> So your solution is don't use social media and you won't have to hide it - even > though as I said that will not work because they will rightly assume > you're probably lying (it is simply not the common case),
[...deletia...]
> The end point of this is that almost everyone now uses social media
* USA 50.72% * UK 49.63% * Canada 53.39% * Australia 51.48% * New Zealand 51.40%
That's number of accounts divided by population. Stuff that isn't supposed to happen, but does... * children under 13 with accounts; they merely lie about their age * people with multiple accounts. E.g. a squeaky-clean one for their employer, and a "real account" under a different name, and multiple accounts to rig Farmville, etc. * There aren't supposed to be a bunch of bot-accounts, but you can go out and buy 1,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 "Likes". What does that tell you?
Normally, these bogus accounts can hide in the background. But for small countries it really stands out. Note that Monaco has accounts for 124.31% of its population. Don't believe the 900 million crap you hear.
BTW. I'm not on Facebook. Wonder why I don't trust Zuckerberg? It's because I'm not a dumb fuck
>| Prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees >| to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment.
Is the "provide access to" broad enough to cover the latest loophole? That's the one where the employer demands that you log in to your account, and he looks over your shoulder while you scroll through your timeline, photo albums, etc.
Write once, write anywhere... that has Java 1.2.3.4.5 installed. Not 1.2.3.4.4 or 1.2.3.4.6. It *MUST* be 1.2.3.4.5.
That's Java's main problem. Back in the days of DOS, a BAT or COM or EXE file that worked on DOS 1 would work on DOS 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, unless it did some really braindead version checking. The vast majority of Windows apps survive service pack security updates. But many Java apps seem to break with each sub-minor version bump.
>> Is there some ingenious piece of software built into facebook >> that stops you copying contact information elsewhere and >> backing it up?
> Like... Copying each facebook friend I have? How will that help > me when facebook is down?
I think the poster you're replying to meant non-Facebook contact info on their friends' profiles, e.g. email, phone #, snail-mail mailing address, etc.
> I find putting 127.0.0.1 facebook.com > www.facebook.com in my hosts file helps a lot
That's not sufficient. You have to block all their known IP addresses with a firewall, coming+going. Here's my list in CIDR and address-range formats...
> It's 80â/year for unlimited storage. That's cheap.
According to the poster you're replying to, his mother fills up approx 5 terabytes/year. That does not scale...
1) That's over 400 gigabytes/month. That easily blows through the monthly allowance of most North American ISPs, unless you get an expensive unlimited account, assuming one is available in your area.
2) Let's say the broadband connection is being used for surfing/email/system-updates/etc 8 hours a day. That leaves 16 hours a day x 30 days = 480 hours/month to upload full blast without affecting web surfing etc. 400 gigabytes per 480 hours translates to over 1.85 megabits / second.
Here in Toronto, residential cable does not exceed 1 megabit upstream. There is an FTTN service that is available from resellers of Bell for $80/month, with speeds *UP TO* 25 megabits down and 7 megabits up. That's a jump from my "up to " 6 megabit down, 800 kbit up ADSL with a 300 gig monthly quota. I wonder what's available out in Alaska where she lives.
So yeah, the storage may be cheap, but the internet connection will be a financial killer.
> They spy on you whether you have an account or not. Unless you actively make > the effort to block their servers from loading widgets on every other page you visit.
That's what I do. Here are their IP addresses in CIDR format and as address ranges. This includes blocking their "Like" buttons.
I have 6 mbits down, 800 kbit up ADSL, which actually nets 4.98 mbits down and 650 kbits up. It easily keeps up with NHL GameCentre Live, which is my primary use for it during the winter. The only thing it can't keep up with is most 1080p video from Youtube. Almost, but not quite. Even there, if I let it buffer for 30 seconds, that allows 5 minutes of playing before it has to buffer again. The network throughput is pegged at 637 Kbits down.
For 720p videos, my connection can easily keep up. And if I hit an mp4 video, which has more efficient compression for the same quality, then my connection can easily keep up. I could easily get faster speeds, but it wouldn't really make any noticable difference for me. I'm not upgrading soon, unless something unexpected comes up.
Facebook doesn't give a hoot about your privacy, it only cares about its own bottom line. If employers keep demanding passwords, it will hurt Facebook in two ways...
1) People will "clean up" their FB pages and info, to make them more job-friendly. Telling lies in their info will make targetted advertising less effective. E.g. gays will list themselves as heterosexual and end up receiving ads for Playboy.
2) Some people will decide to delete their accounts altogether, or simply not join. Fewer members means fewer eyeballs for FB to sell to advertisers.
BTW, you are *NOT* a freak if you don't have an FB account. See http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/ for statistics by country. English-speaking countries (US/Canada/UK/NZ/Australia) run around 50% penetration. That's number of accounts versus population, so the numbers are likely inflated. Remember that...
a) some people have multiple accounts to help out Farmville scores. Also a "clean" job-friendly account and a "real" account
b) sites like Freelancer.com have people buying+selling 5,000 or 10,000 "Likes". That means that some outfits have thousands of fake accounts they use for this purpose. It may not be very noticable in large countries. But in Monaco, the number of accounts is over 122% of the popolation... including infants, children under 13, and pensioners who don't know how to run a computer. Obviously inflated.
I don't know the details of the bill, but there is a loophole that some employers are using now, and it should be banned too. The employer requires the applicant to log on to FB. Then the employer watches over the shoulder while the applicant scrolls through their timeline. Technically, they aren't asking for your password, but this loophole needs to be banned as well.
Newspaper... 1) Send guys with chainsaws to forests, either via helicopters or real off-road vehicles, not your wimpy consumer SUV
2) Cut down trees with gas-powered chainsaws (producing pollution already).
3) Drag logs to logging road, and haul them via truck to pulp+paper mill
4) Convert logs to pulp and then paper; rather energy intensive
5) Haul paper from mill to printing plant.
6) Run the printing press, using some "interesting" inks
7) Haul the printed newspapers via truck to customers
Just some of the required infrastructure... * log-hauling trucks and newspaper delivery vans * chainsaws * fuel * pulp+paper mills which consume huge amounts of energy * printing plants * ink manufacturing
If we had started with electronic newspapers, and someone invented "deadtree newspapers" today, they would not succeed.
> Simple, an employer wants to know who you really are. Both of you are pretending > during the interview. Simple dating advice is not to look at how the person interacts > with you but with others. For women especially, want to avoid an abusive > relationship? See how he deals with waiters and others in a subserviant role. > That is how he will treat you once the honeymoon is over.
> In a job interview, this is harder, so Social Media is a way of seeing the you > who is not on his best behavior.
In 6 months, this approach will be absolutely useless, except to weed out the bottom 1% of idiots, who would probably not be able to fill out a job application anyways. Once everybody knows that the interviewer wants to see their FB page, you'll get two different scenarios...
1) The honest guy who doesn't do Facebook because of privacy concerns, and admits it upfront.
2) The smooth-talking BS-artist with a carefully sanitized Facebook page that makes him look like Mr. Clean. This guy is way more dangerous than the honest guy.
This system is supposed to handle micropayments. Yeah, the penny costs 1.6 cents to produce. But, because it's metal, it can easily survive being used in 10,000 transactions. This is equivalant to a surcharge of 0.016% per transaction. In the case of nickels/dimes/quarters and $1 and $2 coins, the overhead ratio becomes even more microscopic. Compare this with what credit card companies charge. From http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2009/04/16/f-cardfees.html
> Merchants pay two to four per cent of the sale price in various > transaction fees whenever they accept a credit card for payment.
> âoePlayers you wouldnâ(TM)t have thought of beforeâ are looking for > ways to get into the market of secure transactions, she said.
> As for devaluation. This is actually a touchy subject, in some ways currency needs to > devalue, doing so stops people from sitting on vast piles of it and keeps them spending it which > keeps the economy going, which generates jobs, and allows more people to spend money.
>...when even Facebook is saying "hey guys, this > seems like you're crossing a line with people's privacy".
Mark Z doesn't give 2 hoots about your privacy. He only cares about Facebook's bottom line. Facebook's product is personal information about you, e.g. your "Likes", sexual orientation, political leaning, and other demographic data. If employer-access to your FB account becomes widespread, then...
1) people will either leave FB in droves, or refuse to join in the first place; bad for FB
2) many people that stay will "sanitize" all their FB info, to avoid getting fired/refused when employers look in. This will pollute FB's database. This is just as bad, if not worse than people quitting.
Follow the money. This isn't about your privacy, it's about FB's bottom line.
> It seems like its broad enough. Here's the actual bill itself.
I've heard that some employers get around the password stuff by requiring THE EMPLOYEE to login during the interview, and then they shoulder-surf as the employee goes through his private photos and postings. Is that loophole covered?
Apple's i-everything devices are manufactured in China (e.g. Foxconn). Not only do they have the final products in their hands, they also have the individual components and the instructions to assemble them. Otherwise, Foxconn's assembly lines wouldn't work. Ditto for smartphones/laptops/computers/routers.
When Hitler declared war on the US in 1941 (dumb move on his part), the US started sending unescorted merchantmen to ship supplies across the Atlantic to the European theatre. At first, the US wouldn't listen to the experienced British navy... "Convoys? We don't need no steenkin convoys". The US lost a lot of merchant ships to U-boats in the first few months.
They finally wised up, and started grouping ships in convoys, and sending destroyers to escort them. Throw in CAP (Combat Air Patrols) from Newfoundland+Greenland+Iceland+Britain, and a lot more stuff got through, and a lot more U-boats were sunk. The advantage with a convoy is that you don't have to patrol an entire ocean. 100 miles on all sides of the convoy will do.
Fast forward to 2012. the US has UAVs flying around and shooting people in Afghanistan. They would be ideal for escorting convoys. They can stay airborne for days. Note that some of the pirates have attacked 1,000 km offshore. Their glorified motorboats don't have that much range. They're towed out there and back by "mother ships". A small motorboat leaves a mother ship and gets anywhere near a convoy, the UAVs can destroy it, and go after the mother ship as well. A half-dozen pirate crews go out, and don't come back, and the pirates will stop attacking shipping. End of problem.
A couple of US Navy cargo ships could serve as "aircraft carriers" and refueling stations for the UAVs. They don't need a long runway. Any long flat surface will do. Station one 400 km east of Bereeda (NE point of Somalia) and another one 500 km SE of Mogadishu, and you're covered.
> So how can I get cellular voice and Wi-Fi data and only pay the cellular carrier for > voice? (I already pay for Wi-Fi data at home, and my employer pays for it at work.)
I have a Nokia 6015i that I originally got on a basic prepaid plan with Virgin Mobile Canada (since bought out by Bell Canada). I don't yak much on it, so over the years it built up a large balance. They offered to temporarily convert me to a basic postpaid plan until my balance is burned off, then back to prepaid (nice).
More recently, I bought a used smartphone from an eBay reseller. It doesn't have a sim, and therefore no phone service. I use it for... * wifi web browsing (including web-based email) * FM radio * camera 3264x2448 jpeg * ebook reader and I could do more by installing the appropriate app.
> Reality has a well known liberal bias. Of course conservatives are going to distrust > science. This is going to be the case anywhere and everywhere conservativism is popular.
Correction. so-called "reality" will be modified to conform to liberal dogma. Have you ever read Orwell's novel "1984"? The main character was Winston Smith, whose job it was to re-write history to suit the whims of The Party. Ask conservatives if we don't believe the data "proving" global warming... From 1997, *AT THE GISS WEBSITE* http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ James "handcuffs" Hansen says "The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934."
==== 1) Sato's first report, dated July 1999, shows 1934 with an impressive lead of over half a degree (0.541 C to be exact) above 1998.
2) The year 2000 was a bad one for 1934. November 2000 analysis seems to have put it on a downhill ski slope that cooled it by nearly a fifth of a degree (-0.186 C to be precise). On the other hand, it was a very good year for 1998, which, seemingly put on a ski lift, managed to warm up by nearly a quarter of a degree (+0.233 C). That confirms the Theory of Conservation of Mass and Energy. In other words, if someone in your neighborhood goes on a diet and loses weight, someone else is bound to gain it.
3) Further analysis in January 2001 confirmed the downward trend for 1934 (lost an additional 26th of a degree) and the upward movement of 1998 (gained an additional 21th of a degree), tightening the hot race to a 28th of a degree (0.036 C).
4) Satoâ(TM)s analysis and reporting on the great 1934 vs 1998 race seems to have taken a hiatus between 2001 and 2006. When the catâ(TM)s away, the mice will play, and 1998 did exactly that. The January 2006 analysis has 1998 unexpectedly tumbling, losing over a quarter of a degree (-0.269 C), and restoring 1934âs lead to nearly a third of a degree (0.305 C). Sato notes in her email âoeThis is questionable, I may have kept some data which I was checking.â Absolutely, let us question the data! Question, question, question ⦠until we get the right answer.
5) Time for another ski lift! January 2007 analysis boosts 1998 by nearly a third of a degree (+0.312 C) and drops 1934 a tiny bit (-0.008 C), putting 1998 in the lead by a bit (0.015 C). Sato comments âoeThis is only time we had 1998 warmer than 1934, but one [on?] web for 7 months.â
6) and 7) March and August 2007 analysis shows tiny adjustments. However, in what seems to be a photo finish, 1934 sneaks ahead of 1998, being warmer by a tiny amount (0.023 C). So, hooray! 1934 wins and 1998 is second.
OOPS, the hot race continued after the FOIA email! I checked the tabular data at GISS Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) today and, guess what? Since the Sato FOIA email discussed above, GISS has continued their taxpayer-funded work on both 1998 and 1934. The Annual Mean for 1998 has increased to 1.32 C, a gain of a bit over an 11th of a degree (+0.094 C), while poor old 1934 has been beaten down to 1.2 C., a loss of about a 20th of a degree (-0.049 C). So, sad to say, 1934 has lost the hot race by about an eighth of a degree (0.12 C). Tough loss for the old-timer.
===
After the original data was posted, it was "re-analyzed" 7 times in 10 years until 1998 beat 1934. And this "re-analyzed" data ends up in global temperature databases, which boosts global warming statistics.
> Why would FB want to engage in litigation with potential customers?
> You aren't FB's customer. You are its goods. Companies who buy ads are the customers.
The thing that makes Facebook valuable is that it has a huge amount of info about people's likes/dislikes/preferences/interests/hobbies/etc/etc, which can be data-mined to target ads very specifically. For instance a publisher of gay novels will want their ads targetted at gay men, Playboy would want their ads targetted at heterosexual men.
Now let's suppose demanding Facebook logins from potential employees becomes standard practice.
1) Homosexual men who fear discrimination will list themselves as heterosexual on their Facebook profiles. Now Playboy ads will go to homosexual men who are not the target audience, and gay publishers won't know who to send their ads to. They will no longer be willing to pay top dollar for those ads.
2) Even worse, the thought of potential employers etc reading their every posting might scare some people into staying away from Facebook altogether.
Both of these items will hurt Facebook's bottom line. As a (soon to be) public corporation, that's all that Facebook cares about, profit. You better believe Facebook will do everything in its power to stop this.
One thing about Facebook that turns me off from joining are how it turns its members into bible-pounder types who go around trying to convert everybody to "the faith" and villifying non-believers as having "anti social personality issues". It's reminiscent of a scientology-like cult. Facebook works for you... that's great. I and my acquaintances, former co-workers, etc, know how to use real email. It works for us.
Slashdot Mirror
> So your solution is don't use social media and you won't have to hide it - even
> though as I said that will not work because they will rightly assume
> you're probably lying (it is simply not the common case),
[...deletia...]
> The end point of this is that almost everyone now uses social media
Wrong. Check out http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/ Most English-speaking countries are at approx 50% of the population. As of the time of posting...
* USA 50.72%
* UK 49.63%
* Canada 53.39%
* Australia 51.48%
* New Zealand 51.40%
That's number of accounts divided by population. Stuff that isn't supposed to happen, but does...
* children under 13 with accounts; they merely lie about their age
* people with multiple accounts. E.g. a squeaky-clean one for their employer, and a "real account" under a different name, and multiple accounts to rig Farmville, etc.
* There aren't supposed to be a bunch of bot-accounts, but you can go out and buy 1,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 "Likes". What does that tell you?
Normally, these bogus accounts can hide in the background. But for small countries it really stands out. Note that Monaco has accounts for 124.31% of its population. Don't believe the 900 million crap you hear.
BTW. I'm not on Facebook.
Wonder why I don't trust Zuckerberg?
It's because I'm not a dumb fuck
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas?currentPage=all
> That would be covered under
>| Prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees
>| to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment.
Is the "provide access to" broad enough to cover the latest loophole? That's the one where the employer demands that you log in to your account, and he looks over your shoulder while you scroll through your timeline, photo albums, etc.
> Write once, run anywhere.. my ass...
Write once, write anywhere... that has Java 1.2.3.4.5 installed. Not 1.2.3.4.4 or 1.2.3.4.6. It *MUST* be 1.2.3.4.5.
That's Java's main problem. Back in the days of DOS, a BAT or COM or EXE file that worked on DOS 1 would work on DOS 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, unless it did some really braindead version checking. The vast majority of Windows apps survive service pack security updates. But many Java apps seem to break with each sub-minor version bump.
>> Is there some ingenious piece of software built into facebook
>> that stops you copying contact information elsewhere and
>> backing it up?
> Like... Copying each facebook friend I have? How will that help
> me when facebook is down?
I think the poster you're replying to meant non-Facebook contact info on their friends' profiles, e.g. email, phone #, snail-mail mailing address, etc.
> I find putting 127.0.0.1 facebook.com
> www.facebook.com in my hosts file helps a lot
That's not sufficient. You have to block all their known IP addresses with a firewall, coming+going. Here's my list in CIDR and address-range formats...
66.220.144.0/20 66.220.144.0 - 66.220.159.255
69.63.176.0/20 69.63.176.0 - 69.63.191.255
69.171.224.0/19 69.171.224.0 - 69.171.255.255
74.119.76.0/22 74.119.76.0 - 74.119.79.255
173.252.64.0/18 173.252.64.0 - 173.252.127.255
204.15.20.0/22 204.15.20.0 - 204.15.23.255
> It's 80â/year for unlimited storage. That's cheap.
According to the poster you're replying to, his mother fills up approx 5 terabytes/year. That does not scale...
1) That's over 400 gigabytes/month. That easily blows through the monthly allowance of most North American ISPs, unless you get an expensive unlimited account, assuming one is available in your area.
2) Let's say the broadband connection is being used for surfing/email/system-updates/etc 8 hours a day. That leaves 16 hours a day x 30 days = 480 hours/month to upload full blast without affecting web surfing etc. 400 gigabytes per 480 hours translates to over 1.85 megabits / second.
Here in Toronto, residential cable does not exceed 1 megabit upstream. There is an FTTN service that is available from resellers of Bell for $80/month, with speeds *UP TO* 25 megabits down and 7 megabits up. That's a jump from my "up to " 6 megabit down, 800 kbit up ADSL with a 300 gig monthly quota. I wonder what's available out in Alaska where she lives.
So yeah, the storage may be cheap, but the internet connection will be a financial killer.
The ID numbers will be self-validating. The checksum will always be 666.
> They spy on you whether you have an account or not. Unless you actively make
> the effort to block their servers from loading widgets on every other page you visit.
That's what I do. Here are their IP addresses in CIDR format and as address ranges. This includes blocking their "Like" buttons.
66.220.144.0/20 66.220.144.0 - 66.220.159.255
69.63.176.0/20 69.63.176.0 - 69.63.191.255
69.171.224.0/19 69.171.224.0 - 69.171.255.255
74.119.76.0/22 74.119.76.0 - 74.119.79.255
173.252.64.0/18 173.252.64.0 - 173.252.127.255
204.15.20.0/22 204.15.20.0 - 204.15.23.255
I have 6 mbits down, 800 kbit up ADSL, which actually nets 4.98 mbits down and 650 kbits up. It easily keeps up with NHL GameCentre Live, which is my primary use for it during the winter. The only thing it can't keep up with is most 1080p video from Youtube. Almost, but not quite. Even there, if I let it buffer for 30 seconds, that allows 5 minutes of playing before it has to buffer again. The network throughput is pegged at 637 Kbits down.
For 720p videos, my connection can easily keep up. And if I hit an mp4 video, which has more efficient compression for the same quality, then my connection can easily keep up. I could easily get faster speeds, but it wouldn't really make any noticable difference for me. I'm not upgrading soon, unless something unexpected comes up.
Facebook doesn't give a hoot about your privacy, it only cares about its own bottom line. If employers keep demanding passwords, it will hurt Facebook in two ways...
1) People will "clean up" their FB pages and info, to make them more job-friendly. Telling lies in their info will make targetted advertising less effective. E.g. gays will list themselves as heterosexual and end up receiving ads for Playboy.
2) Some people will decide to delete their accounts altogether, or simply not join. Fewer members means fewer eyeballs for FB to sell to advertisers.
BTW, you are *NOT* a freak if you don't have an FB account. See http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/ for statistics by country. English-speaking countries (US/Canada/UK/NZ/Australia) run around 50% penetration. That's number of accounts versus population, so the numbers are likely inflated. Remember that...
a) some people have multiple accounts to help out Farmville scores. Also a "clean" job-friendly account and a "real" account
b) sites like Freelancer.com have people buying+selling 5,000 or 10,000 "Likes". That means that some outfits have thousands of fake accounts they use for this purpose. It may not be very noticable in large countries. But in Monaco, the number of accounts is over 122% of the popolation... including infants, children under 13, and pensioners who don't know how to run a computer. Obviously inflated.
I don't know the details of the bill, but there is a loophole that some employers are using now, and it should be banned too. The employer requires the applicant to log on to FB. Then the employer watches over the shoulder while the applicant scrolls through their timeline. Technically, they aren't asking for your password, but this loophole needs to be banned as well.
Newspaper...
1) Send guys with chainsaws to forests, either via helicopters or real off-road vehicles, not your wimpy consumer SUV
2) Cut down trees with gas-powered chainsaws (producing pollution already).
3) Drag logs to logging road, and haul them via truck to pulp+paper mill
4) Convert logs to pulp and then paper; rather energy intensive
5) Haul paper from mill to printing plant.
6) Run the printing press, using some "interesting" inks
7) Haul the printed newspapers via truck to customers
Just some of the required infrastructure...
* log-hauling trucks and newspaper delivery vans
* chainsaws
* fuel
* pulp+paper mills which consume huge amounts of energy
* printing plants
* ink manufacturing
If we had started with electronic newspapers, and someone invented "deadtree newspapers" today, they would not succeed.
> Programs like DESQview allowed you to switch tasks in DOS,
> which is done pretty much the same way as "multitasking" in Mac OS.
Wrong. DESQview was a true multi-tasker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desqview#DESQview You may be thinking of the original DESQ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desqview#DESQ which was a task-switcher like MS-DOS Shell. I retired last year, and I remember using it in the late 1980's.
> SO, HOW DOES THIS ALL TIE INTO SOCIAL MEDIA?
> Simple, an employer wants to know who you really are. Both of you are pretending
> during the interview. Simple dating advice is not to look at how the person interacts
> with you but with others. For women especially, want to avoid an abusive
> relationship? See how he deals with waiters and others in a subserviant role.
> That is how he will treat you once the honeymoon is over.
> In a job interview, this is harder, so Social Media is a way of seeing the you
> who is not on his best behavior.
In 6 months, this approach will be absolutely useless, except to weed out the bottom 1% of idiots, who would probably not be able to fill out a job application anyways. Once everybody knows that the interviewer wants to see their FB page, you'll get two different scenarios...
1) The honest guy who doesn't do Facebook because of privacy concerns, and admits it upfront.
2) The smooth-talking BS-artist with a carefully sanitized Facebook page that makes him look like Mr. Clean. This guy is way more dangerous than the honest guy.
Discuss.
This system is supposed to handle micropayments. Yeah, the penny costs 1.6 cents to produce. But, because it's metal, it can easily survive being used in 10,000 transactions. This is equivalant to a surcharge of 0.016% per transaction. In the case of nickels/dimes/quarters and $1 and $2 coins, the overhead ratio becomes even more microscopic. Compare this with what credit card companies charge. From http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2009/04/16/f-cardfees.html
> Merchants pay two to four per cent of the sale price in various
> transaction fees whenever they accept a credit card for payment.
> âoePlayers you wouldnâ(TM)t have thought of beforeâ are looking for
> ways to get into the market of secure transactions, she said.
The article in the summary ( http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1159513--royal-canadian-mint-to-create-digital-currency ) says...
> âoeYouâ(TM)re seeing competitors that have been in the space in a while
> and new competitors looking at the payments market as an opportunity.â
Being a middleman is very profitable. It would be even more profitable if every minor transaction was charged.
A patent granted in the late 80's would've expired by now.
> As for devaluation. This is actually a touchy subject, in some ways currency needs to
> devalue, doing so stops people from sitting on vast piles of it and keeps them spending it which
> keeps the economy going, which generates jobs, and allows more people to spend money.
The 1930's called. They want their "funny money" back. See http://turmelpress.com/socred1.htm
> ...when even Facebook is saying "hey guys, this
> seems like you're crossing a line with people's privacy".
Mark Z doesn't give 2 hoots about your privacy. He only cares about Facebook's bottom line. Facebook's product is personal information about you, e.g. your "Likes", sexual orientation, political leaning, and other demographic data. If employer-access to your FB account becomes widespread, then...
1) people will either leave FB in droves, or refuse to join in the first place; bad for FB
2) many people that stay will "sanitize" all their FB info, to avoid getting fired/refused when employers look in. This will pollute FB's database. This is just as bad, if not worse than people quitting.
Follow the money. This isn't about your privacy, it's about FB's bottom line.
> It seems like its broad enough. Here's the actual bill itself.
I've heard that some employers get around the password stuff by requiring THE EMPLOYEE to login during the interview, and then they shoulder-surf as the employee goes through his private photos and postings. Is that loophole covered?
Apple's i-everything devices are manufactured in China (e.g. Foxconn). Not only do they have the final products in their hands, they also have the individual components and the instructions to assemble them. Otherwise, Foxconn's assembly lines wouldn't work. Ditto for smartphones/laptops/computers/routers.
When Hitler declared war on the US in 1941 (dumb move on his part), the US started sending unescorted merchantmen to ship supplies across the Atlantic to the European theatre. At first, the US wouldn't listen to the experienced British navy... "Convoys? We don't need no steenkin convoys". The US lost a lot of merchant ships to U-boats in the first few months.
They finally wised up, and started grouping ships in convoys, and sending destroyers to escort them. Throw in CAP (Combat Air Patrols) from Newfoundland+Greenland+Iceland+Britain, and a lot more stuff got through, and a lot more U-boats were sunk. The advantage with a convoy is that you don't have to patrol an entire ocean. 100 miles on all sides of the convoy will do.
Fast forward to 2012. the US has UAVs flying around and shooting people in Afghanistan. They would be ideal for escorting convoys. They can stay airborne for days. Note that some of the pirates have attacked 1,000 km offshore. Their glorified motorboats don't have that much range. They're towed out there and back by "mother ships". A small motorboat leaves a mother ship and gets anywhere near a convoy, the UAVs can destroy it, and go after the mother ship as well. A half-dozen pirate crews go out, and don't come back, and the pirates will stop attacking shipping. End of problem.
A couple of US Navy cargo ships could serve as "aircraft carriers" and refueling stations for the UAVs. They don't need a long runway. Any long flat surface will do. Station one 400 km east of Bereeda (NE point of Somalia) and another one 500 km SE of Mogadishu, and you're covered.
> So how can I get cellular voice and Wi-Fi data and only pay the cellular carrier for
> voice? (I already pay for Wi-Fi data at home, and my employer pays for it at work.)
I have a Nokia 6015i that I originally got on a basic prepaid plan with Virgin Mobile Canada (since bought out by Bell Canada). I don't yak much on it, so over the years it built up a large balance. They offered to temporarily convert me to a basic postpaid plan until my balance is burned off, then back to prepaid (nice).
More recently, I bought a used smartphone from an eBay reseller. It doesn't have a sim, and therefore no phone service. I use it for...
* wifi web browsing (including web-based email)
* FM radio
* camera 3264x2448 jpeg
* ebook reader
and I could do more by installing the appropriate app.
> Reality has a well known liberal bias. Of course conservatives are going to distrust
> science. This is going to be the case anywhere and everywhere conservativism is popular.
Correction. so-called "reality" will be modified to conform to liberal dogma. Have you ever read Orwell's novel "1984"? The main character was Winston Smith, whose job it was to re-write history to suit the whims of The Party. Ask conservatives if we don't believe the data "proving" global warming...
From 1997, *AT THE GISS WEBSITE* http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ James "handcuffs" Hansen says "The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934."
We can't have that. The data's got to get with the program. USA 1998 annual temp anomaly *MUST* be made to exceed that of the 1930's. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/do-we-care-if-2010-is-the-warmist-year-in-history/
====
1) Sato's first report, dated July 1999, shows 1934 with an impressive lead of over half a degree (0.541 C to be exact) above 1998.
2) The year 2000 was a bad one for 1934. November 2000 analysis seems to have put it on a downhill ski slope that cooled it by nearly a fifth of a degree (-0.186 C to be precise). On the other hand, it was a very good year for 1998, which, seemingly put on a ski lift, managed to warm up by nearly a quarter of a degree (+0.233 C). That confirms the Theory of Conservation of Mass and Energy. In other words, if someone in your neighborhood goes on a diet and loses weight, someone else is bound to gain it.
3) Further analysis in January 2001 confirmed the downward trend for 1934 (lost an additional 26th of a degree) and the upward movement of 1998 (gained an additional 21th of a degree), tightening the hot race to a 28th of a degree (0.036 C).
4) Satoâ(TM)s analysis and reporting on the great 1934 vs 1998 race seems to have taken a hiatus between 2001 and 2006. When the catâ(TM)s away, the mice will play, and 1998 did exactly that. The January 2006 analysis has 1998 unexpectedly tumbling, losing over a quarter of a degree (-0.269 C), and restoring 1934âs lead to nearly a third of a degree (0.305 C). Sato notes in her email âoeThis is questionable, I may have kept some data which I was checking.â Absolutely, let us question the data! Question, question, question ⦠until we get the right answer.
5) Time for another ski lift! January 2007 analysis boosts 1998 by nearly a third of a degree (+0.312 C) and drops 1934 a tiny bit (-0.008 C), putting 1998 in the lead by a bit (0.015 C). Sato comments âoeThis is only time we had 1998 warmer than 1934, but one [on?] web for 7 months.â
6) and 7) March and August 2007 analysis shows tiny adjustments. However, in what seems to be a photo finish, 1934 sneaks ahead of 1998, being warmer by a tiny amount (0.023 C). So, hooray! 1934 wins and 1998 is second.
OOPS, the hot race continued after the FOIA email! I checked the tabular data at GISS Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) today and, guess what? Since the Sato FOIA email discussed above, GISS has continued their taxpayer-funded work on both 1998 and 1934. The Annual Mean for 1998 has increased to 1.32 C, a gain of a bit over an 11th of a degree (+0.094 C), while poor old 1934 has been beaten down to 1.2 C., a loss of about a 20th of a degree (-0.049 C). So, sad to say, 1934 has lost the hot race by about an eighth of a degree (0.12 C). Tough loss for the old-timer.
===
After the original data was posted, it was "re-analyzed" 7 times in 10 years until 1998 beat 1934. And this "re-analyzed" data ends up in global temperature databases, which boosts global warming statistics.
In the real world, acc
> Why would FB want to engage in litigation with potential customers?
> You aren't FB's customer. You are its goods. Companies who buy ads are the customers.
The thing that makes Facebook valuable is that it has a huge amount of info about people's likes/dislikes/preferences/interests/hobbies/etc/etc, which can be data-mined to target ads very specifically. For instance a publisher of gay novels will want their ads targetted at gay men, Playboy would want their ads targetted at heterosexual men.
Now let's suppose demanding Facebook logins from potential employees becomes standard practice.
1) Homosexual men who fear discrimination will list themselves as heterosexual on their Facebook profiles. Now Playboy ads will go to homosexual men who are not the target audience, and gay publishers won't know who to send their ads to. They will no longer be willing to pay top dollar for those ads.
2) Even worse, the thought of potential employers etc reading their every posting might scare some people into staying away from Facebook altogether.
Both of these items will hurt Facebook's bottom line. As a (soon to be) public corporation, that's all that Facebook cares about, profit. You better believe Facebook will do everything in its power to stop this.
One thing about Facebook that turns me off from joining are how it turns its members into bible-pounder types who go around trying to convert everybody to "the faith" and villifying non-believers as having "anti social personality issues". It's reminiscent of a scientology-like cult. Facebook works for you... that's great. I and my acquaintances, former co-workers, etc, know how to use real email. It works for us.