the sensationalism and editorializing of a mundane 'news' item
many if not most companies have an R&D division/aspect in which they explore future possibilities; the fact that it isn't announced to the public in detail is not the same as it being done 'in secret'
clickbait journalism requires falsehood and misdirection.... the very opposite of the journalist's creedo
".... oooooo, let's call it "secret" so it appears full of controversy and we'll get the views to justify the ads...." of course this is much better than to headline it as 'Facebook pursued low-tech connectivity efforts' which brings fewer views
one time I read about leprosy.... and it's ridiculous to then assume I'm now pro-leprosy; silly example, but exactly the same thing happens on a hot-button topic like this
ingesting information on any topic does not necessarily mean advocating or endorsing it; if one is 'curious' or 'interested' in a topic -- including valid historical figures and events, it is disingenuous to then be portrayed as being 'for' it
keep in mind FB is not a government entity but a profit-oriented business; any and all of its power was handed to it voluntarily by those who feel okay with trading their privacy for whatever FB offers in return; also keep in mind that tolerance of differing viewpoints is a keystone of democracy... removing alternative viewpoints is tyranny and will have a much deeper negative impact than a generally unpopular topic running its natural course
expecting government to handle social problems only leads to more government; more of that can certainly be worse than letting social issues play out in society; government-mandated solutions should be scarce since they come with their own set of intractable problems some of which are worse than what they are 'solving'
I don't see anyone in the OP advocating gov't intervention, so perhaps I ramble a bit here; on the other hand, if this is an attempt to educate the general public about FB's practices so the public can make better informed decisions, then hell yes, let's hear it
it comes down to personal responsibility for yourself and children; make a stand and make it work... too many whiners think "someone should do something" but never themselves; "I want my FB but somebody needs to make it safe for me" is about as disgustingly weak-minded as it gets; it's unreasonable to expect gov't to solve all of life's problems and honestly, I wouldn't want it to
my life IS about my choices; if somebody else is making choices for me, then it's not really my life
Purchasing the passes is you granting them consent
reminds me of that game we'd play in jr high on friends/little brothers.... we'd barely whisper something like "say 'huh'/'what' if you want me to punch you in the arm"
of course, being barely audible, the little brother would say "huh?" and we'd then proceed to punch him in the arm stating that he asked for it cuz he said 'huh'
it was an 'agreement' done in bad faith then and it's the same thing here
your tenacity is admirable and I'm sure many support your efforts; to say that anyone disagreeing with your assessment (and its risks) is 'not paying attention' is not persuasive and likely takes away from your end goal
unsolicited advice: drop the personal attacks and you might find skeptics more open to your efforts
if it makes you feel better, your thoughts/comments will get equal billing the same as the commentor you admonished.... just another personal anecdote to be considered on the whole
reading up on history, great idea; now go read up on those acts of bigotry and discrimination done to the Irish, Poles, etc. in the early USA; not an issue of race, but of some other mechanism people do to include/exclude others
divisiveness is the issue, and sometimes race is used, other times it's religion, socio-economic class, culture, sexuality, etc.
in the article, the weasel politician is trying to *make* it about race for political gain riding on the back of his White Knight (hehe) facade
the no-bias way would be for him to champion all that would be excluded, not just those of 'color'
reading up on history, great idea; now go read up on those acts of bigotry and discrimination done to the Irish, Poles, etc. in the early USA; not an issue of race, but of some other mechanism people do to include/exclude others
divisiveness is the issue, and sometimes race is used, other times it's religion, socio-economic class, culture, sexuality, etc.
in the article, the weasel politician is trying to *make* it about race for political gain riding on the back of his White Knight (hehe) facade
the no-bias way would be for him to champion all that would be excluded, not just those of 'color'
the argument is purely ideological and does have merit at that level; I believe the main sticking point (for me) is that this friction will always need human intervention -- directly or indirectly -- and so its implementation will fail because humans always bring their failings along like unwanted stepkids
wish I had mod points for you.... especially your closing comments about the divide and conquer thing that's working so well; certainly keeps the attention off those really running things
...but these types of responses are carefully -- and I mean very carefully -- worded to lead a reader to think something that isn't so
for example, "... Siri does not share spoken words..." could very well be true; but what if it converts the 'spoken' word to text and then shares it? see how that works? you're supposed to think they don't share info, but what they're really saying is that they don't share info *in a specific way*
and I bet if you asked anyone involved with this fuckery, they'd all swear up and down that they're a good person and go to church and give to charities, are good parents, etc.; never once would they hold the same standards of deceit and treachery for themselves that they hold for others
Slashdot Mirror
yep, agreed, especially if your topic of interest is even slightly popular, you will likely find many many vids
the sensationalism and editorializing of a mundane 'news' item
many if not most companies have an R&D division/aspect in which they explore future possibilities; the fact that it isn't announced to the public in detail is not the same as it being done 'in secret'
clickbait journalism requires falsehood and misdirection.... the very opposite of the journalist's creedo
".... oooooo, let's call it "secret" so it appears full of controversy and we'll get the views to justify the ads...." of course this is much better than to headline it as 'Facebook pursued low-tech connectivity efforts' which brings fewer views
disgusting
good comment; not everything bad is malicious
one time I read about leprosy.... and it's ridiculous to then assume I'm now pro-leprosy; silly example, but exactly the same thing happens on a hot-button topic like this
ingesting information on any topic does not necessarily mean advocating or endorsing it; if one is 'curious' or 'interested' in a topic -- including valid historical figures and events, it is disingenuous to then be portrayed as being 'for' it
keep in mind FB is not a government entity but a profit-oriented business; any and all of its power was handed to it voluntarily by those who feel okay with trading their privacy for whatever FB offers in return; also keep in mind that tolerance of differing viewpoints is a keystone of democracy... removing alternative viewpoints is tyranny and will have a much deeper negative impact than a generally unpopular topic running its natural course
expecting government to handle social problems only leads to more government; more of that can certainly be worse than letting social issues play out in society; government-mandated solutions should be scarce since they come with their own set of intractable problems some of which are worse than what they are 'solving'
I don't see anyone in the OP advocating gov't intervention, so perhaps I ramble a bit here; on the other hand, if this is an attempt to educate the general public about FB's practices so the public can make better informed decisions, then hell yes, let's hear it
it comes down to personal responsibility for yourself and children; make a stand and make it work... too many whiners think "someone should do something" but never themselves; "I want my FB but somebody needs to make it safe for me" is about as disgustingly weak-minded as it gets; it's unreasonable to expect gov't to solve all of life's problems and honestly, I wouldn't want it to
my life IS about my choices; if somebody else is making choices for me, then it's not really my life
lol, no frills, straight to the point
"What is this, the Middle Ages?"
-- Bender
Purchasing the passes is you granting them consent
reminds me of that game we'd play in jr high on friends/little brothers.... we'd barely whisper something like "say 'huh'/'what' if you want me to punch you in the arm"
of course, being barely audible, the little brother would say "huh?" and we'd then proceed to punch him in the arm stating that he asked for it cuz he said 'huh'
it was an 'agreement' done in bad faith then and it's the same thing here
your tenacity is admirable and I'm sure many support your efforts; to say that anyone disagreeing with your assessment (and its risks) is 'not paying attention' is not persuasive and likely takes away from your end goal
unsolicited advice: drop the personal attacks and you might find skeptics more open to your efforts
if it makes you feel better, your thoughts/comments will get equal billing the same as the commentor you admonished.... just another personal anecdote to be considered on the whole
"...scientists are stoked..."
bitchin' bro!! check out this sample
gnarly!!!
re-post for edit
reading up on history, great idea; now go read up on those acts of bigotry and discrimination done to the Irish, Poles, etc. in the early USA; not an issue of race, but of some other mechanism people do to include/exclude others
divisiveness is the issue, and sometimes race is used, other times it's religion, socio-economic class, culture, sexuality, etc.
in the article, the weasel politician is trying to *make* it about race for political gain riding on the back of his White Knight (hehe) facade
the no-bias way would be for him to champion all that would be excluded, not just those of 'color'
reading up on history, great idea; now go read up on those acts of bigotry and discrimination done to the Irish, Poles, etc. in the early USA; not an issue of race, but of some other mechanism people do to include/exclude others divisiveness is the issue, and sometimes race is used, other times it's religion, socio-economic class, culture, sexuality, etc. in the article, the weasel politician is trying to *make* it about race for political gain riding on the back of his White Knight (hehe) facade the no-bias way would be for him to champion all that would be excluded, not just those of 'color'
damn good, stealing this one
brutal.... I like your style
the argument is purely ideological and does have merit at that level; I believe the main sticking point (for me) is that this friction will always need human intervention -- directly or indirectly -- and so its implementation will fail because humans always bring their failings along like unwanted stepkids
"Content that might contain phishing or malware could be extra-delayed to algorithmically look for patterns in suspicious links or attachments."
Gee, I wonder where we might get some service to scan, parse, examine, study and commercialize our digital correspondence?
Hopefully a friction-less computer can do it so I can hurry up and wait for my communications to be approved!
wish I had mod points for you.... especially your closing comments about the divide and conquer thing that's working so well; certainly keeps the attention off those really running things
way to stand up and be heard, AC
...but these types of responses are carefully -- and I mean very carefully -- worded to lead a reader to think something that isn't so
for example, "... Siri does not share spoken words..." could very well be true; but what if it converts the 'spoken' word to text and then shares it? see how that works? you're supposed to think they don't share info, but what they're really saying is that they don't share info *in a specific way*
and I bet if you asked anyone involved with this fuckery, they'd all swear up and down that they're a good person and go to church and give to charities, are good parents, etc.; never once would they hold the same standards of deceit and treachery for themselves that they hold for others
putting bugs into software.... pffft.... been doing it for years now, as have most others in the biz
determining that they're benign.... now that's the hard part; who signs off on that?
finally!! now's there's a good reason to include some code samples on my resume
"... techniques to automatically put bugs into programs..."
and
"...once they had a way to fill a program with bugs..."
I think I've found my natural calling
yessir, well said
it's one of the most important things I teach my son
well, he DID ask.... glad you came right out and said it straight up
lol, nice