I'm sorry, but you must really be a horribly challenged person to believe this. The "Shareholders" may have a Facebook but I'll go million to one odds that they look like a sales add, and not the "average persons" Facebook page.
And save the Nerd Rage, using Facebook in that way is not wrong. What is wrong is someone believing that these people upload pictures that Facebook can steal and sell to people for advertising purposes.
I have to paraphrase, but one of the claims was that because the Zuck got married stock prices should start to increase. Also claiming that analysts were baffled at the low opening second day, and claiming that the stock would be sure to rally.
This guy is yanking our collective chain or he's kind of out of his depth.
In addition to those obvious points, he is asking for help in wire tapping. Though legal in some cases, it's not legal in most cases and could put people in to hot water for answering.
Answer to the OP - Talk to Lawyer and learn some basics of business law and ethics long before you start learning your sea plus.
Fox News in the Bay area was claiming that this was intentional and would help the stock this morning. I laughed so hard I spit out my breakfast, but also lost my appetite from the comment so it was a wash.
While I agree with your premise that Facebook can make some revenue this way, when people start to hear about the lawsuits that quickly changes. Facebook could minimize this quite a bit by notifying customers and giving them a cut of the cash, and maybe that is already their strategy. Facebook is not a company known for it's good faith or concern for their customers.
Fox News (Though that has become an oxymoron, it is what they call themselves.) spent all morning trying to prop up the stock in the Valley/SF area. If this does not hint at how blatant the corruption is.. well, I can't even come up with an analogy to say how gullible you are.
This IPO was today. If this was released and "mediatized" yesterday it would have hurt the IPO quite a bit. Now of course, the share holders are stuck with it. Maybe since it helps keep the value of the lawsuit up it helps the case along to boot.
A better indicator of failure is the massive stack of failures compared to the very short list of success stories. Honestly, I get the point but think the context is reversed. Hell, it's Friday and been a long week so it could just be me.
Poor argument. How many Amazon.com companies were there during the bubble, and how many survived? How many Search Engine companies were there and how many are still relevant? That list could get really long and tedious, so I'll stop there.
Point, there is a much larger failure rate than success rate. Saying "Google did it" or "Amazon did it" is a horrible way to sell an Internet company.
Lets not forget how fast MySpace crashed and burned. The only thing keeping Facebook up at the moment is a lack of competition (and maybe some IP law). A new start up could put them out of business in a very short time.
most legit websites with a login will let you use your Facebook account
And since most hack sites vacuum up thousands of passwords a day this way many people stay away from anything with a Facebook log in box. Sure, it's not a "Facebook" isolated problem. It is however a horrible example and not something I would add to their bragging list. It's surely not poised as the wave of the future.
Easy for people to do? Sure. But lets not forget how quickly security problems can put someone completely out of business.
Targeted adds are what already generate their funds. Scanning your profile for things like age and marital status. Change your marital status and watch what happens. If you are single and go to married, you will get vacation adds most likely. If you are divorced, lots of singles adds. If you work in a tech site it's HP, Dell, IBM adds. And if you log in to Facebook rarely, you will get lots of adds for "lonely?".
Some claim that this is already done, I don't use the site enough to know any better, but.. What if they scanned your text to know what to advertise? Post "Great workout today" and suddenly you get adds for "Shake Weight" and GNC. You would be more apt to purchase those products, just maybe not from within Facebook.
Point is, targeted adds to work. Maybe not on you, and maybe not in the way most people think. But media has proven over and over again that advertisements work very very well. The more someone looks at your logo the more apt they will be to buy from you.
And lets face it, those targeted advertisements are the same thing as Google does. Their methods for getting information to give you ads with may be a bit different, but it's still tracking and targeting.
Oh, and I see your facts are from a particular site. Maybe search a bit outside of that and look at the home grown cars in China (appearance, sales, etc..). Interesting that GM suddenly ranks number 1 in 2011 where as home grown ranked number 1 in every other year, in most cases by very large margins.
What you see could be more in line with the fact that China is producing lots of wealthy people right now. Buick sold in the past because it was the rich person's car.
To your first point, it was thought long ago that opening plants in China would immediately open the doors to selling American branded cars in China. What is sold is not, and the profits are not shown in the US the same way it is for the EU. I guess it could be argued that GM does not sell cars the same in Europe either. The are many differences however. The biggest would be that GM production in the EU was not a pack shit and move operation, it was a true expansion. If this were true for China and Mexico, we'd never have had the collapse of the big 3 like we did. (Please, save any potential arguments about "but the Union's" for someone ignorant enough to believe that crap.)
To your second point, there are exceptions to every rule in economics. China will allow expansion if there is reason to expand but it must be of benefit to China as a whole. They will not allow a company to pack up and move to get a better labor rate in say Laos or Cambodia. There are also rules to expansion, such as critical IP and infrastructure must remain in China.
To your last point, I never said we were innocent and apologize if it was somehow insinuated. I just pointed out that others have very strict rules to protect themselves. If the US even talks about rules, we are labeled "Protectionist". Other countries operate with very tight rules to protect theirs and it's okay as long as we think we can exploit them to get more stuff. The West likes to believe that we somehow evolved into this "World Economy" and everyone plays by their rules. The truth runs very contrary to that belief.
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 2
Or you could just re-write the sentence without the need for a he/she/it reference, which is usually the first choice.
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 1
Outside of the obvious gender bias, I agree with most of what you said. HP Shareholders should realize that the 30,000 people they are about to screw over are also customers, and advocates of HP products. Obviously this is going to drop 30,000 people from their customer and advocate list, plus all of their friends and family members will think twice about buying or using HP.
Won't be given in my case since the people I knew may still work there, sorry. There are numerous stories you can read on Google that are very similar.
Let me ask a few questions to get the point across. How many GM cars are sold in China? What is the number 1 selling car in China, and what does it look like? This is true for many items. Foreigner owned plants in China do not sell much to China, if they sell anything at all. Yet there are countless clone items made by Chinese manufactures in China that are sold to the Chinese. You can easily find story after story like this. The typical answer from the Chinese government is "We are working to stop IP theft", but occasionally you hear "China owns that IP so piss off!".
To the US, this may seem horrible and wrong. In China, to the Chinese Government this is as it should be. Plants are there to serve the people of China, not foreign interests. Foreign interests only get involved when it benefits China.
You can't argue Western culture and values when it comes to an Eastern culture and value system. This is why you won't see a Chinese manufacturer open a plant in America. IP created in China belongs to the people (aka. Government). This includes all aspects of production from design and engineering to building and distribution.
Sit with some people from China, have some long talks. You will really learn quite a bit.
Lets not forget that the Chinese had no ability to manufacture many products until they acquired technology. In many cases, this was government sponsored espionage.
A favorite story I have is from a VP in manufacturing, when they went to set up shop in China (as being required by a large US company). This was during the time we heard the tale that "If you want to sell products in China you have to build factories there". The VP toured other factories there that were owned by a UK firm that had been there for a few years and doing similar manufacturing. The VP was warned:
All parts of the plant construction process are going to be "monitored" by government officials. Every component will get measured, weighed, pictures taken, etc.. The day your factory completes and comes on line, you will be allowed a few days of production. During your initial production, Government monitors will be all over the place, writing down everything that gets done. Every process you have, every step you take, and every technical detail they can see will be written down. On about the third day, the Government is going to force you to close and nobody will be allowed inside the plant. When you are closed, they will send in a team of Engineers that will blue print your plant. This is to verify that you made no changes, and that their initial written specs were correct. After a couple days of "Government Inspections" you will be allowed back in your plant.
The VP was driven 2 miles away later, where he saw a plant that looked exactly like the UK plant. Oddly, they made the same thing as the UK plant, except that their products sold in China where the UK plant still had no ability to sell. The VP and Company did not open a plant in China, and are still doing very well to this day manufacturing in the US. The UK business went under about 9 years ago.
I read it, I don't agree. You have the premise that a named user on a forum conversing with other named users is somehow different than two people that are "Friends" on Facebook. I was saying I don't believe there is any difference. Sure, the subjects posted and discussions are going to be different. The names, and personalities still show in either case. Flames and Raging was seen from technical people arguing points of technology long before we had average users flaming and raging about their things. In IRC we knew people's handles and associated that with a personality and in many cases names and faces.
You're a couple of millenia behind on battlefield C&C technology - which is intended to issue commands and initiate actions by it's very nature. That's precisely why the designers of such systems have gone to such great lengths to prevent spoofing and other forms of interference.
I believe you are confused. A "unified interface" would be fine as I initially stated. That does not require some new technology to connect all of the UMV systems. A Unified interface would simply require the sharing of an API and required conformance to said API.
The trend to want to set up a C&C infrastructure infrastructure that can control all components of everything is new, and dangerous. As mentioned, currently the battlefield C&C can only see what the parts do. They can't take control of the components. The jets can see where the soldiers are, and see where there is fighting, but the grunt on the ground has to request air support. Chains of command then asses and take action.
Another quick point, is that this is another step needed to have push button totalitarianism in the US. Who needs due process, warrants, or congressional approval when some ass in the White House can just fly a spy drone over your house or fly a drone to where ever they want to take someone out?
You have an assumption that the branches of the Military were not designed separated intentionally, and maintain separation to prevent a single person from being able to act outside of the Constitution.
No, a password does not fix the problem. The problem is that you consolidate all of the power into a single interface. Remember the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". It is very important here.
A unified interface requires knowledge of all current, separate, and secured networks. When those walls come down, the same person controlling weather UAVs for the coast guard is using a device that can access a predator with 2 Hellfires flying over Packistan. Now, obviously there has to be a breach for the control to be gained. At the same time, currently there is no possibility of such a breach because of those walls.
All forces have lost equipment. The impact of those losses has alway been minimized by the fact that there is physical separation. Currently, battlefield C&C is communicated with, but can not take actions. This proposition breaks that.
To measure impact, simply look at the current nightmare that is Utilities infrastucture. This should not be on the goals list for the military.
Yes, we do. It says in very broad terms that US citizens may be detained without being charged or tried. Just because the president said it wouldn't be done does not mean that some future president would not do it. It very definitely needs to have a narrowing of the possibilities of application if its going to exist at all.
You mean the same President that swore he would Veto this bill but passed has no intention of taking the actions in the bill because he swears it won't happen?
The same Administration that swore the bill would not pass yet signed it at 11:59PM 12/21/12 when nobody was watching, and is fighting to keep the clauses in the Law, have no intentions of using the Law?
The terms "Gullible" and "Having the wool pulled over ones eyes" come to mind, but also "turning a blind eye" and a few others.
If that were true, places like/. would have no members, OS and Hardware forums would be ghost towns. The advent of IRC by techies and used exclusively by techies almost exclusively for years should be a testament to how social we are. Of course it's different than "Sitting in a Bar" social, or "Going to the Club" social.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but you must really be a horribly challenged person to believe this. The "Shareholders" may have a Facebook but I'll go million to one odds that they look like a sales add, and not the "average persons" Facebook page.
And save the Nerd Rage, using Facebook in that way is not wrong. What is wrong is someone believing that these people upload pictures that Facebook can steal and sell to people for advertising purposes.
I have to paraphrase, but one of the claims was that because the Zuck got married stock prices should start to increase. Also claiming that analysts were baffled at the low opening second day, and claiming that the stock would be sure to rally.
This guy is yanking our collective chain or he's kind of out of his depth.
In addition to those obvious points, he is asking for help in wire tapping. Though legal in some cases, it's not legal in most cases and could put people in to hot water for answering.
Answer to the OP - Talk to Lawyer and learn some basics of business law and ethics long before you start learning your sea plus.
Fox News in the Bay area was claiming that this was intentional and would help the stock this morning. I laughed so hard I spit out my breakfast, but also lost my appetite from the comment so it was a wash.
While I agree with your premise that Facebook can make some revenue this way, when people start to hear about the lawsuits that quickly changes. Facebook could minimize this quite a bit by notifying customers and giving them a cut of the cash, and maybe that is already their strategy. Facebook is not a company known for it's good faith or concern for their customers.
Fox News (Though that has become an oxymoron, it is what they call themselves.) spent all morning trying to prop up the stock in the Valley/SF area. If this does not hint at how blatant the corruption is.. well, I can't even come up with an analogy to say how gullible you are.
That's what I was getting at in my second sentence, but you said it much better :D
This IPO was today. If this was released and "mediatized" yesterday it would have hurt the IPO quite a bit. Now of course, the share holders are stuck with it. Maybe since it helps keep the value of the lawsuit up it helps the case along to boot.
A better indicator of failure is the massive stack of failures compared to the very short list of success stories. Honestly, I get the point but think the context is reversed. Hell, it's Friday and been a long week so it could just be me.
Poor argument. How many Amazon.com companies were there during the bubble, and how many survived? How many Search Engine companies were there and how many are still relevant? That list could get really long and tedious, so I'll stop there.
Point, there is a much larger failure rate than success rate. Saying "Google did it" or "Amazon did it" is a horrible way to sell an Internet company.
Lets not forget how fast MySpace crashed and burned. The only thing keeping Facebook up at the moment is a lack of competition (and maybe some IP law). A new start up could put them out of business in a very short time.
Good to see that spelling and grammar Nazi can get +5 insightful posts. It adds so much to a conversation!
most legit websites with a login will let you use your Facebook account
And since most hack sites vacuum up thousands of passwords a day this way many people stay away from anything with a Facebook log in box. Sure, it's not a "Facebook" isolated problem. It is however a horrible example and not something I would add to their bragging list. It's surely not poised as the wave of the future.
Easy for people to do? Sure. But lets not forget how quickly security problems can put someone completely out of business.
Targeted adds are what already generate their funds. Scanning your profile for things like age and marital status. Change your marital status and watch what happens. If you are single and go to married, you will get vacation adds most likely. If you are divorced, lots of singles adds. If you work in a tech site it's HP, Dell, IBM adds. And if you log in to Facebook rarely, you will get lots of adds for "lonely?".
Some claim that this is already done, I don't use the site enough to know any better, but.. What if they scanned your text to know what to advertise? Post "Great workout today" and suddenly you get adds for "Shake Weight" and GNC. You would be more apt to purchase those products, just maybe not from within Facebook.
Point is, targeted adds to work. Maybe not on you, and maybe not in the way most people think. But media has proven over and over again that advertisements work very very well. The more someone looks at your logo the more apt they will be to buy from you.
And lets face it, those targeted advertisements are the same thing as Google does. Their methods for getting information to give you ads with may be a bit different, but it's still tracking and targeting.
Oh, and I see your facts are from a particular site. Maybe search a bit outside of that and look at the home grown cars in China (appearance, sales, etc..). Interesting that GM suddenly ranks number 1 in 2011 where as home grown ranked number 1 in every other year, in most cases by very large margins.
What you see could be more in line with the fact that China is producing lots of wealthy people right now. Buick sold in the past because it was the rich person's car.
To your first point, it was thought long ago that opening plants in China would immediately open the doors to selling American branded cars in China. What is sold is not, and the profits are not shown in the US the same way it is for the EU. I guess it could be argued that GM does not sell cars the same in Europe either. The are many differences however. The biggest would be that GM production in the EU was not a pack shit and move operation, it was a true expansion. If this were true for China and Mexico, we'd never have had the collapse of the big 3 like we did. (Please, save any potential arguments about "but the Union's" for someone ignorant enough to believe that crap.)
To your second point, there are exceptions to every rule in economics. China will allow expansion if there is reason to expand but it must be of benefit to China as a whole. They will not allow a company to pack up and move to get a better labor rate in say Laos or Cambodia. There are also rules to expansion, such as critical IP and infrastructure must remain in China.
To your last point, I never said we were innocent and apologize if it was somehow insinuated. I just pointed out that others have very strict rules to protect themselves. If the US even talks about rules, we are labeled "Protectionist". Other countries operate with very tight rules to protect theirs and it's okay as long as we think we can exploit them to get more stuff. The West likes to believe that we somehow evolved into this "World Economy" and everyone plays by their rules. The truth runs very contrary to that belief.
Or you could just re-write the sentence without the need for a he/she/it reference, which is usually the first choice.
Outside of the obvious gender bias, I agree with most of what you said. HP Shareholders should realize that the 30,000 people they are about to screw over are also customers, and advocates of HP products. Obviously this is going to drop 30,000 people from their customer and advocate list, plus all of their friends and family members will think twice about buying or using HP.
Won't be given in my case since the people I knew may still work there, sorry. There are numerous stories you can read on Google that are very similar.
Let me ask a few questions to get the point across. How many GM cars are sold in China? What is the number 1 selling car in China, and what does it look like? This is true for many items. Foreigner owned plants in China do not sell much to China, if they sell anything at all. Yet there are countless clone items made by Chinese manufactures in China that are sold to the Chinese. You can easily find story after story like this. The typical answer from the Chinese government is "We are working to stop IP theft", but occasionally you hear "China owns that IP so piss off!".
To the US, this may seem horrible and wrong. In China, to the Chinese Government this is as it should be. Plants are there to serve the people of China, not foreign interests. Foreign interests only get involved when it benefits China.
You can't argue Western culture and values when it comes to an Eastern culture and value system. This is why you won't see a Chinese manufacturer open a plant in America. IP created in China belongs to the people (aka. Government). This includes all aspects of production from design and engineering to building and distribution.
Sit with some people from China, have some long talks. You will really learn quite a bit.
Lets not forget that the Chinese had no ability to manufacture many products until they acquired technology. In many cases, this was government sponsored espionage.
A favorite story I have is from a VP in manufacturing, when they went to set up shop in China (as being required by a large US company). This was during the time we heard the tale that "If you want to sell products in China you have to build factories there". The VP toured other factories there that were owned by a UK firm that had been there for a few years and doing similar manufacturing. The VP was warned:
All parts of the plant construction process are going to be "monitored" by government officials. Every component will get measured, weighed, pictures taken, etc.. The day your factory completes and comes on line, you will be allowed a few days of production. During your initial production, Government monitors will be all over the place, writing down everything that gets done. Every process you have, every step you take, and every technical detail they can see will be written down. On about the third day, the Government is going to force you to close and nobody will be allowed inside the plant. When you are closed, they will send in a team of Engineers that will blue print your plant. This is to verify that you made no changes, and that their initial written specs were correct. After a couple days of "Government Inspections" you will be allowed back in your plant.
The VP was driven 2 miles away later, where he saw a plant that looked exactly like the UK plant. Oddly, they made the same thing as the UK plant, except that their products sold in China where the UK plant still had no ability to sell. The VP and Company did not open a plant in China, and are still doing very well to this day manufacturing in the US. The UK business went under about 9 years ago.
I read it, I don't agree. You have the premise that a named user on a forum conversing with other named users is somehow different than two people that are "Friends" on Facebook. I was saying I don't believe there is any difference. Sure, the subjects posted and discussions are going to be different. The names, and personalities still show in either case. Flames and Raging was seen from technical people arguing points of technology long before we had average users flaming and raging about their things. In IRC we knew people's handles and associated that with a personality and in many cases names and faces.
You're a couple of millenia behind on battlefield C&C technology - which is intended to issue commands and initiate actions by it's very nature. That's precisely why the designers of such systems have gone to such great lengths to prevent spoofing and other forms of interference.
I believe you are confused. A "unified interface" would be fine as I initially stated. That does not require some new technology to connect all of the UMV systems. A Unified interface would simply require the sharing of an API and required conformance to said API.
The trend to want to set up a C&C infrastructure infrastructure that can control all components of everything is new, and dangerous. As mentioned, currently the battlefield C&C can only see what the parts do. They can't take control of the components. The jets can see where the soldiers are, and see where there is fighting, but the grunt on the ground has to request air support. Chains of command then asses and take action.
Another quick point, is that this is another step needed to have push button totalitarianism in the US. Who needs due process, warrants, or congressional approval when some ass in the White House can just fly a spy drone over your house or fly a drone to where ever they want to take someone out?
You have an assumption that the branches of the Military were not designed separated intentionally, and maintain separation to prevent a single person from being able to act outside of the Constitution.
No, a password does not fix the problem. The problem is that you consolidate all of the power into a single interface. Remember the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". It is very important here.
A unified interface requires knowledge of all current, separate, and secured networks. When those walls come down, the same person controlling weather UAVs for the coast guard is using a device that can access a predator with 2 Hellfires flying over Packistan. Now, obviously there has to be a breach for the control to be gained. At the same time, currently there is no possibility of such a breach because of those walls.
All forces have lost equipment. The impact of those losses has alway been minimized by the fact that there is physical separation. Currently, battlefield C&C is communicated with, but can not take actions. This proposition breaks that.
To measure impact, simply look at the current nightmare that is Utilities infrastucture. This should not be on the goals list for the military.
Yes, we do. It says in very broad terms that US citizens may be detained without being charged or tried. Just because the president said it wouldn't be done does not mean that some future president would not do it. It very definitely needs to have a narrowing of the possibilities of application if its going to exist at all.
You mean the same President that swore he would Veto this bill but passed has no intention of taking the actions in the bill because he swears it won't happen?
The same Administration that swore the bill would not pass yet signed it at 11:59PM 12/21/12 when nobody was watching, and is fighting to keep the clauses in the Law, have no intentions of using the Law?
The terms "Gullible" and "Having the wool pulled over ones eyes" come to mind, but also "turning a blind eye" and a few others.
Sorry for replying to my own thread, but I reread my horrible English and am ashamed.
Simplified: Geeks created and use all forms of social media, so I believe your premise to be incorrect.
Great googly moogley, you may not know I natively speak English by the jibberish previously posted!
If that were true, places like /. would have no members, OS and Hardware forums would be ghost towns. The advent of IRC by techies and used exclusively by techies almost exclusively for years should be a testament to how social we are. Of course it's different than "Sitting in a Bar" social, or "Going to the Club" social.