Agree. I can't imagine sitting in that interview and not being pissed at the douche who said "Oh?". I don't know if the GP walked out right then, but I would have.
The only value I can even see in seeking out this information is to get around the fact that they can't fire alcoholics as easily as in the past. Someone looks like they party? Well, they might be an alcoholic, let's not hire them. It's that absurd. But allow them to gather this information (no matter how public) and we're coming to this:
I won't hire you because you can't see the difference between acting on public information and actively seeking out personal information that happens to be public. I won't hire you because you talk about Google online. We are a competitor! I won't hire you because you quote Aldous Huxley! I think you are smarter than me!
Thank you for reminding me why I haven't come to/. in months.
First, we get a summary that doesn't get us enough information, but is more than happy telling us what to think.
Then we get someone who has apparently never watched a single episode of Cops in his life making a sweeping statement that is false on its face, and it is rated +5, Insightful.
The police defend themselves against unarmed aggressors as a matter of course. The cases where the police are the aggressors or egregiously over-react are vanishingly rare. It is because those cases are well-publicized and so outrageous that the reverse may seem true.
When enough evidence is available and the evidence points to wrongdoing on the part of the police I will be the first to suggest throwing the key away.
But shame on you, sir, for being so quick to prejudge the fine men and women who risk their lives to protect you every single day.
I have no idea where Wikipedia is getting that 2% number, because it's not even correct according to its own citation. Maybe they're talking about funding direct from the federal government (e.g., not through the CPB). I don't know.
French scientists have discovered the smallest planet yet located out of our solar system, a celestial find less than twice the size of Earth and which orbits a Sun-like star.
That's with the technology we've got in operation now (also referenced in TFA). In the next decade we're set to put up even better technology. You can bet that if Earth-like habitable planets are at all common in our neck of the woods we'll have found one within the decade.
For someone to take advantage of the password recovery process to read your messages they have to actively hijack your account. At the very least it requires interaction with a social site (i.e., they have to initiate the password reset request).
This would leave a record that could possibly be traced. It would also provide you with an indication that your account had been attacked, since you would receive the email and/or would not be able to log in to the social site.
In contrast, if the social site were to send the PMs via email the attacker could passively sniff the data, reading all your messages with you none the wiser.
The only real alternative would be to provide you with a unique URL that will retrieve your message, but that is open to several attacks and may not provide you with an indication that your messages have been compromised. The two real defenses here - expiration time and max read count - aren't really appropriate for private messages and will result in people having to log in to read the messages anyway.
That's like saying laws against murder don't prevent you from murdering someone.
You'll be in violation of Facebook's TOS (many times over from what I can tell, moreso if the AC has not also agreed to Facebook's Tos). You'll also be in violation of several laws and I imagine open to civil liability as well.
Of course, you don't need Facebook (or even the internet) to distribute pictures (real or fake) of an AC having goat sex, so I tend to side with the GP on this one. A lot of the hysteria regarding privacy on the internet is akin to the "lolcomputerz" of the nature that gets applies to classic crimes now committed with computer.
You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.
I know it is hip to get all hysterical over personal information that is already "out there", but I've highlighted the part that really matters.
In short, they can't do anything with it after you close your account that they couldn't do with it before you closed your account. And since you can change your privacy settings before you close your account this is pretty much a non-issue. Change all your settings to "Only My Friends", then remove all your friends.
Really, people, the only difference here is that they don't do you the service of making all your data inaccessible to the people who could access it before. And why should they? That would be like slashdot removing all your old posts when you remove your account. Yes, I know it's "personal" data, but my guess is your 'friends' are more of a threat to your privacy than Facebook. After all, the only legal consequence for your friends sharing that information is that they can be kicked off Facebook for violating the terms of service.
If you've rented a car, then it's very obviously not an issue for you. You're already agreeing to plead guilty to any traffic ticket the car receives while it is rented to you (e.g., red light camera tickets) and have it charged to your credit card.
Re:OP is a condescending asshole, and it shows...
on
I'm a PC and I'm 4-1/2
·
· Score: 5, Funny
As the proud parent of a Linux user I advocate throwing a bare bones slackware install on strange hardware, giving the 4-year-old the root password, and walking away.
She's six now and she knows if she wants to be networked she has to roll her own cat 5 and figure out the appropriate network settings. She's almost there. (Boy was she mad when she finally figured out I had originally installed token ring on her box!) If she wants internet access she has to hack into the firewall and give herself that access.
You know, you see them struggling and you really want to help them, but you have to resist the urge. Otherwise they'll never learn!
Classifying Chinese working for a branch office of an American design company in Beijing as "some people in a third-world country" is more than a bit disingenuous. Also please consider that the money to be spent also belongs to another American corporation (design, so presumably a monopolist as well) not those people in China.
No, this is about a bill offering an incentive to convince people to replace their cars.
These Senators are hoping to take money from some people to give it to other people in the hopes that those other people will spend even more money, stimulating the economy and helping out failing automakers. This isn't even a point of contention: they are selling it this way.
There are no "shared public assets" involved here. The fuel efficiency requirement is a red herring. At the level of efficiency in emission reduction that they are talking about, it would take around $2 quadrillion per year to reduce our CO^2 emissions to zero (and that's assuming their figures are based in fact). This is a fiction, of course, because this program is effectively meaningless for long term reduction of CO^2 emissions and really only reduces them a meaningless amount in the short term. $2 billion a year could do much, much more to improve and protect the environment than this program will ever achieve.
Pick your battles. Speak to your audience. You're not going to convince a crowd "tilted way to the left" of the flaws in this measure by basing your argument on libertarian ideals.
In this case the measure is so obviously flawed that it won't even achieve its own stated goals. Showing how this measure won't live up to your audience's own ideals is much easier than asking them to abandon those ideals in order to agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why you were interviewed in the first place. What was the correct answer? "Oh yeah, all the time!" and then pull out a flask?
Sounds like a great way to get a job. "So, Bill, I see you like cosplay. Transvestite cosplay. Interesting. So, what kind of salary are you offering?"
Agree. I can't imagine sitting in that interview and not being pissed at the douche who said "Oh?". I don't know if the GP walked out right then, but I would have.
I'd also have a little talk with my 'friend'. :)
The only value I can even see in seeking out this information is to get around the fact that they can't fire alcoholics as easily as in the past. Someone looks like they party? Well, they might be an alcoholic, let's not hire them. It's that absurd. But allow them to gather this information (no matter how public) and we're coming to this:
I won't hire you because you can't see the difference between acting on public information and actively seeking out personal information that happens to be public.
I won't hire you because you talk about Google online. We are a competitor!
I won't hire you because you quote Aldous Huxley! I think you are smarter than me!
Can't wait for Jurassic Farms. *licks chops*
...millions everywhere want us dead. [citation needed]
...it get rid of the obvious garbage.
I'm in tears, here.
Thank you for your input, puny human. You've been both helpful and delicious. *licks pedipalps*
The convicted is
a) Not a danger to society
Except for the part where he overreacts and kills people, he's a great guy!
Thank you for reminding me why I haven't come to /. in months.
First, we get a summary that doesn't get us enough information, but is more than happy telling us what to think.
Then we get someone who has apparently never watched a single episode of Cops in his life making a sweeping statement that is false on its face, and it is rated +5, Insightful.
The police defend themselves against unarmed aggressors as a matter of course. The cases where the police are the aggressors or egregiously over-react are vanishingly rare. It is because those cases are well-publicized and so outrageous that the reverse may seem true.
When enough evidence is available and the evidence points to wrongdoing on the part of the police I will be the first to suggest throwing the key away.
But shame on you, sir, for being so quick to prejudge the fine men and women who risk their lives to protect you every single day.
I have no idea where Wikipedia is getting that 2% number, because it's not even correct according to its own citation. Maybe they're talking about funding direct from the federal government (e.g., not through the CPB). I don't know.
According to NPR, they are funded by:
31% listener pledges, memberships, etc. As the GP points out, tax-deducatable donations are just a special kind of government funding.
20% corporate underwriting
11% from Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is federally funded)
10% licensee supported (some of which are funded by local/state, federal?)
9% from foundations (any of which may receive government support) and major gifts
5% state and local governments
14% all other sources (Wikipedia claims universities, some of which are subsidized by government)
Scientists Discover Smallest Exoplanet
French scientists have discovered the smallest planet yet located out of our solar system, a celestial find less than twice the size of Earth and which orbits a Sun-like star.
That's with the technology we've got in operation now (also referenced in TFA). In the next decade we're set to put up even better technology. You can bet that if Earth-like habitable planets are at all common in our neck of the woods we'll have found one within the decade.
That's ridiculous.
For someone to take advantage of the password recovery process to read your messages they have to actively hijack your account. At the very least it requires interaction with a social site (i.e., they have to initiate the password reset request).
This would leave a record that could possibly be traced. It would also provide you with an indication that your account had been attacked, since you would receive the email and/or would not be able to log in to the social site.
In contrast, if the social site were to send the PMs via email the attacker could passively sniff the data, reading all your messages with you none the wiser.
The only real alternative would be to provide you with a unique URL that will retrieve your message, but that is open to several attacks and may not provide you with an indication that your messages have been compromised. The two real defenses here - expiration time and max read count - aren't really appropriate for private messages and will result in people having to log in to read the messages anyway.
That's like saying laws against murder don't prevent you from murdering someone.
You'll be in violation of Facebook's TOS (many times over from what I can tell, moreso if the AC has not also agreed to Facebook's Tos). You'll also be in violation of several laws and I imagine open to civil liability as well.
Of course, you don't need Facebook (or even the internet) to distribute pictures (real or fake) of an AC having goat sex, so I tend to side with the GP on this one. A lot of the hysteria regarding privacy on the internet is akin to the "lolcomputerz" of the nature that gets applies to classic crimes now committed with computer.
You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.
I know it is hip to get all hysterical over personal information that is already "out there", but I've highlighted the part that really matters.
In short, they can't do anything with it after you close your account that they couldn't do with it before you closed your account. And since you can change your privacy settings before you close your account this is pretty much a non-issue. Change all your settings to "Only My Friends", then remove all your friends.
Really, people, the only difference here is that they don't do you the service of making all your data inaccessible to the people who could access it before. And why should they? That would be like slashdot removing all your old posts when you remove your account. Yes, I know it's "personal" data, but my guess is your 'friends' are more of a threat to your privacy than Facebook. After all, the only legal consequence for your friends sharing that information is that they can be kicked off Facebook for violating the terms of service.
By that criteria must we also conclude that girls are not intelligent?
If you've rented a car, then it's very obviously not an issue for you. You're already agreeing to plead guilty to any traffic ticket the car receives while it is rented to you (e.g., red light camera tickets) and have it charged to your credit card.
As the proud parent of a Linux user I advocate throwing a bare bones slackware install on strange hardware, giving the 4-year-old the root password, and walking away.
She's six now and she knows if she wants to be networked she has to roll her own cat 5 and figure out the appropriate network settings. She's almost there. (Boy was she mad when she finally figured out I had originally installed token ring on her box!) If she wants internet access she has to hack into the firewall and give herself that access.
You know, you see them struggling and you really want to help them, but you have to resist the urge. Otherwise they'll never learn!
I hate games with no ending!
When I read the GP's post I pictured Dom DeLuise's Nero from History of the World Part 1.
"Nice, nice. Not thrilling, but nice."
Yep. Nothing screams warrior like not shitting your pants in the heat of battle after knocking back a gallon of prune juice.
Classifying Chinese working for a branch office of an American design company in Beijing as "some people in a third-world country" is more than a bit disingenuous. Also please consider that the money to be spent also belongs to another American corporation (design, so presumably a monopolist as well) not those people in China.
Simple. The RIAA is an organization which exists.
No, this is about a bill offering an incentive to convince people to replace their cars.
These Senators are hoping to take money from some people to give it to other people in the hopes that those other people will spend even more money, stimulating the economy and helping out failing automakers. This isn't even a point of contention: they are selling it this way.
There are no "shared public assets" involved here. The fuel efficiency requirement is a red herring. At the level of efficiency in emission reduction that they are talking about, it would take around $2 quadrillion per year to reduce our CO^2 emissions to zero (and that's assuming their figures are based in fact). This is a fiction, of course, because this program is effectively meaningless for long term reduction of CO^2 emissions and really only reduces them a meaningless amount in the short term. $2 billion a year could do much, much more to improve and protect the environment than this program will ever achieve.
Pick your battles. Speak to your audience. You're not going to convince a crowd "tilted way to the left" of the flaws in this measure by basing your argument on libertarian ideals.
In this case the measure is so obviously flawed that it won't even achieve its own stated goals. Showing how this measure won't live up to your audience's own ideals is much easier than asking them to abandon those ideals in order to agree with you.