Facebook
Get over it, dude. They'd sell you and your loved ones down a river in a heartbeat. If they could find a legal way to deprive you of oxygen for profit, they'd do it.
Claiming we'd all know about it if Apple was selling data is idiocy. Cambridge Analytica didn't come to light for two years. Wake the fuck up.
Maybe he should go on another "Listening" tour... with his ear even further up everyone's rear end.
Had this not made the news I would have been surprised if this had even reached Elon's desk.
You lost me. If Musk didn't make it his business to know about a 40% defect ratio, that makes him at minimum an absolutely terrible manager.
I'll never understand how or why the markets are absolutely eager for anything remotely bad about Tesla Motors
dear god I've seen almost nothing but the opposite. People are taking whatever Musk says as gospel, hook line and sinker. People believe he's going to put them on Mars, for fuck's sake. I'm so tired of the insane fawning over Musk that even his company failing wouldn't be enough to correct the karmic books.
Some people seem to need heroes to worship, and Musk has apparently stepped into a void left by Steve Jobs' death (Tim Cook isn't quirky enough). Great. After Musk falls, there'll be someone else. Whatever.
Had this not made the news I would have been surprised if this had even reached Elon's desk.
You lost me. If Musk didn't make it his business to know about a 40% defect ratio, that makes him at minimum an absolutely terrible manager.
Ah. A fair point.
Mac OS - evolved from Nextstep - 1988 release.
Hmm. A lot is conflated in the above statement, and since I've got time on my hands, here's the scoop:
Not trying to be pedantic, but if the intent was to name a year corresponding to the current OS as we know it coming online (which I assume is the intent since WindowsNT was named rather than Windows3.x or Dos, for example), then the 1988 figure is off by ten years.