would it really be worse to get the dollar menu stuff, isnt it the same burger and small fries except you can skip the fries or the drink and just get your kid the burger, or the nuggets?
Except with the happy meals, they're now pushing apples and milk. With the dollar menu, fries and soda are king.
belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has.
Yay, this canard. No, belief in supernatural powers has been used as an excuse for sociopaths (mostly kings) to cause wars, death, torture, and abuses of human rights. In fact, other things have been used as excuses for sociopaths to cause wars, death, torture, and abuses of human rights too. Seems like the common theme there is sociopaths tend toward war, death, torture, and abuse.
the only visible effect of their corporate policy is that they are all closed on Sunday.
And they give away free food once a year. Not as a buy-one get one free, or with purchase of drink; just a free sandwich. You can buy or not buy anything else as you see fit. Let's see any other company whose corporate mission is only "make money" do that.
this targetting by the press and governments towards Facebook. Facebook is *entirely* optional. No-one forced you to type in 'www.facebook.com' and press enter. No-one forced you to click signup. No-one forced you to enter your information and click through the legalese. No-one forced you to upload pictures and fill in detailed personal information.
If you're worried about Facebook sharing your personal information, DON'T PUT IT ON THERE!
No one forced me to go to buy lunch with a CC today, but there are strict regulations regarding whether the restaurant is allowed to share my CC number and name with business partners or make them public. No one forced me to sign a non-disclosure contract with my company, but I can't retroactively declare all of the ND info to be public and share it with my company's competitors.
This is about Facebook changing their ToS after people shared their personal info in a way that was understood by all parties to be restricted to a select group of people (and Facebook for targeted advertising purposes only). Imagine if Facebook is allowed to get away with this. Tomorrow, Google could change their ToS to "All your email and google docs are belong to us. We can alter and repost anywhere under your name, and you agreed to it because you agreed to the 'we can change this ToS at any time' clause. Ah HAHAHA!"
That's all I really ask for and I don't find it unreasonable that Facebook is trying to get in as many areas as possible (through sharing everyone's stuff).
You don't find it unreasonable that Facebook says "Hey, come write on this piece of paper, we'll keep it right here in this safe deposit box where only the people you specify (and Facebook for purposes of directing marketing to you) have access" and then takes the safe deposit box and dumps it on the sidewalk while yelling "Free stuff! Come read this free stuff! Anyone can read it, despite what our contract with the user said earlier!"?
They should have told American that they are dumbasses if they share all of their most personal thoughts online and if they don't want to the whole world to know what colour of poopie they made this morning the idiot users need to lock their profile the hell down.
Karma be damned. You're stupid, or hopefully just ignorant of what Facebook has been doing this last few years.
When I signed up for FB three and a half years ago, it was fairly easy to lock your profile down, setting all of the information about yourself to be "friends only". They even tightened it further and created a friend-groups mechanism and allowed you to assign special rights to specific wall posts (or types of posts) to just certain groups of friends (work, old friends, current, etc).
Then, the VC ran out, and monetization needed to happen. Beacon appeared. Profile Picture, networks, and friend lists became public, with no options to lock down. Most recently, all of the book, film, pasttime favorites, work history, education history, current city, and hometown were all forced public. What's strange is there are options to restrict them to "just friends", but the new ToS say they're public info, and people have tested them and found they are public despite the privacy controls. Essentially, information you once entered into FB under the previous promise of (and current implied) privacy is being retroactively classified as public data and being made available to partner websites and any joe user. Imagine a worst case scenario: 22 yo woman signs up for FB two years ago, has her profile totally locked down so that only her friends can see anything. So, she feels safe putting a pretty picture of herself as her profile pic, listing her current city, and doesn't mind "liking" the local bars and restaurants she frequents (extremely common), where she works, and listing her favorite books, movies, etc. Unless she's been a _lot_ more prudent then average joe about re-checking her profile with a different non-friended profile, all that info is now public. I did say worst case, right? Maybe she's got a stalker ex from another city and he now knows where she lives and works. She thought FB was keeping that info from him; not any more.
This isn't going to stop unless someone smacks Facebook, and the Senators are holding up their hands and counting slowly and clearly.
This. If they said it in the beginning, that's one thing. But telling us one thing, then later changing it and saying "well, all you need to do is tell us not to" is nothing more than a slimy practice. And I don't buy the "Well, we told you that we reserved the right to do it" argument. If they added controls to "opt-out" today, then they are acknowledging that there's more to it than what was written initially. What's the difference between that, and me going up to you on a busy street and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine" even if you didn't even hear it? Isn't that basically what they are doing here?
They're not even providing tools to opt-out. It's closer to you coming up to me on a busy street, duct-taping my mouth and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine".
The website sharing thing was coupled with an expansion of "public data" a couple days later. Essentially, FB said: Hey, we're going to start sharing your info with websites, but you can opt-out; just declick this several-layers-deep checkbox, and then confirm the ambiguous warning, and ignore the text that says "Your friends will still share your PUBLIC data, like profile picture (became forced public a few months ago), friends list (likewise), and anything else you have public." Then, two days later, they pulled a fast one and said: "Wow! Amazing new 'Like' feature. Now your work history, education history, home city, and a lot of personal information about books, films, etc that you prefer are all 'Like links' you can edit them individually if you want." When you edit them, you get text that essentially says "Anything about you is now a Like Link, and all Like Links are Public. If you don't want Like Links, your profile space will be empty."
Ta DA! Now even if you de-select the "website share" crap, Facebook still shares, via your friends accounts, all of your public data which is almost everything in your profile except for address and other contact info (not far away from being forced public), non-profile photos, wall posts, and messages. Essentially, FB has figured out an end-run around giving people's "private" data to third parties by reclassifying it as "public" after the fact.
After the reboot we tell him to check his mail inbox in outlook and then tell us what the new mail he has says.
He gets really suprised when he sees his login password in clear text. And from that moment IE8 is a minimum requirement.
You're sending their passwords in unencrypted emails? You suck. At least encrypt the password somehow and show them how to decrypt it. Or just send the first four letters of their password (bad enough as an example, not enough to give the bad guys a major edge).
A hypothetical: if my doctor told me that there was a very good medical reason for me to do something, I would follow his advice. I guess you could say that doing what he tells me I should do makes me a "servant" except that he doesn't have a way to force me to do anything. I can realize on my own that it's in my interests to follow the advice he gives me and that I probably don't have the expertise it would take to seriously dispute him.
Or I could ignore my doctor's hypothetical advice. Since I am paying/hiring him, I can think of him as my "servant" and insist that he never tell me anything I don't want to hear, especially those things that would suggest I should change my lifestyle or otherwise adapt to something new. I can freely ignore any such advice and take the attitude of "what does he care, he got paid." I could do that, but ignoring the sound advice of an expert in his field who is trying to look out for you is generally unwise.
[...]
Name one other profession or trade or area of expertise where expert advice is so routinely ignored for such trivial reasons. It doesn't happen with doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics or insurance agents.
Janitors, Trash Collectors, WalMart Welcome Guy (the "I don't have to listen to this lowlife" syndrome). On the respected end of the spectrum: Locksmiths, Police Officers, Firemen... (the "I don't want to think about the consequences of what they're saying" syndrome). I'd say we're a pretty clean mix of the two; kind of like Necromancers in a medieval fantasy, respected and looked down upon at the same time, and no one listens to the logic of using animated skeletons for manual labor because it's spooky.
And according to the RIAA, 9000 songs at 0.99$ each equals 5 billions in damages and 3000 years of prison!
Of course, distribution is the key there. so gizmodo is off the hook, but the Apple employee and the guy who sold are going to be hit with $5B each due to potential electronic spread.
Personal information, a Massachusetts resident's first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such resident: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver's license number or state-issued identification card number; or (c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password,
So this doesn't apply to places like slashdot and facebook. Only places that should be securing your data in the first place.
How do people pay for those stupid virtual gifts on Facebook? They're storing CC info somewhere. Now Facebook will finally have to start using some more https instead of just on the "change password" page.
they may feel that we would make a good source of physical labor, and treat us like horses or donkeys.
More likely that they'll feel that we might be a good source of mental labor and treat us like we treat horses or donkeys. Kind of like Hyperion, with the bio-computers, or the TV series Invasion Earth, where a 4D race with 3D bio-tech farms humans for neurotransmitters that their tech runs on.
They're probably just the type of fake accounts I've seen before attempting to friend random people. Most of them probably are female, with pretty photos lifted from the internet. The tipping point for price belies their nature: under or over ten? Real accounts usually have at least over fifty, if not hundreds of friends. That said, this still is a big security issue given the amount of data people's friends can get on their profile, and the proclivity for the younger kids to add anyone who friends them. Of course, a lot of these fake accounts are probably only friends with other fake accounts, and will probably be sold in batches that prevent this fact from being apparent for the first few weeks after a sale.
Just working on an online Rock Paper Scissors game.... I didn't want to get into javascript before sorting everything out without it. But everything seems to work fine, just by using
META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="3/...poll-url"
So I think I can keep javascript out of the game code
1994 weeps for your server and network load, especially since/. is going to give you a free scalability test in 3, 2, 1
What I wonder is how long Facebook thinks they'll get away with this until everyone is fed up and leaves?
Everyone? Won't happen. A lot? Sure, but not enough that FB will care. Essentially, they got everyone to join by pretending to care about personal privacy early on, and now they're finally going back to their original plan of open everything, all the time. A lot of people will leave, but some people will stay with FB due to social inertia.
... provided they're all home. Since it tends to hit 104 in the middle of the day, a large percentage - even the majority - are at work. If even half the population isn't home to override the settings, this will save a ton of money.
My X* died because it/he/she/they couldn't/didn't know how to override the controls.
*plants/fish/cat/elderly mother/14 year old baby sitter and my toddlers
A lot of people in AZ might set their AC to 27.77777777C. Only someone who thought 20C was hot would set AC to 19C. AZ can reach 40C outside during the day.
People need to understand once something hits the internet its out there, no privacy promise by a huge corporation (that probably owns the data once it hits its servers and gave it self the right to change policy whenever they want in the wall of text) is going to protect it.
The problem is that usually the spread of info on the net outside of the usual corporate channels is done by human actors (viral videos, internet rumors), not by corporate actors. In this case, Facebook is randomly destroying their users' privacy for seemingly no reason. The corporate partners already had access, but now FB is giving everyone in the world access.
Slashdot Mirror
'convicted monopolist' term remains a marketing one pushed by people like yourself.
Microsoft surely has strong convictions about remaining a monopoly.
Ummm ... don't forget who's funding them.
Apple? They're evil and Unixy.
would it really be worse to get the dollar menu stuff, isnt it the same burger and small fries except you can skip the fries or the drink and just get your kid the burger, or the nuggets?
Except with the happy meals, they're now pushing apples and milk. With the dollar menu, fries and soda are king.
belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has.
Yay, this canard. No, belief in supernatural powers has been used as an excuse for sociopaths (mostly kings) to cause wars, death, torture, and abuses of human rights. In fact, other things have been used as excuses for sociopaths to cause wars, death, torture, and abuses of human rights too. Seems like the common theme there is sociopaths tend toward war, death, torture, and abuse.
the only visible effect of their corporate policy is that they are all closed on Sunday.
And they give away free food once a year. Not as a buy-one get one free, or with purchase of drink; just a free sandwich. You can buy or not buy anything else as you see fit. Let's see any other company whose corporate mission is only "make money" do that.
That's how they'll read it. And they'll draft legislation to get it all.
this targetting by the press and governments towards Facebook. Facebook is *entirely* optional. No-one forced you to type in 'www.facebook.com' and press enter. No-one forced you to click signup. No-one forced you to enter your information and click through the legalese. No-one forced you to upload pictures and fill in detailed personal information. If you're worried about Facebook sharing your personal information, DON'T PUT IT ON THERE!
No one forced me to go to buy lunch with a CC today, but there are strict regulations regarding whether the restaurant is allowed to share my CC number and name with business partners or make them public. No one forced me to sign a non-disclosure contract with my company, but I can't retroactively declare all of the ND info to be public and share it with my company's competitors.
This is about Facebook changing their ToS after people shared their personal info in a way that was understood by all parties to be restricted to a select group of people (and Facebook for targeted advertising purposes only). Imagine if Facebook is allowed to get away with this. Tomorrow, Google could change their ToS to "All your email and google docs are belong to us. We can alter and repost anywhere under your name, and you agreed to it because you agreed to the 'we can change this ToS at any time' clause. Ah HAHAHA!"
That's all I really ask for and I don't find it unreasonable that Facebook is trying to get in as many areas as possible (through sharing everyone's stuff).
You don't find it unreasonable that Facebook says "Hey, come write on this piece of paper, we'll keep it right here in this safe deposit box where only the people you specify (and Facebook for purposes of directing marketing to you) have access" and then takes the safe deposit box and dumps it on the sidewalk while yelling "Free stuff! Come read this free stuff! Anyone can read it, despite what our contract with the user said earlier!"?
They should have told American that they are dumbasses if they share all of their most personal thoughts online and if they don't want to the whole world to know what colour of poopie they made this morning the idiot users need to lock their profile the hell down.
Karma be damned. You're stupid, or hopefully just ignorant of what Facebook has been doing this last few years.
When I signed up for FB three and a half years ago, it was fairly easy to lock your profile down, setting all of the information about yourself to be "friends only". They even tightened it further and created a friend-groups mechanism and allowed you to assign special rights to specific wall posts (or types of posts) to just certain groups of friends (work, old friends, current, etc).
Then, the VC ran out, and monetization needed to happen. Beacon appeared. Profile Picture, networks, and friend lists became public, with no options to lock down. Most recently, all of the book, film, pasttime favorites, work history, education history, current city, and hometown were all forced public. What's strange is there are options to restrict them to "just friends", but the new ToS say they're public info, and people have tested them and found they are public despite the privacy controls. Essentially, information you once entered into FB under the previous promise of (and current implied) privacy is being retroactively classified as public data and being made available to partner websites and any joe user. Imagine a worst case scenario: 22 yo woman signs up for FB two years ago, has her profile totally locked down so that only her friends can see anything. So, she feels safe putting a pretty picture of herself as her profile pic, listing her current city, and doesn't mind "liking" the local bars and restaurants she frequents (extremely common), where she works, and listing her favorite books, movies, etc. Unless she's been a _lot_ more prudent then average joe about re-checking her profile with a different non-friended profile, all that info is now public. I did say worst case, right? Maybe she's got a stalker ex from another city and he now knows where she lives and works. She thought FB was keeping that info from him; not any more.
This isn't going to stop unless someone smacks Facebook, and the Senators are holding up their hands and counting slowly and clearly.
This. If they said it in the beginning, that's one thing. But telling us one thing, then later changing it and saying "well, all you need to do is tell us not to" is nothing more than a slimy practice. And I don't buy the "Well, we told you that we reserved the right to do it" argument. If they added controls to "opt-out" today, then they are acknowledging that there's more to it than what was written initially. What's the difference between that, and me going up to you on a busy street and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine" even if you didn't even hear it? Isn't that basically what they are doing here?
They're not even providing tools to opt-out. It's closer to you coming up to me on a busy street, duct-taping my mouth and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine".
The website sharing thing was coupled with an expansion of "public data" a couple days later. Essentially, FB said: Hey, we're going to start sharing your info with websites, but you can opt-out; just declick this several-layers-deep checkbox, and then confirm the ambiguous warning, and ignore the text that says "Your friends will still share your PUBLIC data, like profile picture (became forced public a few months ago), friends list (likewise), and anything else you have public." Then, two days later, they pulled a fast one and said: "Wow! Amazing new 'Like' feature. Now your work history, education history, home city, and a lot of personal information about books, films, etc that you prefer are all 'Like links' you can edit them individually if you want." When you edit them, you get text that essentially says "Anything about you is now a Like Link, and all Like Links are Public. If you don't want Like Links, your profile space will be empty."
Ta DA! Now even if you de-select the "website share" crap, Facebook still shares, via your friends accounts, all of your public data which is almost everything in your profile except for address and other contact info (not far away from being forced public), non-profile photos, wall posts, and messages. Essentially, FB has figured out an end-run around giving people's "private" data to third parties by reclassifying it as "public" after the fact.
After the reboot we tell him to check his mail inbox in outlook and then tell us what the new mail he has says.
He gets really suprised when he sees his login password in clear text. And from that moment IE8 is a minimum requirement.
You're sending their passwords in unencrypted emails? You suck. At least encrypt the password somehow and show them how to decrypt it. Or just send the first four letters of their password (bad enough as an example, not enough to give the bad guys a major edge).
A hypothetical: if my doctor told me that there was a very good medical reason for me to do something, I would follow his advice. I guess you could say that doing what he tells me I should do makes me a "servant" except that he doesn't have a way to force me to do anything. I can realize on my own that it's in my interests to follow the advice he gives me and that I probably don't have the expertise it would take to seriously dispute him.
Or I could ignore my doctor's hypothetical advice. Since I am paying/hiring him, I can think of him as my "servant" and insist that he never tell me anything I don't want to hear, especially those things that would suggest I should change my lifestyle or otherwise adapt to something new. I can freely ignore any such advice and take the attitude of "what does he care, he got paid." I could do that, but ignoring the sound advice of an expert in his field who is trying to look out for you is generally unwise.
[...]
Name one other profession or trade or area of expertise where expert advice is so routinely ignored for such trivial reasons. It doesn't happen with doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics or insurance agents.
Janitors, Trash Collectors, WalMart Welcome Guy (the "I don't have to listen to this lowlife" syndrome). On the respected end of the spectrum: Locksmiths, Police Officers, Firemen... (the "I don't want to think about the consequences of what they're saying" syndrome). I'd say we're a pretty clean mix of the two; kind of like Necromancers in a medieval fantasy, respected and looked down upon at the same time, and no one listens to the logic of using animated skeletons for manual labor because it's spooky.
Compete with Sony and Samsung, make a TV. I'll buy it.
And according to the RIAA, 9000 songs at 0.99$ each equals 5 billions in damages and 3000 years of prison!
Of course, distribution is the key there. so gizmodo is off the hook, but the Apple employee and the guy who sold are going to be hit with $5B each due to potential electronic spread.
Personal information, a Massachusetts resident's first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such resident: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver's license number or state-issued identification card number; or (c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password,
So this doesn't apply to places like slashdot and facebook. Only places that should be securing your data in the first place.
How do people pay for those stupid virtual gifts on Facebook? They're storing CC info somewhere. Now Facebook will finally have to start using some more https instead of just on the "change password" page.
they may feel that we would make a good source of physical labor, and treat us like horses or donkeys.
More likely that they'll feel that we might be a good source of mental labor and treat us like we treat horses or donkeys. Kind of like Hyperion, with the bio-computers, or the TV series Invasion Earth, where a 4D race with 3D bio-tech farms humans for neurotransmitters that their tech runs on.
They're probably just the type of fake accounts I've seen before attempting to friend random people. Most of them probably are female, with pretty photos lifted from the internet. The tipping point for price belies their nature: under or over ten? Real accounts usually have at least over fifty, if not hundreds of friends. That said, this still is a big security issue given the amount of data people's friends can get on their profile, and the proclivity for the younger kids to add anyone who friends them. Of course, a lot of these fake accounts are probably only friends with other fake accounts, and will probably be sold in batches that prevent this fact from being apparent for the first few weeks after a sale.
each commandline key-press counts as 10 mouseclicks
That's fair, considering commandlines like this
cat newuserslist.txt |while read X ; do useradd $X; done
save me 10 to 100 mouseclicks per keystroke
Just working on an online Rock Paper Scissors game .... I didn't want to get into javascript before sorting everything out without it. But everything seems to work fine, just by using
META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="3/...poll-url"
So I think I can keep javascript out of the game code
1994 weeps for your server and network load, especially since /. is going to give you a free scalability test in 3, 2, 1
What I wonder is how long Facebook thinks they'll get away with this until everyone is fed up and leaves?
Everyone? Won't happen. A lot? Sure, but not enough that FB will care. Essentially, they got everyone to join by pretending to care about personal privacy early on, and now they're finally going back to their original plan of open everything, all the time. A lot of people will leave, but some people will stay with FB due to social inertia.
Perhaps his worry is that they'll stop?
;) They are crazy.
... provided they're all home. Since it tends to hit 104 in the middle of the day, a large percentage - even the majority - are at work. If even half the population isn't home to override the settings, this will save a ton of money.
My X* died because it/he/she/they couldn't/didn't know how to override the controls.
*plants/fish/cat/elderly mother/14 year old baby sitter and my toddlers
A lot of people in AZ might set their AC to 27.77777777C. Only someone who thought 20C was hot would set AC to 19C. AZ can reach 40C outside during the day.
BGE already does this in Maryland.
How many people die of heat exhaustion in Maryland?
People need to understand once something hits the internet its out there, no privacy promise by a huge corporation (that probably owns the data once it hits its servers and gave it self the right to change policy whenever they want in the wall of text) is going to protect it.
The problem is that usually the spread of info on the net outside of the usual corporate channels is done by human actors (viral videos, internet rumors), not by corporate actors. In this case, Facebook is randomly destroying their users' privacy for seemingly no reason. The corporate partners already had access, but now FB is giving everyone in the world access.