That's the first we've heard of that error. When the user logs out, they are also presented with the link to revoke access via Gmail. Sorry you weren't able to get to that page. If you want to make sure that your data is deleted, we can do a manual delete of your metadata (if it exists on our server) for you. Just write to us at the address on the website.
Oh, I absolutely guarantee it. Your FB search history, other people's FB search history (of your real name and of your fake name), which pages you view in correlation with what e-mail contacts you might have, the schools the people you talk to went to, etc.
Luckily there's no online record of relationship history or it'd be an open and close case.
>Is it unlikely that 3rd party would buy data from Facebook or some entity that obtained the inaccurate data from Facebook?
Probably. Using a fake/altered name is incredibly common on Facebook, especially among younger people. I think any 3rd party assigned with that task would realize that and avoid it.
You aren't alone. People are organizing protests and preparing letterheads, as they should be, but it all feels just as ineffective as the last time. The ugly truth, as many people know, is that these complaints/protests are built-in to the infrastructure, they're expected and they disrupt absolutely nothing.
At least in Germany a lot of people have become disillusioned by the (german) Pirate Party.
They seem to have degraded into a mix of ridiculous infighting and traditional political party stuff.
I'd much rather see them to push for just one topic: Getting direct democracy.
Right now they are just dispersing all the resources they have (in mind and matter) towards hundreds if not thousands of different topics and don't look like an efficient agent of change at all.
> At least in Germany a lot of people have become disillusioned by the (german) Pirate Party.
In termss of the Hype Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle), they've passed the peak of inflated expectations and are now in the trough of dissillusionment. This state will not last forever.
> They seem to have degraded into a mix of ridiculous infighting and traditional political party stuff.
They grew too quickly. Digital rights issues aren't going away, and nor are the Pirates.
> I'd much rather see them to push for just one topic: Getting direct democracy.
No, they need a full range of policies if they are to get people to vote for them. Otherwise, people will say "I agree with you on X, but other policies are more important to me, so I won't be voting for you."
> Right now they are just dispersing all the resources they have (in mind and matter) towards hundreds if not thousands of different topics
No, they need a full range of policies if they are to get people to vote for them. Otherwise, people will say "I agree with you on X, but other policies are more important to me, so I won't
be voting for you."
It just seems like an insane amount of brain cycles. Having just one clear goal would make it much easier for anyone to understand - in it's entirety - what the PP is standing for and also streamline resources towards that goal which would probably make it much more efficient in reaching said goal.
As for a complete political programme, can't they just have a team that puts all the decisions that are decided upon in political institutions where pirates are involved into a liquid feedback system where everyone can vote on it? That way the PP could already act as a small direct democracy.
Yeah, unfortunately. I think the PP proved that there is potential and support for real change; I think they basically got elected on the platform of not being like all those other suits, and I enjoy(ed) that. But of course, that alone is not enough.
Threads like these might as well be generated by an algorithm.
>NSA news
>Why is everybody so surprised!? comment
Like clockwork. Let me ask you, though. Do you really think that people only "suddenly" care (with the implication of ignorance or a contradiction on their part) or is it possible that there are nuanced differences between all of the things you casually reference as common knowledge and the current NSA news? I mean, there is speculation and there is confirmation. There are hunches and there are reputable sources. There is pointing somebody to the Room 641A Wikipedia page and there is telling somebody, "hey, look, this guy who was a part of the NSA is not only confirming this, but has sacrificed his career to give us even more information about it."
The public unconscious may have assumed that this was going on, clusters of people may have known, but you're underestimating how people compartmentalize this kind of knowledge. So when we have an event that brings a lot of this knowledge together and to the forefront and gives us something we can point to and talk about (even if it's only a story or a face at this point), I don't think we should pass up the opportunity to develop a louder voice about all of this rather than being cynical AGAIN just because we can't resist putting down public outcry.
Mathematics education is a bit odd now for sure. I think if there was an effort to teach kids the logical and even creative side of math early on, they'd have an easier time building intuition for certain computational aspects later on. As it stands, most people are unaware that math is no longer predicated in reality, which seems nonsensical. You generally teach grammar before (or along with) composition.
I'm sorry, but could you please explain what you mean by "predicated in reality"? I feel stupid, but I just don't understand what that means, and I'd rather feel stupid than remain ignorant.
It means that a connection to the real world is not needed for mathematics to exist. Another way of saying "predicated in" would be to say "based in" or "required by."
He doesn't suggest that human nature is more than physics, he is saying that consciousness isn't computable. If neural subsystems are a hierarchically arranged and internally generated chaotic dynamic activity, there is the problem of long-term predictions and causal inference.
>It may seem paradoxical that a deterministic phenomenon is inherently unpredictable, but in systems that exhibit chaotic behavior, small uncertainties are amplified over time by the nonlinear interaction of a few elements. The upshot is that behavior that is predictable in the short run becomes intrinsically unpredictable in the long term. As a result, physiologists cannot make strict causal inferences from the level of individual neurons to that of neural mass actions, nor from the level of receptor activity to internal dynamics. The causal connection between past and future is cut.
That seems irrelevant to making a working brain thingy. We don't want to predict how another given brain will evolve, we want to mimic intelligence. Your brain evolves differently than mine, yet we both are intelligent (I think). I don't need to predict your thoughts to have thoughts of my own.
Perhaps the randomness is even necessary because otherwise some situations could never be resolved (like the classic who should go first to go through a door - after you - no, after you...).
Why does this matter? If you run a simulation of the brain, you'll soon get different output than the original would output, but does that mean the simulation isn't working?
It'll still be intelligent behaviour, even if it isn't the exact same behaviour. It'll still be the same person; if such behavioural differences mattered, then turning up the temperature slightly would make you a different person. Thermal noise bubbles up to the macroscopic level all the time.
I've never seen much ad hominem or meanness in the comments here. In fact, I think this place is awfully civil. People here have no problem calling one another out on something that is incorrect or dubious, and I like that. I'd rather a spade is called a spade than a bunch of people skirting around the issue in the name of politeness.
>He says that data can be gathered showing how many people see a particular painting or share it online, and thus reach conclusions on how successful an artist is.
Wouldn't this just lead to art becoming a new form of spam when people try to game this system? Not to mention that not all art is painting or can be easily shared.
