All that means is simply that your "friend" told Facebook the name that goes with the face. Having a name associated with a photo isn't quite the same as a shadow profile (at least the way people usually mean it, though I guess you could make an argument that it's a rudimentary version of one).
But that doesn't mean the name in the photo is associated with the cookie that you're sent every time you load a page with a "like" button. It could happen, but I don't know if anyone has presented evidence that it does happen.
I am looking for junior representatives in government -- young, willing, and eager to please me by enacting policies of my choosing, without citing their "seniority" as independence from me as a special interest. Make me feel like a very special interest. I want to feel your warmth in my pocket.
If you or some people you're able to acquire are able to perform this service for me, please contact. You'll find me to be a generous friend.
When I read the definition of "edge service" it's suspiciously specific, but [excuse]my imagination is tired right now[/excuse]. What kinds of things are not edge services under this bill? (i.e. Who bought an exemption?)
It's the first time anyone's heard of it. That's the purpose of this ad. You should go check it out. Because. Um, because of reasons. It's the most popular!
I wonder if Twitter's old API could be conceptually mapped to the things a XMPP server (or maybe IRC?) does. You could then add the old API and then tell all the Twitter developers, "Come over here to your new home!"
(And then Oracle could buy Twitter and sue you, since APIs are suddenly property now. Holy crap, how come that story already faded?!)
These online forums owned by private companies are often the only way to share information and communicate online.
This argument is just totally baffling to me. You're here on Slashdot successfully communicating instead of being forced to do it on Youtube. And there are many thousands of other websites. And if you don't like any of those websites, you can do it yourself. Holy crap, what a time to be alive! The DIY approach is actually easy and viable! It's not like you have to go buy up controlling interest in a newspaper anymore. Anyone can make a website. Assuming they're alive/exist, your grandmother can do it. Your granddaughter can do it.
Jesus H Christ, get onto the dark web and you can even pretty safely make criminal speech without any repercussions. They'd like to restrict your right to free speech, but they're unable do.
You can even use The Enemy's own resources to get started on subverting their dominance: I'm sure Google Search can lead you right to plenty of Apache HOWTOs.
What am I wrong about here? I feel like what you're saying and what I know, have us on completely different planets. I don't get it.
People amazingly find it acceptable. Apple should celebrate that, and not push their luck by pretending it's a good thing or that it doesn't lower the value of their product. It does make the phone worth less and makes it so that people are willing to pay less for it, but the success here is it's only slightly less. Apparently people aren't too angry about it.
If Samsung thinks they're jumping on a popularity or fashion bandwagon, they have been conned and it's time to admit that Apple has finally outsmarted them.
I almost wanna hear sportscasters describe it, "Aaand Apple marketing fakes toward suck, SAMSUNG GOES FOR IT! SAMSUNG TAKES THE BAIT! Samsung gets notch 20% the length of the phone! 30%! 45%! Oh, the humanity, 55%! 80%! SAMSUNG GOES FULL SUCK! WE HAVE FULL SUCK! SCORE BY APPLE! Fans, look at coach Cook's shit eating grin. He just got Samsung to make a full-height notch that completely bisects the screen. Dave, what do we have over in media?"
"Well, Frank, Samsung is now running an ad that tries to show how two side-by-side mini-screens are the coolest thing ever, that you just have to have."
"Thanks, Dave. Any word on the new Samsung's phone's battery?"
"It's not there, Frank. They've got the phone down to 2 mm thick. Samsung's engineers have really don--"
"Sorry, Dave, I have to cut in! We've got the iPhone Y here now. No notch, I repeat, no notch. The notch is so 2017. Stupid fad. The notch is over."
"What happened?"
"Apparently they've used up that batch of bad screens that all had manufacturing defects in the top center, the ones they bought at huge discount at the end of 2016. The ones that need a notch, so that they're still able to use the screen instead of writing it off... yes, they're reporting all the parts inventory has been used. No more bad screens. They're back to normal again, Dave."
"..."
"No, Samsung isn't following suit. They now have four notches, no, sixteen, fractal! They've got continuous notches all around all the edge-- wait, flag on the field. Apple marketing is calling Samsung's continuous Fractal Notch Technology a bezel... The referee is saying bezels are still a foul."
"Still a foul? Don't people have to pick them up with their fingers sometimes? Don't they get pissed off when they accidentally touch a control on the screen when they just wanted to touch a for-sure-dumb surface?"
"The ref's saying they're still a foul. Even if it's a continuous fractal group of notches rather than a bezel, they're using the bezel rule.. WAIT! WAIT! They have inverted the design! The notch is now in the center and the active part of the screen has moved to the outside! The dead area is in the direct center of the screen and they're saying it's not a bezel! The active part of the screen wraps around to the back and where ever your fingers randomly happen to be, they're interacting with the UI! SAMSUNG SCORES! PEOPLE ARE BUYING THEM BY THE FUCKTON!"
It has been dumbfounding that so many people have chosen these proprietary messaging apps. Before you even hear any stories about how awful they are, the first thing you encounter with any of them, is that they don't interoperate with anything else. That is, if you want to talk to someone who uses that app, you have to use the same app. Simply through this, you know the protocol is undocumented and therefore very likely to be substantially worse than the state-of-the-art 20 years ago.
But people ignore that.
But now we're having some refreshing (and surprising!) moments of honesty. That Microsoft scans Skype looking for dirty words was not only hilarious, but an amazing thing for them to admit. Now we have another one (Facebook, this time) admitting that their app is completely and utterly insecure.
These companies didn't get exposed by security researchers. They didn't get exposed by something embarrassing getting leaked. They didn' get exposed by common sense and people thinking about how they could prove the platforms were secure. They exposed themselves, admitting to the public that their products are worthless. They're telling us, explicitly. What more can you want? If you use these things, it's your problem. Just don't pretend you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The only way this might be bad, is that they're giving people the answers "too easily" so people won't get any smarter and might come to the weird conclusion that if a messaging app isn't secure, the company will own up to it. Well, I totally disagree with that. The people already failed and weren't going to learn anything anyway. So tell them the answer to this quiz, just in the desperate hope that they realize the answer next time. Maybe some day, when people are offered products that apprear to be insecure, they'll treat them as though they realize they're probably insecure. No, not everyone, but a few more percent than last time.
Thank you, Facebook and Microsoft. I say this without irony. I don't know your motives, but your actions are about as close to teaching as anyone could ever expect from you. And you did this teaching to our most disadvantaged students, the ones who most needed it.
I've heard several people saying that liberals are saying this and loving this, but has anyone yet found one of the liberals who is supposedly saying this or loving this? So far, no citations.
I'm thinking this liberal hearsay might be a liberal lie, spread by the liberal establishment to undermine liberals and make everyone turn to liberalism to get away from liberalism.
Better solution would be to tax fuel at a fairly high rate and let the markets decide what to buy
I totally agree, but then...
Use the tax money to subsidize clean (electric) transport
No, wait, no, stop. Don't subsidize anything with this money. And you can't afford to subsidize things anyway, once you look closer at your true liabilities.
Use this money to mitigate the effects of the pollution. Plant forests with it. Build atmospheric scrubbers. Use it to treat people who are sick from pollution. Use it to build multi-trillion-dollar projects to put our coastal cities on stilts. That sort of stuff.
The goal of the tax should simply be end the subsidy that we're currently giving to everyone who burns things. You won't need to give incentives to cleaner tech, because they'll already have the incentive of their users accruing less tax to clean up after themselves.
Assuming that "AI" isn't just the new word for "any computer program that sounds complicated to laymen" then I'm guessing it's because the for loop wouldn't finish in your life time. So they tried out all the usual tricks that people use to avoid combinatorial explosion, the various other tricks for optimizing functions that you can't handle with just plain old math, and finally at the bottom of their bag of tricks, there was AI -- and it worked!
It's not security-anything. The purpose is to humiliate all applicants. You don't need to follow up on them.
You can occasionally randomly follow up on what some people didn't include, look for them on whatever website they say they're not on, find them if they lied poorly, and then reject their application. That seems like a pretty great way to make people unhappier, though I'm not saying it's the only viable way to approach it so they shouldn't specify this in the new regs.
Why do you think you take your shoes off at TSA checkpoints? It's to make you acknowledge that you're their bitch, that's why. They don't just want to humiliate you, and you unflinchingly take it; you have to participate in it. I think this social media thing is a reasonable extension of this.
The big question is: why is this limited to Visa applicants? Shouldn't they be doing this to citizens too? Maybe the Visa aspect is just a trial run.
Drugs and Child pornography are two things that, at least in America, you're basically guilty until proven innocent.
Might not incidents like this one, become part of the reason for a change? Imagine you were on a jury tomorrow.
Some people point out that this shatters the dream that Bitcoin could be a way to move finances beyond the law. But where did that dream come from? It came from the ridiculous assumption that people have freedom of speech. Embedding CP in the blockchain doesn't so much expose the blockchain to a loss of freedom, as it reminds us that we never had freedom of speech.
If the "evil bits" of CP can taint the blockchain, maybe they can taint anything and everything. All the 1770s Brits had to do was sneakily buy a child porn ad in Thomas Paine's pamphlet?! (obviously not possible at the time, but what if the revolution happened 2 or 3 centuries later?) It might be that the only way we'll ever have free speech, is if we insist on it, and always protect it.
I love and respect this prank (and I still think it more likely a prank, than an attack by a government or a bank; and I really don't think it's the act of a perv simply because it's impractical for that purpose) but one of the things that makes it so artful, is that it shows an old problem that most of us prefer to ignore, rather than really exposing a new problem. Every person reading your comment about drugs and CP being guilty-until-proven-innocent, ought to agree with you, but also be sickened.
This is one of the best long-con trolls that I think I have ever heard of. I wish I could claim responsibility for this masterpiece, and I don't even hate Bitcoin!
I'm pretty sure this is part of a government conspiracy to turn me into a person who believes in government conspiracies, because: too contaminated, therefore we're going to put it all into the atmosphere?
He's talking about web browsers. You're talking about some kind of web application loader/RTS. Oh shit -- they're the same thing! No wonder we're so fucked.
Are you saying that you subscribe to Netflix but don't really use it? Like, it's just some monthly payment that you haven't gotten around to cancelling?
WTF do protocols have to do with this? TFA doesn't say they blocked torrents (or web access or email, since those are just as useful for spreading malware).
Slashdot Mirror
Your speech isn't protected from Reddit on Reddit's servers. They choose to allow it anyway. Long live Reddit!
All that means is simply that your "friend" told Facebook the name that goes with the face. Having a name associated with a photo isn't quite the same as a shadow profile (at least the way people usually mean it, though I guess you could make an argument that it's a rudimentary version of one).
But that doesn't mean the name in the photo is associated with the cookie that you're sent every time you load a page with a "like" button. It could happen, but I don't know if anyone has presented evidence that it does happen.
I am looking for junior representatives in government -- young, willing, and eager to please me by enacting policies of my choosing, without citing their "seniority" as independence from me as a special interest. Make me feel like a very special interest. I want to feel your warmth in my pocket.
If you or some people you're able to acquire are able to perform this service for me, please contact. You'll find me to be a generous friend.
When I read the definition of "edge service" it's suspiciously specific, but [excuse]my imagination is tired right now[/excuse]. What kinds of things are not edge services under this bill? (i.e. Who bought an exemption?)
WTF. Do you really mean that per day?! (It's less shocking if you meant per week.).
That's basically a second job to pay for the privilege of working your first job. Either death or prison would a merciful step up from that.
It's the first time anyone's heard of it. That's the purpose of this ad. You should go check it out. Because. Um, because of reasons. It's the most popular!
I wonder if Twitter's old API could be conceptually mapped to the things a XMPP server (or maybe IRC?) does. You could then add the old API and then tell all the Twitter developers, "Come over here to your new home!"
(And then Oracle could buy Twitter and sue you, since APIs are suddenly property now. Holy crap, how come that story already faded?!)
This argument is just totally baffling to me. You're here on Slashdot successfully communicating instead of being forced to do it on Youtube. And there are many thousands of other websites. And if you don't like any of those websites, you can do it yourself. Holy crap, what a time to be alive! The DIY approach is actually easy and viable! It's not like you have to go buy up controlling interest in a newspaper anymore. Anyone can make a website. Assuming they're alive/exist, your grandmother can do it. Your granddaughter can do it.
Jesus H Christ, get onto the dark web and you can even pretty safely make criminal speech without any repercussions. They'd like to restrict your right to free speech, but they're unable do.
You can even use The Enemy's own resources to get started on subverting their dominance: I'm sure Google Search can lead you right to plenty of Apache HOWTOs.
What am I wrong about here? I feel like what you're saying and what I know, have us on completely different planets. I don't get it.
By that logic, she took away my income, since she wasn't paying me anything. I should have shot her first.
People amazingly find it acceptable. Apple should celebrate that, and not push their luck by pretending it's a good thing or that it doesn't lower the value of their product. It does make the phone worth less and makes it so that people are willing to pay less for it, but the success here is it's only slightly less. Apparently people aren't too angry about it.
If Samsung thinks they're jumping on a popularity or fashion bandwagon, they have been conned and it's time to admit that Apple has finally outsmarted them.
I almost wanna hear sportscasters describe it, "Aaand Apple marketing fakes toward suck, SAMSUNG GOES FOR IT! SAMSUNG TAKES THE BAIT! Samsung gets notch 20% the length of the phone! 30%! 45%! Oh, the humanity, 55%! 80%! SAMSUNG GOES FULL SUCK! WE HAVE FULL SUCK! SCORE BY APPLE! Fans, look at coach Cook's shit eating grin. He just got Samsung to make a full-height notch that completely bisects the screen. Dave, what do we have over in media?"
"Well, Frank, Samsung is now running an ad that tries to show how two side-by-side mini-screens are the coolest thing ever, that you just have to have."
"Thanks, Dave. Any word on the new Samsung's phone's battery?"
"It's not there, Frank. They've got the phone down to 2 mm thick. Samsung's engineers have really don--"
"Sorry, Dave, I have to cut in! We've got the iPhone Y here now. No notch, I repeat, no notch. The notch is so 2017. Stupid fad. The notch is over."
"What happened?"
"Apparently they've used up that batch of bad screens that all had manufacturing defects in the top center, the ones they bought at huge discount at the end of 2016. The ones that need a notch, so that they're still able to use the screen instead of writing it off... yes, they're reporting all the parts inventory has been used. No more bad screens. They're back to normal again, Dave."
"..."
"No, Samsung isn't following suit. They now have four notches, no, sixteen, fractal! They've got continuous notches all around all the edge-- wait, flag on the field. Apple marketing is calling Samsung's continuous Fractal Notch Technology a bezel... The referee is saying bezels are still a foul."
"Still a foul? Don't people have to pick them up with their fingers sometimes? Don't they get pissed off when they accidentally touch a control on the screen when they just wanted to touch a for-sure-dumb surface?"
"The ref's saying they're still a foul. Even if it's a continuous fractal group of notches rather than a bezel, they're using the bezel rule.. WAIT! WAIT! They have inverted the design! The notch is now in the center and the active part of the screen has moved to the outside! The dead area is in the direct center of the screen and they're saying it's not a bezel! The active part of the screen wraps around to the back and where ever your fingers randomly happen to be, they're interacting with the UI! SAMSUNG SCORES! PEOPLE ARE BUYING THEM BY THE FUCKTON!"
Looks like voting wasn't enough. Are you running yet?
It has been dumbfounding that so many people have chosen these proprietary messaging apps. Before you even hear any stories about how awful they are, the first thing you encounter with any of them, is that they don't interoperate with anything else. That is, if you want to talk to someone who uses that app, you have to use the same app. Simply through this, you know the protocol is undocumented and therefore very likely to be substantially worse than the state-of-the-art 20 years ago.
But people ignore that.
But now we're having some refreshing (and surprising!) moments of honesty. That Microsoft scans Skype looking for dirty words was not only hilarious, but an amazing thing for them to admit. Now we have another one (Facebook, this time) admitting that their app is completely and utterly insecure.
These companies didn't get exposed by security researchers. They didn't get exposed by something embarrassing getting leaked. They didn' get exposed by common sense and people thinking about how they could prove the platforms were secure. They exposed themselves, admitting to the public that their products are worthless. They're telling us, explicitly. What more can you want? If you use these things, it's your problem. Just don't pretend you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The only way this might be bad, is that they're giving people the answers "too easily" so people won't get any smarter and might come to the weird conclusion that if a messaging app isn't secure, the company will own up to it. Well, I totally disagree with that. The people already failed and weren't going to learn anything anyway. So tell them the answer to this quiz, just in the desperate hope that they realize the answer next time. Maybe some day, when people are offered products that apprear to be insecure, they'll treat them as though they realize they're probably insecure. No, not everyone, but a few more percent than last time.
Thank you, Facebook and Microsoft. I say this without irony. I don't know your motives, but your actions are about as close to teaching as anyone could ever expect from you. And you did this teaching to our most disadvantaged students, the ones who most needed it.
What is Google gatekeeping? What free and open thing have they "taken over?"
I have not yet encountered these things, and I use both Google and non-Google websites all the time. Your words don't match up to my observed reality.
I've heard several people saying that liberals are saying this and loving this, but has anyone yet found one of the liberals who is supposedly saying this or loving this? So far, no citations.
I'm thinking this liberal hearsay might be a liberal lie, spread by the liberal establishment to undermine liberals and make everyone turn to liberalism to get away from liberalism.
I totally agree, but then...
No, wait, no, stop. Don't subsidize anything with this money. And you can't afford to subsidize things anyway, once you look closer at your true liabilities.
Use this money to mitigate the effects of the pollution. Plant forests with it. Build atmospheric scrubbers. Use it to treat people who are sick from pollution. Use it to build multi-trillion-dollar projects to put our coastal cities on stilts. That sort of stuff.
The goal of the tax should simply be end the subsidy that we're currently giving to everyone who burns things. You won't need to give incentives to cleaner tech, because they'll already have the incentive of their users accruing less tax to clean up after themselves.
ObXKCD
Assuming that "AI" isn't just the new word for "any computer program that sounds complicated to laymen" then I'm guessing it's because the for loop wouldn't finish in your life time. So they tried out all the usual tricks that people use to avoid combinatorial explosion, the various other tricks for optimizing functions that you can't handle with just plain old math, and finally at the bottom of their bag of tricks, there was AI -- and it worked!
It's not security-anything. The purpose is to humiliate all applicants. You don't need to follow up on them.
You can occasionally randomly follow up on what some people didn't include, look for them on whatever website they say they're not on, find them if they lied poorly, and then reject their application. That seems like a pretty great way to make people unhappier, though I'm not saying it's the only viable way to approach it so they shouldn't specify this in the new regs.
Why do you think you take your shoes off at TSA checkpoints? It's to make you acknowledge that you're their bitch, that's why. They don't just want to humiliate you, and you unflinchingly take it; you have to participate in it. I think this social media thing is a reasonable extension of this.
The big question is: why is this limited to Visa applicants? Shouldn't they be doing this to citizens too? Maybe the Visa aspect is just a trial run.
Might not incidents like this one, become part of the reason for a change? Imagine you were on a jury tomorrow.
Some people point out that this shatters the dream that Bitcoin could be a way to move finances beyond the law. But where did that dream come from? It came from the ridiculous assumption that people have freedom of speech. Embedding CP in the blockchain doesn't so much expose the blockchain to a loss of freedom, as it reminds us that we never had freedom of speech.
If the "evil bits" of CP can taint the blockchain, maybe they can taint anything and everything. All the 1770s Brits had to do was sneakily buy a child porn ad in Thomas Paine's pamphlet?! (obviously not possible at the time, but what if the revolution happened 2 or 3 centuries later?) It might be that the only way we'll ever have free speech, is if we insist on it, and always protect it.
I love and respect this prank (and I still think it more likely a prank, than an attack by a government or a bank; and I really don't think it's the act of a perv simply because it's impractical for that purpose) but one of the things that makes it so artful, is that it shows an old problem that most of us prefer to ignore, rather than really exposing a new problem. Every person reading your comment about drugs and CP being guilty-until-proven-innocent, ought to agree with you, but also be sickened.
This is one of the best long-con trolls that I think I have ever heard of. I wish I could claim responsibility for this masterpiece, and I don't even hate Bitcoin!
I'm pretty sure this is part of a government conspiracy to turn me into a person who believes in government conspiracies, because: too contaminated, therefore we're going to put it all into the atmosphere?
Does this make sense to anyone?
How does "right to repair" more imply giving the right than it implies protecting the right?
He's talking about web browsers. You're talking about some kind of web application loader/RTS. Oh shit -- they're the same thing! No wonder we're so fucked.
Are you saying that you subscribe to Netflix but don't really use it? Like, it's just some monthly payment that you haven't gotten around to cancelling?
WTF do protocols have to do with this? TFA doesn't say they blocked torrents (or web access or email, since those are just as useful for spreading malware).