It doesn't work like that. For an average user, Facebook generates an extensive profile of where he visited from their huge partner network. They can develop his "age" from those site visits even if he lied. Ads are then be presented to him based on his profile across Facebook and the partner sites. It works the same for Google and their partners, many of whom are also partners of Facebook, probably leading to incidental but useful cross-sharing of information.

The issue with the lawsuit is Facebook is still run like it's based out of a dorm room and not part of the real world.. Age discrimination is illegal and it's de facto illegal to use age targets for job related ads as a result.. All Facebook would need to do to change this behavior is update their TOS and tell advertisers if they target age for job ads, Facebook will sue them and alert the EEOC.

Trump deserves credit for Korean thaw

Fake news did, or at least that's what Trump called them yesterday on his Fox and Friends tirade.

Actually, a project oriented management style instead of a time management style works. Set quantifiable specific tasks which must be completed or modified by a certain date. Make them small enough for frequent measure to insure the overall goal is reached in time. If someone is not delivering their task, they would have to have a reasonable explanation as to why or be shown the door if it continued.

What I'd like to know is how did his partner get sent to jail for an MGM gambling debt? Anyone know? While looking for the answer, I did come across this interesting article about advantage players, that there are many, that the casinos know of them and don't call them cheaters because what they are doing is legal.

I'll add to my previous comment to say that Google Fiber would have been a great threat that;s why it's sad to see them pull back.

fixed that for you. The problem is that the Sherman anti-trust act was set up to prevent anti-competitive monopolies within an industry. Time Warner is content while AT&T is delivery so there's no problem here except probably a few FCC mandates related to the handful of TV stations which most likely will be sold or given away to make the deal go through.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a problem or an effective monopoly. This large scale vertical integration is the same as what happened with Comcast / NBC Universal and to a lesser extent Disney/ABC and could and will most likely seriously hinder new entrants to a broad swath of services as well as dictate consumer and b2b pricing for programming on a mega scale.

For AT&T's part, this is their response to their loss of the natural monopoly they had in the 80's, which reformed into the near anti-competitive monopoly they have now but which is seriously threatened by the advent of mesh area networks which could in theory obviate the need for ISP's altogether. They are attempting to get the jump on this by developing it with an eye on controlling it themselves, and they will need very good content for one. I have no idea how they intend to charge for using your own devices but the overall goal is to eliminate all last mile wiring and maintenance and all the personnel that go with it which is a huge expense. This is why you now have a hard time ordering uVerse and are oversold on the cellular products and if you want old school pots service, you'd better take a gun.

The title intentionally misquotes the NAA letter for sensationalism. Brave intends to replace publisher ads with their own. The NAA said "Your plan to use our content to sell your advertising is indistinguishable from a plan to steal our content to publish on your own website.". They technically said "use our content" in reference to what was happening and then compared it to and offline form of what would be theft.

All that aside, the whole argument about copyright infringement vs theft is that you're not depriving them of their original work or material gain from it. For Brave's plan to work, it would be doing exactly that. And yes, Brave has stated the intend to pay publishers a share of the profit on Brave's terms, all without publisher agreement. On what planet does that work, walk into a business, set my terms and they have to recourse but to accept? If Brave's plan is so great, they can do what others do and sell it and get a consenting agreement first.

It's more than one high resolution snapshot. It's many cameras and capable of monitoring large areas simultaneously.. It's called the ARGUS-IS and it was featured on Nova and it's been around for several years. Here's a link to the video

Fringe? I wonder if they've ever done anything else useful.

"a few of the disks were formatted in DOS, but most of them were from an older operating system called CP/M. CP/M, or Control Program for Microcomputers, was a popular operating system of the 1970s and early 1980s that ultimately lost out to Microsoft's DOS.

I must have gone to the wrong site. This can't be Slashdot.

If it does pass, I'm leaving the country and coming back on a visa.

Add to that there's a risk taking updates on consumer devices because they frequently alter, reduce or break functionality. Think "Other O/S" or Cinavia on the PS3. Right now, my LG TV works great with my PS3 media player and wants an update. I've blocked it. Release notes don't tell all and Google's not very good at negative verification. SInce there's really no back out plan for most of these devices, I only update if I know it's needed for something I want.

Yes, but the only real practical way to do this is tie the key to biometric information such that when that private key or the signing authority get's compromised, you can get a new key by a) being alive and b) matching the biometric data. It should work at least until we can start duplicating people. Of course, if you tried to suggest such a thing in earnest, you'd be bombarded left and right by the civil libertarians and the religious wingnuts, government intrusion or mark of the beast , take your pick. Personally, I am the former and hare the idea although I know it's the only way.

That's true but it was also at the time much faster because it lacked support for most of the features expected in a modern relational database.like foreign keys, triggers, procedural languages, and complex data types..It was more or less the programmer's job to manage consistency but it ran like greased lightning.. Many new to the web and programming for that fact embraced the simplicity you point out and the perceived advantage in speed because they didn't understand the need for the relative advance features Postgres provided, which today are even more numerous.

And please add if that's not enough for you, you can also write your triggers and functions in Python, Perl and Tcl Too.