Just a few thoughts I've had about the so called social networking revolution: Initially, I didn't mind facebook and I had one of my own. I used to keep in touch with people at school. It was simple, you couldn't add any ridiculous templates to the site like MySpace. It was visually appealing, etc. Then they decided to introduce feeds. Everyone pretty much hated this, and I think eventually they scaled it back a little bit, but you essentially knew every time someone entered something into someones wall. Not really the service I signed up for, but I could deal with it. THEN they opened up their API, probably the single dumbest move I've ever seen. Now I'm getting emails to join the battlestar gallactica game on facebook and getting stupid quotes from television shows in my mailbox every f'n day. AGAIN, Not the service I SIGNED up for. Bottom line is, I understand when I signed away my rights they could pretty much change the terms at any time, but how much is TOO MUCH. To make matters worse, I can't delete my account. Facebook has no option to rid their databases of your personal information. Apparently their database administrators aren't sophisticated enough to develop a DELETE statement!
I disagree.. mostly. Facebook users aren't really looking for privacy when they post information, but when someone no longer wants the service they should sure AS HELL be able to delete their personal information. Facebook won't delete accounts, they'll only deactivate your account. I've seen no evidence that my account is actually deactivated since I still recieve friend requests. These third party services that Facebook offered has actually made the overall product much more irritating, if thats even possible.
I think anyone, including users of Facebook, deserve as much privacy as they've set their accounts up for - no more, no less.
Well, I can think of one reason why not. He said the code was supplanted by other code that performs the same function. That seems to imply that the company's new product may one day be in competition with older code that it paid to develop, and that its author continues to work on despite being an employee. Sounds like a tough sell to me! To be totally honest, it sounds like this code is being used for internal purposes and not for retail distribution. In this case, there's no way this code can really compete with what is being developed currently. Besides, worst case scenario, this guy does it better and the company begins to use his open-sourced version.
I've noticed this is true of most cartridge systems. I remember back in college we obliterated a Nintendo 64 with a bat and a BB gun. No doubt alcohol was involved. Regardless, it still worked - despite the rather large hole in the middle of the console.
If you had a wig, pepper spray, an adult diaper, a new steel mallet, a knife, rubber tubing, and a large garbage bag, what would you do with them? Reminds me of college...
I know the whole privacy trumpet is going to sound, but I don't really understand why this is too much of an issue. I'm sure someone will be kind enough to educate me, but these are just ways of identifying a person, nothing more. I can't see how this can be used invasivly. Any moreso than being placed in a police lineup. Especially, if it only includes the biometrics of criminals. Any thoughts?
Our primary is after super Tuesday, at which point there is usually a clear "winner" for the democratic nominee. While, I live in a slightly bigger geographic entity, the state of Pennsylvania, we pretty much get shafted too. Pennsylvania essentially has NO say in the primaries which is pretty ridiculous. The whole system is somewhat flawed because other state's primaries assert influence on the way people vote. All because now that canidate X or Y lost New Hampshire, "They have no shot". It's ridiculous, it should all be on the same day.
I agree in most cases, but this is MS entering a market it really hasn't been a player in. They have more resources than Yahoo, and may be able to steal a few users off of Yahoo. Do you actually know someone who doesn't use Google at this point? Maybe MS might be able to steal a few users off of Google, I would say they are making the market more competitive in that case.
don't worry, I'm sure there are tens of resident laers at Microsoft paid just to answer this question! What are resident laers? It sounds like I should be afraid of them, but there's only like ten of them, so they must be really big.
Last time I checked, Microsoft doesn't have a responsibility to the tax holders of Washington. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. Why shouldn't MS exploit a loophole in the system if it's been so easily provided for them by the state? Blaming Microsoft is easy, but how about you blame the real crooks, the politicians!
On a side note, this really isn't anything new. Don't shipping companies do this all the time. I've never seen a local truck with Pennsylvania license plates. Usually someplace out west like Montana or Wisconsin.
What if 100 people ran around shouting "Anthrax" thus causing a panic? Maybe they should issue free speech permits to make sure only competent professionals will be heard. Actually, as high as you'll be modded for saying "Free Speech Permits" in a satirical way. Any basic level law class will tell you that free speech is already limited. Believe me, if you go around screaming "anthrax" and cause some kind of public scare, you will go to jail. It makes perfect sense to me that something that could cause a public scare and cost hundreds of lives for no good reason should be regulated a little bit.
Even to this day, I think many companies have been struggling with how to effectivly incorporate the Internet into their business model. This guy jumped out of obscurity by doing it. This is clearly a win for those people who support fewer and fewer copyright restrictions, but I wonder if he'll do the same with his next book. This is a common trend in music, musicians love the Internet when they're not popular, but look at it as public enemy number 1 when they are. It opens your talent up to a wider spectrum of people, but if you're a musician or author that already has that following, then what?
Actually for a long period of time - privacy meant nothing... like up until the early 1900's, I think. and I'm really old so - i remember the days when privacy meant nothing... and then it meant something but only to people interested in abortions. There is no inherent right to privacy in the United States Consitution. It's been somewhat implied based off of other rights.
The basic premise of this law is that you can search a mobile device or computer if you've arrested a person. That's where I think things become a little unclear, after you've arrested someone can you check through items they've had "on their person"? I'm pretty sure you can, but typically items like computers and cell phones produce a ton of more incriminating evidence then keys and wallets.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a few thoughts I've had about the so called social networking revolution: Initially, I didn't mind facebook and I had one of my own. I used to keep in touch with people at school. It was simple, you couldn't add any ridiculous templates to the site like MySpace. It was visually appealing, etc. Then they decided to introduce feeds. Everyone pretty much hated this, and I think eventually they scaled it back a little bit, but you essentially knew every time someone entered something into someones wall. Not really the service I signed up for, but I could deal with it. THEN they opened up their API, probably the single dumbest move I've ever seen. Now I'm getting emails to join the battlestar gallactica game on facebook and getting stupid quotes from television shows in my mailbox every f'n day. AGAIN, Not the service I SIGNED up for. Bottom line is, I understand when I signed away my rights they could pretty much change the terms at any time, but how much is TOO MUCH. To make matters worse, I can't delete my account. Facebook has no option to rid their databases of your personal information. Apparently their database administrators aren't sophisticated enough to develop a DELETE statement!
I disagree.. mostly. Facebook users aren't really looking for privacy when they post information, but when someone no longer wants the service they should sure AS HELL be able to delete their personal information. Facebook won't delete accounts, they'll only deactivate your account. I've seen no evidence that my account is actually deactivated since I still recieve friend requests. These third party services that Facebook offered has actually made the overall product much more irritating, if thats even possible.
I think anyone, including users of Facebook, deserve as much privacy as they've set their accounts up for - no more, no less.
Does this warrant a surgeon general warning on the side of video game packages?
Toddlers learn by datamining,
::Therefore, everyone who works at Google is a toddler.
Google uses datamining in their GMail application,
Shhhhhhh... you'll upset the Apple gods.
Microsoft Windows Vista SP1:
Codenamed: XP
Man, I wish 360's were that durable. Mine just about red rings every time I use my microwave, and dammit, i love my ramen noodles!
I've noticed this is true of most cartridge systems. I remember back in college we obliterated a Nintendo 64 with a bat and a BB gun. No doubt alcohol was involved. Regardless, it still worked - despite the rather large hole in the middle of the console.
Oh Yeah? I met MY wife on the Arpanet! Beat that!
I know the whole privacy trumpet is going to sound, but I don't really understand why this is too much of an issue. I'm sure someone will be kind enough to educate me, but these are just ways of identifying a person, nothing more. I can't see how this can be used invasivly. Any moreso than being placed in a police lineup. Especially, if it only includes the biometrics of criminals. Any thoughts?
I agree in most cases, but this is MS entering a market it really hasn't been a player in. They have more resources than Yahoo, and may be able to steal a few users off of Yahoo. Do you actually know someone who doesn't use Google at this point? Maybe MS might be able to steal a few users off of Google, I would say they are making the market more competitive in that case.
Last time I checked, Microsoft doesn't have a responsibility to the tax holders of Washington. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. Why shouldn't MS exploit a loophole in the system if it's been so easily provided for them by the state? Blaming Microsoft is easy, but how about you blame the real crooks, the politicians!
On a side note, this really isn't anything new. Don't shipping companies do this all the time. I've never seen a local truck with Pennsylvania license plates. Usually someplace out west like Montana or Wisconsin.
My friend whose a black, a woman, and a morman is screwed....
Even to this day, I think many companies have been struggling with how to effectivly incorporate the Internet into their business model. This guy jumped out of obscurity by doing it. This is clearly a win for those people who support fewer and fewer copyright restrictions, but I wonder if he'll do the same with his next book. This is a common trend in music, musicians love the Internet when they're not popular, but look at it as public enemy number 1 when they are. It opens your talent up to a wider spectrum of people, but if you're a musician or author that already has that following, then what?
Actually for a long period of time - privacy meant nothing... like up until the early 1900's, I think. and I'm really old so - i remember the days when privacy meant nothing... and then it meant something but only to people interested in abortions. There is no inherent right to privacy in the United States Consitution. It's been somewhat implied based off of other rights.
The basic premise of this law is that you can search a mobile device or computer if you've arrested a person. That's where I think things become a little unclear, after you've arrested someone can you check through items they've had "on their person"? I'm pretty sure you can, but typically items like computers and cell phones produce a ton of more incriminating evidence then keys and wallets.