Well.. I guess will keep it in good repair and sell it in a year... I already quit Facebook and wasn't expecting they would put their stamp on this quite so soon but here ya go...

Will keep an eye out for a different vendor to replace it I guess. *SIGH*

So the question I have is it a bias against the technical staff because they are not perceived as the same class as other employees?

In most companies it seems quite normal for Sales or Marketing staff to have side gigs, or "many irons in the fire" and it's something that's usually viewed as initiative.... But if this same view isn't taken for under funded or under compensated then I think we have a problem.

Personally I think job flexibility to disappear for 30 minutes all things being equal is the most I would ask for a side gig, and I feel the need to over communicate such issues. I recently left a government for an IT Startup when the side gig blew away the offerings of the government job.

The other litmus test, not necessarily fair, is feedback from your immediate boss/lead. If they feel it's inappropriate, then you decide if it's worth staying or not. But don't violate their wishes or protocol. It's not worth it.

My bias is I think HR/Management rarely values IT staff anywhere near what they value their more "business" orientated staff such as Marketing, Sales, Accounting or Logistics.... In those cases I don't break rules, but I rarely feel the "love". I've been outsourced and let go too many times for slim margins and failed management...

Monsters 2010
I liked the ambience and feel of it.

For my personal favorites I like Next and the Adjustment Bureau.

I'd love to see a movie made from an Eric Frank Russell story or novel.

Recently scifi can be successful without being a block bluster, and it can be a niche genre... Kinda cool.

So the question that is of interest to me is, when and how will we change?

It is obvious to me that we can't continue to trust leaders and hierarchical systems. They don't scale. As our population increases the death toll that can be attributed to any leader by whatever matrix you use to decide if they are good or bad, will continue to rise. Our world is more complex than any one person can understand and to enforce our abstract wishes on how it should be are childish. Even now our leaders focus on outcomes that they can't control or guarantee rather than small changes to how we do things based on the values we share.

Example:
You can't eliminate poverty. But you can find what contributes to poverty, or a few things we can do to address it, and then move on from there.
You can't eliminate war and strife, but you can slowly make changes to our culture so that we can someday appreciate what it takes to have peace and trade instead.

So the question that comes to mind is if we are going to grow up as a culture or species, what will that look like? and how can I participate?

The key difference for me is I don't need someone to lead, I just need someone to fulfill their role as coordination or logistics. It's one role of many. A leader is about ego, and is not a job function I truly understand nor wish for a world that needs such things. For a leader I give them my trust and admiration in return for survival and identity. If my survival and right to exist is not, TRULY, at stake then I have no need for such a transaction.

If we keep focusing on a world of scarcity and need, then leaders are inherent. If you instead focus on a world that has enough for all (and we can do this) then leaders, the heirs of kings and queens, are no longer relevant. I don't need a leader who is the biggest bastard on the block, I don't need a leader at all.

Theory X and Y is strong with this one.

Managers who continually look to put employees into their own egotistical context, rather than focus on performance are not ones I'd wish to work for.

Working for HP and Intel was never inspiring but IBM seems to be showing it's roots as an old behemoth of a company. I am sure they will do well in the 21st century with 19th century values. They have been around since the late 1800's, who dare tell them they are wrong?

As I must take responsibility for you...

We do have warning labels on bags that they cause suffocation, for adults who don't realize the danger to children.

It was done because we want to change things when they don't work. Google is not working as it was intended. It was intended to provide relevant results based on the search terms we put in. False information is not consistent with its core function.

A bag is meant to carry objects as a tool, not to suffocate anyone, although it could be used that way.

If you don't like the perceived change because it's something you can not accept, keep looking to things that re-enforce your false view of the world. Eventually when you are ready another answer will be waiting for you. It saddens me that you wish to waste the time you have, but it is yours to waste.

I will advocate warnings, as upon review, I believe you would as well.

Yes you can.

Data informatics is mature enough to with 80-90% efficacy sort out these results.

The velocity of change in the sources of who puts this data, these false stories, into the search results and clearly be differentiated by those other sources that work over a longer time frame. These tools exist in security data forensics, and they can be implemented as part of what Google presents. As you block them they will increase their "velocity" and other tactics that can also be quantified and filtered for, much like a recurring attack with changing variables.

Perhaps not implemented yesterday, today, but definitely if a priority within 3-6 months.

It's ok to be wrong, it's how you learn.

So this is a concern to me and it's interesting to see how Google (and Facebook) will handle this. The bias that I have is that information is to "inform". I use these computer products to find out what I need, not what I want. But not everyone uses these systems the same way nor do they want the same things.

The new continuum of these folks (AltRight, give it a name) want validation on their identity and the world as they see it. At a certain point the hard decision is that their needs, perceived as they may be, can not be served by these products. The extreme example (and a biased one I will admit) is that you don't make cute cuddly pink guns, because guns are a tool that kill things, and focus on a gun that children can use is something we all agree (mostly) is not something that should exist.

The dilemma for these companies is acknowledging that these products and services they offer can not be used in a way that is inconsistent with the folks that made them, and it will just have to be what it is. If who you are is it at odds with a core product or service, then frankly that product or service can not (and should not) be re-engineered to serve those needs. They will derive no benefit, logistical or spiritual (yes, I went there) by using these products until they change who they are.

Changing who you are, whether it's 1st or 2nd or 3rd generational feminism, human rights, or smoking in public all are societal changes that there will always be folks who don't adopt. A search for truth is not something for everyone, but these products and services must, and will eventually, go back to the reason for their existence, even if it in the end it's perceived as the "biases" of those who made them.

The natural eventual conclusion is if these folks attempt to re-create an alternative that works for them instead of using the one's creating by those they disagree with; In the long analysis an "Alt-Right" Google will be no more effective than a Creationist Museum. It is what it is.

Eventually, by the long path perhaps, Google, Facebook and the like will come around to playing to the larger shared values as we all do, and also playing to their strengths and who they are.

With all their design skills they haven't made a 90% or higher an automated assembly process yet? I wonder if they could send it as a kit you assemble... ;-)

I have a feeling the first manufacturing they ever bring back will be an automated factory. I could jest but it would be understandable if it's a satellite facilitating managed mostly remote from their existing facilities whenever that time comes...

No deal...

Because it's not just the news, it's what you do with it.

If you happen to be a group of folks trying to get Universal HealthCare (WHICH EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL COUNTRY HAS!).. (hold on... Got wipe off my screen...)

Then perhaps some errors or lies are understandable in context but frankly that sucked too. Unfortunately the core issue is a lack of compromise on (ANYTHING!)

Damn... I need a squeegee...

Ack! Washington Times...

Sorry!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance

But in reviewing all of the folks I have in contact with that are in the Trump camp, and researching at least 5 of them in the last 24 hours they are misleading at BEST!

Washington Post, republican leaning but that was the best of the bunch. The rest were outright distortion and lies.

The one I backtracked about a white guy in Charlotte getting beaten at a protest back in September was barely covered by any other media outlet, except the right wing ones across the globe with no depth or context. I finally found a note in Charlotte news organization that had a paragraph about the full video that showed he may have been getting pulled away by some African Americans to try to protect him. No further articles could I find.

When I look through all of the links and news stories these folks have silo'd themselves with fake news.

If facebook won't own it, they get problems. Their "unlikability" numbers aren't so good if I remember.

There may be more to this article but if true I thought Mr. Gates had a better bead on things.

If you build an inter-connected world you can't find safety by removing yourself from it. We are beyond the point of no return. It's peace prosperity or bust.

He could make it himself much safer by giving his money away... which in a way he has I suppose.

Still bums me out. I have faith in humanity, I wouldn't be here without them... ;-)

If they can't handle a DDOS, any DDOS competently then they just made it clear they are a minor player....

Wonder if AWS, Azure or Google will pick him up as a PR move.

Except for 1 post about body armor, not 1 comment that was upvoted had anything to do with a technological solution which was the crux of the question in this post.

"No" 5 Insightful... REALLY!??!?

I don't want to compare to much to a website that shall not be named (rhymes with eddit) but I am quite disappointed.

Perhaps I expect too much.

C'est la vie.