I was on LinkedIn.. Head hunters were nagging me day and night, so I kindly requested they take all my details off the site, and LinkedIn was happy to do it.
Huh? LinkedIn makes no secret of the fact that they sell "premium" accounts which can see the full details of anyone, whether they are in your network or not. The result of this is that if you're even remotely worth hiring you will be nagged by head hunters day and night. This is why I kindly requested LinkedIn to take my info off their stupid site.. it took 3 strongly worded emails, but they did.
Umm.. JCWDenton wrote the summary. Timothy is just the Slashdot "editor" who selects the high voted stories from the firehose, checks that it is in the right category and, maybe, that it has a link, and then pushes it to subscribers so they can tell him if it is a dupe.. and after 20 minutes or so, it goes live. He's in no way responsible for the summary, or the popularity of the story due to that selection.. if you don't like what is getting through to the front page, go to the firehose and vote. Maybe it would be nice if Timothy did read the story and did some fact checking or whatever, but that's not what Slashdot "editors" are paid to do.
To me, AFK has always meant the same as BRB (Be Right Back).. along with a little "don't fuck with me while I'm gone please" when appropriate.. say, when you're playing an RPG (Role Playing Game). So to say you'd meet someone AFK is a little strange, to me, but hey, these dudes are Swedes, I'm sure they say a lot of stuff that is strange, to me.
I'd like to see more research in this direction. It might eventually have implications on the experimental testing of the microtubules-tapping-into-the-quantum-gravity bullshit that Roger Penrose has been peddling as an explanation for how the brain gets intelligence. It might not be great for Penrose's book sales in the long run but it will be good for science, or at least we can hope.
The copyright holders I keep hearing about continue to believe shit that has been struck down again and again. Apparently this case opened with a speech by the prosecution saying that the purpose of copyright was to ensure artists get paid and can control the use of their work. This has never been true and has been made abundantly clear by every court in the world that this is *not* the purpose of copyright. It exists solely to benefit the public in ways that a lack of copyright supposedly would not. As soon as the prosecution got up saying that shit the judge should have found him in contempt and thrown out the case. He's misleading the court and that shit should not be tolerated.
we already track space debris down to very small levels. Currently nasa have maps of these pieces, down to the size of a screw if I remember correctly.
Manually.
Yeah, Michael Bay films are not a good indicator of military capabilities either.
Wow. You really are happy being ignorant aren't ya? If you were talking about anything other than sound recordings you might have had a point.. a pathetic point but hey, at least you would have had a leg to stand on.. but when it comes to sound recordings the *exact* example that you made has been played out in the courts. "I don't want my song being used in jingles".. well guess what dipshit, the rest of us do, so we've passed a little law that says we don't need your permission. It's called statutory licensing.. it's right there in the post of the guy you're replying to. It means that I can use any song I like so long as I pay up when the royalty collection agencies come calling.. and the price those agencies charge? oh, it's set by legislation. The artist gets no say in the matter.
You're just as bad as the other guy. Can't you tell us what you're so afraid of?
I, personally, am not interested in this Facebook crap because its all about "friends" and I'm a fuckin' loner, man. I'm pretty sure there's pictures of me on there, and those annoying tags.. someone with sufficient degrees of separation could go searching with my real name and find them. Meh. You want pictures of me? Bring your camera 'round.
And so we make laws that say what insurance companies can and can not discriminate by... we don't put a blanket ban on data mining or the collection of data.
Except that its *you* getting charged more because *you* were deemed higher risk than me. If they get good enough at predicting who will need an expensive payout, they'll just stop insuring those people. Insurance is supposed to be about covering the risk of things you can't control.
So you're saying that insurance companies should not access risk now? Please, put down the crack pipe.
No. They'd call the school, moron.
You don't even have kids do ya? Anyone who put a 6 year old kid on the phone with someone claiming to be a parent would not be working with children for long.
The world can easily bend over backwards to make collecting and correlating data about me without my express permission illegal. If other people want to submit information about me, fine, but they don't have to keep it. They don't have to index it. They don't have to data mine it.
No... in order to do that we have to make a law, and enforce it. That aint free. It's paid for by "the rest of us" and we don't give two shits about your preference to be un-data-mined. Go live in the freaking woods. Become a sailor.
You apply for car insurance, and are charged extra because they analyze all the places your car has been seen parked and decide you are high risk...
You apply for life insurance, and are charged extra because they analyze all the places you have been seen, and decide you are higher risk...
If you're a higher risk you *should* get charged more.. because if you're not getting charged more than *I* am getting charged more.
You cut off the wrong jerk on the freeway, and your 6 year old daughter gets a threatening phone call at school...
And? That is possible and scary but not nearly as scary as the idea of your 6 year old daughter having a phone.. freak.
A little data is meaningless. A lot of data becomes information. Facebook and Google have scary amounts of data to mine for information.
And what is your point? What is so terrible about having targeted advertising? If they can ever get the shit to work I might actually have a chance of seeing an ad for a product that I would actually like to buy!
Can you make an argument or do I have to make it for you? Maybe what you're trying to say is that data collected for such a harmless purpose as targeted advertising can be abused. Well boo hoo, you deal with the abusers.. you don't try to enforce your paranoia on everyone else - if you're not interested in giving out personal information, don't, but other people are free to give out whatever information they want and yes, that includes information about you. The world can not bend over backwards to accommodate your personal preferences.
Milton Friedman is to market economics as Richard Stallman is to software licensing.
Personally, I'm more of a fan of Friedman's views on drug prohibition.. assuming they haven't changed much in 37 years.. which is a safe bet with Friedman.
Heh, if you have physical access the game is over. "Lock your terminal" is merely a poor defense against bored pranksters (beating their head in if they touch your machine is the only effective deterrent).
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? If Facebook didn't exist (and believe it or not, there was a time when it didn't), his sister would be just putting the pictures up on her website.. or on the wall of her cubical at work. He might well be opposed to that too. Yes, Facebook is in the social networking business to build advertising profiles.. well, actually, they're in the advertising profile land grab business - which is a bubble that will likely pop in a few years time when it becomes apparent that they're no better at placing ads than anyone else. The data that is gathered by these companies is likely to end up in the hands of a completely different bunch of bozos who may use it for god-knows-what. That is a result of a complete lack of privacy legislation, and the leaking of private information across national borders (for example, the Facebook business model is basically illegal in Australia, but they don't operate here and no-one is blowing the whistle just yet). Ultimately, people don't care until it affects them directly and by then it is something you just have to live with.
Slashdot Mirror
2 minutes of surfing the LinkedIn website, or in case you're too lazy:
http://www.quantumg.net/linkedin-recruiter.png
Enjoy.
I was on LinkedIn.. Head hunters were nagging me day and night, so I kindly requested they take all my details off the site, and LinkedIn was happy to do it.
Huh? LinkedIn makes no secret of the fact that they sell "premium" accounts which can see the full details of anyone, whether they are in your network or not. The result of this is that if you're even remotely worth hiring you will be nagged by head hunters day and night. This is why I kindly requested LinkedIn to take my info off their stupid site.. it took 3 strongly worded emails, but they did.
Perhaps you should start your own site or stage a corporate takeover if you want a say in how Slashdot is run.
Umm.. JCWDenton wrote the summary. Timothy is just the Slashdot "editor" who selects the high voted stories from the firehose, checks that it is in the right category and, maybe, that it has a link, and then pushes it to subscribers so they can tell him if it is a dupe.. and after 20 minutes or so, it goes live. He's in no way responsible for the summary, or the popularity of the story due to that selection.. if you don't like what is getting through to the front page, go to the firehose and vote. Maybe it would be nice if Timothy did read the story and did some fact checking or whatever, but that's not what Slashdot "editors" are paid to do.
In Real Life, Away From Keyboard.
To me, AFK has always meant the same as BRB (Be Right Back) .. along with a little "don't fuck with me while I'm gone please" when appropriate.. say, when you're playing an RPG (Role Playing Game). So to say you'd meet someone AFK is a little strange, to me, but hey, these dudes are Swedes, I'm sure they say a lot of stuff that is strange, to me.
Umm.. no. I'm not. Radio stations fought and won this battle. Look it up.
I'd like to see more research in this direction. It might eventually have implications on the experimental testing of the microtubules-tapping-into-the-quantum-gravity bullshit that Roger Penrose has been peddling as an explanation for how the brain gets intelligence. It might not be great for Penrose's book sales in the long run but it will be good for science, or at least we can hope.
The copyright holders I keep hearing about continue to believe shit that has been struck down again and again. Apparently this case opened with a speech by the prosecution saying that the purpose of copyright was to ensure artists get paid and can control the use of their work. This has never been true and has been made abundantly clear by every court in the world that this is *not* the purpose of copyright. It exists solely to benefit the public in ways that a lack of copyright supposedly would not. As soon as the prosecution got up saying that shit the judge should have found him in contempt and thrown out the case. He's misleading the court and that shit should not be tolerated.
we already track space debris down to very small levels. Currently nasa have maps of these pieces, down to the size of a screw if I remember correctly.
Manually.
Yeah, Michael Bay films are not a good indicator of military capabilities either.
Wow. You really are happy being ignorant aren't ya? If you were talking about anything other than sound recordings you might have had a point.. a pathetic point but hey, at least you would have had a leg to stand on.. but when it comes to sound recordings the *exact* example that you made has been played out in the courts. "I don't want my song being used in jingles".. well guess what dipshit, the rest of us do, so we've passed a little law that says we don't need your permission. It's called statutory licensing.. it's right there in the post of the guy you're replying to. It means that I can use any song I like so long as I pay up when the royalty collection agencies come calling.. and the price those agencies charge? oh, it's set by legislation. The artist gets no say in the matter.
I'm sorry you can't make a coherent argument, cause without one there's nothing to discuss.
Ahh, how soon we forget. Remember geocities? The whole "template website" business was booming before the social networks took off.
ignorant of what? You've still yet to give a single reasonable example of what there is to be afraid of.
You seriously think you're normal don't you? The millions of people who happily post pictures of themselves on Facebook are the ones who are crazy.
You're just as bad as the other guy. Can't you tell us what you're so afraid of?
I, personally, am not interested in this Facebook crap because its all about "friends" and I'm a fuckin' loner, man. I'm pretty sure there's pictures of me on there, and those annoying tags.. someone with sufficient degrees of separation could go searching with my real name and find them. Meh. You want pictures of me? Bring your camera 'round.
And so we make laws that say what insurance companies can and can not discriminate by... we don't put a blanket ban on data mining or the collection of data.
Except that its *you* getting charged more because *you* were deemed higher risk than me. If they get good enough at predicting who will need an expensive payout, they'll just stop insuring those people. Insurance is supposed to be about covering the risk of things you can't control.
So you're saying that insurance companies should not access risk now? Please, put down the crack pipe.
No. They'd call the school, moron.
You don't even have kids do ya? Anyone who put a 6 year old kid on the phone with someone claiming to be a parent would not be working with children for long.
The world can easily bend over backwards to make collecting and correlating data about me without my express permission illegal. If other people want to submit information about me, fine, but they don't have to keep it. They don't have to index it. They don't have to data mine it.
No... in order to do that we have to make a law, and enforce it. That aint free. It's paid for by "the rest of us" and we don't give two shits about your preference to be un-data-mined. Go live in the freaking woods. Become a sailor.
You apply for car insurance, and are charged extra because they analyze all the places your car has been seen parked and decide you are high risk...
You apply for life insurance, and are charged extra because they analyze all the places you have been seen, and decide you are higher risk...
If you're a higher risk you *should* get charged more.. because if you're not getting charged more than *I* am getting charged more.
You cut off the wrong jerk on the freeway, and your 6 year old daughter gets a threatening phone call at school...
And? That is possible and scary but not nearly as scary as the idea of your 6 year old daughter having a phone.. freak.
A little data is meaningless. A lot of data becomes information. Facebook and Google have scary amounts of data to mine for information.
And what is your point? What is so terrible about having targeted advertising? If they can ever get the shit to work I might actually have a chance of seeing an ad for a product that I would actually like to buy!
Can you make an argument or do I have to make it for you? Maybe what you're trying to say is that data collected for such a harmless purpose as targeted advertising can be abused. Well boo hoo, you deal with the abusers.. you don't try to enforce your paranoia on everyone else - if you're not interested in giving out personal information, don't, but other people are free to give out whatever information they want and yes, that includes information about you. The world can not bend over backwards to accommodate your personal preferences.
And all so entirely boring that people are happy to provide that information to you over a cup of tea.
What is your point?
Can you please make a point!?
Lets say you're a nerd.
Milton Friedman is to market economics as Richard Stallman is to software licensing.
Personally, I'm more of a fan of Friedman's views on drug prohibition.. assuming they haven't changed much in 37 years.. which is a safe bet with Friedman.
Heh, if you have physical access the game is over. "Lock your terminal" is merely a poor defense against bored pranksters (beating their head in if they touch your machine is the only effective deterrent).
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? If Facebook didn't exist (and believe it or not, there was a time when it didn't), his sister would be just putting the pictures up on her website.. or on the wall of her cubical at work. He might well be opposed to that too. Yes, Facebook is in the social networking business to build advertising profiles.. well, actually, they're in the advertising profile land grab business - which is a bubble that will likely pop in a few years time when it becomes apparent that they're no better at placing ads than anyone else. The data that is gathered by these companies is likely to end up in the hands of a completely different bunch of bozos who may use it for god-knows-what. That is a result of a complete lack of privacy legislation, and the leaking of private information across national borders (for example, the Facebook business model is basically illegal in Australia, but they don't operate here and no-one is blowing the whistle just yet). Ultimately, people don't care until it affects them directly and by then it is something you just have to live with.
if they are pictures you took
Of yourself. Yes. I suppose that is possible. If you're a scene girl.