Sausages. Everybody eats them, nobody wants to know how they're made.
My point is that Obama's 2008 campaign was run by Chris Hughes, a Facebook founder, and his 2012 campaign also made massive use of social media. The digirati and national media had no problem with billionaire money scraping Facebook for Obama. It seems hypocritical to complain when a (largely useless) firm associated with the Trump campaign gets a bit of anonymized data in the face of that history.
has been revealed to be B.S.. It's not about giving people what they want, it's about manipulating them into doing as told. The CEO got caught on tape saying as much.
Of course it is. Facebook is a manipulative, privacy-invading company. However, back when Chris Hughes ran Obama's online campaign, people hailed the use and analysis of social networks as the dawn of a new democracy, yet now that the other side is doing it, all of a sudden the same people are up in arms.
These people had long since decided on their political views and agenda and wanted to know how to get folks to go along with it, regardless of whether it benefited those people. This is the worst kind of politics.
That was Hillary's approach: Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.
Of course, the last election wasn't much about positions anyway, it was about Hillary's personality and the fact that a large percentage of the voting population found her utterly disgusting and reprehensible. I left the Democratic party over her nomination and didn't vote at all in 2016.
Why would it be offensive to me? I just said the same thing. Growing up, I knew HIV medication wouldn't be covered by my medical system and catching HIV would likely be a death sentence. Later, my insurance covered the cheap, less-effective medications but wouldn't have covered the latest treatments from the US; if I wanted those, it would have been expensive. All of this was a strong incentive to practice safe sex. Shielding people from the consequences of their choices is not doing them a favor, whether you are talking about young women or gay men.
I think Facebook is a shitty platform, both technically and socially, and I don't use it. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy that when Obama did this (led by one of Facebook's co-founders no less), pundits were waxing ecstatic about how wonderful it was, but now all of a sudden it's supposed to be the end of democracy.
He's very Christian, and Christians seem to have a lot of problems with people that have sex.
I'm a gay atheist. You can have sex with whoever you want to. Just don't try to force me to pay for the consequences of your sexual escapades (single motherhood, abortions, family courts, STDs, divorce, sexual harassment, etc.).
“Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee,” said Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of The Huffington Post.
This election [2008] was the first in which all candidates—presidential and congressional—attempted to connect directly with American voters via online social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. It has even been called the "Facebook election." It is no coincidence that one of Obama's key strategists was 24-year-old Chris Hughes, a Facebook cofounder. It was Hughes who masterminded the Obama campaign's highly effective Web blitzkrieg—everything from social networking sites to podcasting and mobile messaging.
Sometimes it takes a company doing something unsavory at a moment when people are sensitive to it for the problem to get fully recognized.
True. And people are waking up to the degree that the Silicon Valley technocracy and their platforms (Google, Twitter, Facebook) are trying to manipulate them, are trying to influence elections, etc. Glad it's finally starting to sink in.
If the campaigns were going to use this to figure out what people wanted and liked (higher minimum wages, better consumer protection, stricter gun laws, accepting more refugees) and implement those things, nobody would be upset.
So you are saying that Trump used this data, figured out what people didn't like, and then deliberately made that his platform? How in the world is that a winning strategy?
People are upset because the data was used in a way that affected the integrity or our elections.
How does market research on Facebook users "affect the integrity of our elections"?
Facebook has been used for market research and political research for years, and people generally viewed this as a positive: finally, campaigns could figure out what people actually wanted and liked. And the TOS make it pretty clear that data can be used for such purposes. All of a sudden this is a problem or a scandal? Why?
If it doesn't use the scientific method and results of "studies" are not reliably reproducible
Well, lucky then that they do use the scientific method and are easily reproducible. Whether microwave radiation at low doses can cause cancer is an open question; whether there are non-thermal, non-ionizing effects of microwaves on proteins, cells, and tissues is settled, reproducible science.
it isn't Science.
That's OK, I prefer actual science to capital Science.
Results of lifespan exposure to continuous and intermittent extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) administered alone to Sprague Dawley rats ("Exposure to ELFEMF alone does not represent risk factor for neoplastic development.")
Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission ("A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose")
Oh bullshit. Has the study been reproduced showing that the effect is not a fluke? No!
There are quite a few studies showing some effect of non-ionizing radiation on tissues, effects plausibly linked to cancer. They may all be the result of statistical flukes and publication bias, or maybe not.
But what I find fascinating is how selective people tend to be in their skepticism of scientific studies, depending on whether they are seeing results they like or they don't like.
1) This is a press release that was picked up by a minor news service, then picked up by other news services.... In other words, the study is not to be trusted, and the news release is fake news, at least until a real news agency can thoroughly check something rather than just accept the word of someone that already has a reputation for accepting junk science
The press release refers to a peer reviewed paper in a reasonably reputable journal:
Falcioni, L., et al. "Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission." Environmental research (2018).
Can someone familiar with these methodologies explain the criteria for statistical significance of these numbers?
There really isn't. Their significance level is 5% but they had more than 20 conditions, so you would expect one or more to be accidentally significant just by chance, even given the (already poor) internal logic of these measures. The state of statistics in experimental sciences is really rather poor and there is a replication crisis.
What is the hypothetical mechanism for low-level non-ionizing radiation to cause tumors?
This kind of RF radiation might act on proteins or membranes in the same way a microwave acts on water, and it might change the rate constants of some cellular processes. Depending on the process, this would cause damage and inflammation, which is a significant cause of cancer. RF radiation can also cause electroporation, which might cause cancer by the same mechanisms. All of these effects are frequency dependent. So, it's not completely unreasonable to expect there to be some effects for certain frequencies of non-ionizing radiation.
I'm not "analyzing" the typo, I'm pointing out that it the typo accidentally reflects reality: sociologists are overwhelmingly leftists; in fact, sociology is the most left leaning of all major academic fields. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. It has been that way since the 1970's.
in my version of the summary, it still looks like this: That's the conclusion that two sociologists came to after.
It said "socialists" first, then it got corrected. Corrections usually ought to be marked, in order to avoid confusing people like you, but it's Slashdot, so what do you expect.
Hackathons Are Dystopian Events That Dupe People Into Working For Free, Say Sociologists. That's the conclusion that two socialists came to after observing seven hackathons over the period of one year, reports Wired.
A Sony Playstation VR headset has about 90 degrees FOV. To cover your entire field of view, you need at least 180 degrees in all directions, meaning at least 4x the number of pixels. But you need several times HD resolution to match human acuity. 18 Mpixels is probably still not quite enough, though it will be a huge improvement over what we have.
Any healthy adult members of H. sapiens will do, since they are biologically interchangeable. If you object to one member over another on racial grounds, it simply means that you're a racist.
Because these distributions are able to interact and exchange data with Windows applications, with Linux programs being able to call Windows programs for certain functions. It could mean for certain scenarios a Linux program could require a function only available in Windows.
The fact that Linux programs running on Windows could use Windows functionality doesn't "extend Linux" and doesn't constitute "embrace, extend, and extinguish". EEE only works if the "extension" becomes an integral and essential part of the thing being extended. It's also a capability that exists independent of Linux-on-Windows, since you can get the same functionality via RPC, Docker, and VMs already.
Linux on Windows is simply a last gasp effort to keep Windows development relevant in the server market; it's an admission by Microsoft that they are not able to provide the same comprehensive tool ecosystem that Linux developers take for granted. There is EEE going on here, but it's Linux embracing, extending, and eventually extinguishing Windows, not the other way around.
Today, there is some undeniably huge news -- Debian is joining SUSE, Ubuntu, and Kali in the Microsoft Store. Should the Linux community be worried?
How is Microsoft "extending" Linux when a bunch of Linux vendors provide their own distributions in the Linux store? Furthermore, the Microsoft subsystem for Linux does little more than what Docker on Windows already provides.
Linux is the industry standard for software development, containers, server and compute applications; it has won. The Linux subsystem on Windows is Microsoft's acknowledgement of that fact. Microsoft Windows isn't going to infect Linux through the Linux subsystem, Linux is "embracing and extending" Windows, and this is just going to help make Windows-proprietary features more and more irrelevant.
You are right that Obama's goal was to sabotage and make the private system in the US fail. But that goal wasn't motivated by creating a workable public system. Obama didn't need to destroy the private system in order to create UK-style public system, he could have done that out of the existing Medicare/Medicaid budget. Destroying the public system was motivated by the Democrats' desire to take even more money away from tax payers and hand it to their wealthy donors and special itnerests.
And the Democrats never intended to create a UK-style public system, which would have involved either making doctors public employees or substantially cutting their salaries; what Democrats intended--and you basically admitted it--was to continue having a hugely overpriced private delivery system financed by forcible expropriation from taxpayers, mainly the young and skilled workers. Creating a UK-style public system was never seriously on the table because neither doctors, nor insurers, nor patients want it (patients look at the public system we have, the VA system, and run in horror).
You're the typical useful idiot who serves the Democrats, their crony capitalist schemes, and their billionaire donors. Congratulations. Hopefully, I'll be dead before people like you succeed at destroying the US completely. When Hillary spoke of a "basket of deplorables", she obviously was referring to people like you.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that Obama's 2008 campaign was run by Chris Hughes, a Facebook founder, and his 2012 campaign also made massive use of social media. The digirati and national media had no problem with billionaire money scraping Facebook for Obama. It seems hypocritical to complain when a (largely useless) firm associated with the Trump campaign gets a bit of anonymized data in the face of that history.
Perhaps we're talking about President Reginald J. Priest.
Of course it is. Facebook is a manipulative, privacy-invading company. However, back when Chris Hughes ran Obama's online campaign, people hailed the use and analysis of social networks as the dawn of a new democracy, yet now that the other side is doing it, all of a sudden the same people are up in arms.
That was Hillary's approach: Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.
Of course, the last election wasn't much about positions anyway, it was about Hillary's personality and the fact that a large percentage of the voting population found her utterly disgusting and reprehensible. I left the Democratic party over her nomination and didn't vote at all in 2016.
Why would it be offensive to me? I just said the same thing. Growing up, I knew HIV medication wouldn't be covered by my medical system and catching HIV would likely be a death sentence. Later, my insurance covered the cheap, less-effective medications but wouldn't have covered the latest treatments from the US; if I wanted those, it would have been expensive. All of this was a strong incentive to practice safe sex. Shielding people from the consequences of their choices is not doing them a favor, whether you are talking about young women or gay men.
I think Facebook is a shitty platform, both technically and socially, and I don't use it. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy that when Obama did this (led by one of Facebook's co-founders no less), pundits were waxing ecstatic about how wonderful it was, but now all of a sudden it's supposed to be the end of democracy.
I'm a gay atheist. You can have sex with whoever you want to. Just don't try to force me to pay for the consequences of your sexual escapades (single motherhood, abortions, family courts, STDs, divorce, sexual harassment, etc.).
There is still a chance that Trump won't sign it. After all, this legislation hits home for him.
They certainly used to. How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics
And Barack Obama and the Facebook Election
True. And people are waking up to the degree that the Silicon Valley technocracy and their platforms (Google, Twitter, Facebook) are trying to manipulate them, are trying to influence elections, etc. Glad it's finally starting to sink in.
How much does Russia pay you to drive Americans apart and destroy confidence in the democratic process in the US, Ryanrule?
So you are saying that Trump used this data, figured out what people didn't like, and then deliberately made that his platform? How in the world is that a winning strategy?
How does market research on Facebook users "affect the integrity of our elections"?
Facebook has been used for market research and political research for years, and people generally viewed this as a positive: finally, campaigns could figure out what people actually wanted and liked. And the TOS make it pretty clear that data can be used for such purposes. All of a sudden this is a problem or a scandal? Why?
Well, lucky then that they do use the scientific method and are easily reproducible. Whether microwave radiation at low doses can cause cancer is an open question; whether there are non-thermal, non-ionizing effects of microwaves on proteins, cells, and tissues is settled, reproducible science.
That's OK, I prefer actual science to capital Science.
You're confusing two different papers:
Results of lifespan exposure to continuous and intermittent extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) administered alone to Sprague Dawley rats ("Exposure to ELFEMF alone does not represent risk factor for neoplastic development.")
Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley
rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone
radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station
environmental emission ("A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose")
It's another example of the replication crisis.
There are quite a few studies showing some effect of non-ionizing radiation on tissues, effects plausibly linked to cancer. They may all be the result of statistical flukes and publication bias, or maybe not.
But what I find fascinating is how selective people tend to be in their skepticism of scientific studies, depending on whether they are seeing results they like or they don't like.
The press release refers to a peer reviewed paper in a reasonably reputable journal:
Falcioni, L., et al. "Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission." Environmental research (2018).
You can find the original article here.
There really isn't. Their significance level is 5% but they had more than 20 conditions, so you would expect one or more to be accidentally significant just by chance, even given the (already poor) internal logic of these measures. The state of statistics in experimental sciences is really rather poor and there is a replication crisis.
This kind of RF radiation might act on proteins or membranes in the same way a microwave acts on water, and it might change the rate constants of some cellular processes. Depending on the process, this would cause damage and inflammation, which is a significant cause of cancer. RF radiation can also cause electroporation, which might cause cancer by the same mechanisms. All of these effects are frequency dependent. So, it's not completely unreasonable to expect there to be some effects for certain frequencies of non-ionizing radiation.
I'm not "analyzing" the typo, I'm pointing out that it the typo accidentally reflects reality: sociologists are overwhelmingly leftists; in fact, sociology is the most left leaning of all major academic fields. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. It has been that way since the 1970's.
It said "socialists" first, then it got corrected. Corrections usually ought to be marked, in order to avoid confusing people like you, but it's Slashdot, so what do you expect.
Read the article summary carefully:
The mask slips.
Sociology is a dystopian academic field that dupes people into believing that people's opinions and butthurt are science.
A Sony Playstation VR headset has about 90 degrees FOV. To cover your entire field of view, you need at least 180 degrees in all directions, meaning at least 4x the number of pixels. But you need several times HD resolution to match human acuity. 18 Mpixels is probably still not quite enough, though it will be a huge improvement over what we have.
Any healthy adult members of H. sapiens will do, since they are biologically interchangeable. If you object to one member over another on racial grounds, it simply means that you're a racist.
The fact that Linux programs running on Windows could use Windows functionality doesn't "extend Linux" and doesn't constitute "embrace, extend, and extinguish". EEE only works if the "extension" becomes an integral and essential part of the thing being extended. It's also a capability that exists independent of Linux-on-Windows, since you can get the same functionality via RPC, Docker, and VMs already.
Linux on Windows is simply a last gasp effort to keep Windows development relevant in the server market; it's an admission by Microsoft that they are not able to provide the same comprehensive tool ecosystem that Linux developers take for granted. There is EEE going on here, but it's Linux embracing, extending, and eventually extinguishing Windows, not the other way around.
How is Microsoft "extending" Linux when a bunch of Linux vendors provide their own distributions in the Linux store? Furthermore, the Microsoft subsystem for Linux does little more than what Docker on Windows already provides.
Linux is the industry standard for software development, containers, server and compute applications; it has won. The Linux subsystem on Windows is Microsoft's acknowledgement of that fact. Microsoft Windows isn't going to infect Linux through the Linux subsystem, Linux is "embracing and extending" Windows, and this is just going to help make Windows-proprietary features more and more irrelevant.
You are right that Obama's goal was to sabotage and make the private system in the US fail. But that goal wasn't motivated by creating a workable public system. Obama didn't need to destroy the private system in order to create UK-style public system, he could have done that out of the existing Medicare/Medicaid budget. Destroying the public system was motivated by the Democrats' desire to take even more money away from tax payers and hand it to their wealthy donors and special itnerests.
And the Democrats never intended to create a UK-style public system, which would have involved either making doctors public employees or substantially cutting their salaries; what Democrats intended--and you basically admitted it--was to continue having a hugely overpriced private delivery system financed by forcible expropriation from taxpayers, mainly the young and skilled workers. Creating a UK-style public system was never seriously on the table because neither doctors, nor insurers, nor patients want it (patients look at the public system we have, the VA system, and run in horror).
You're the typical useful idiot who serves the Democrats, their crony capitalist schemes, and their billionaire donors. Congratulations. Hopefully, I'll be dead before people like you succeed at destroying the US completely. When Hillary spoke of a "basket of deplorables", she obviously was referring to people like you.