Don't miss this tidbit from the NY Times version of this story:
The Pentagonâ(TM)s Special Operations Command in 2006 and 2007 worked with several foreign companies â" including an obscure digital media business based in Prague â" to build games that could be downloaded to mobile phones, according to people involved in the effort. They said the games, which were not identified as creations of the Pentagon, were then used as vehicles for intelligence agencies to collect information about the users.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons...
They knew what was going on. My grad school was funded by the NSA. I never had clearance, but did visit Ft. Meade a few times
You understand the NSA programs, but you think posting as AC will protect you?
Neither is NoScript
There's a beta product that I use; it seems a little buggy when I have to change permissions.
They heavily suffer from NIH syndrome
Are the store customers informed about what they are giving up in return for free Internet access (which many already have via their cellular provider)? Do they understand it? (Also, is it personally identifiable information?)
One issue that makes me doubt the 'nobody cares about privacy' argument is that the organizations collecting information, including governments and businesses, are so secretive about it. Some disclose in long agreements that they know nobody reads, but very rarely do they really inform their targets about what they are doing. I wonder why?
WP used codes for formatting that were clear and precise. Word uses both codes and style sheets
Word did not use formatting codes or the same stream-oriented format as WP at all. Word was and is object-oriented.
The Internet is not television. There are times and places where I don't want a lot of uncontrolled noise popping out of my speakers.
I agree, but there's no reason multimedia have to start playing unprompted.
Not inline as needed, as any (relatively capable) blogger would do. It's text with occasional multimedia added at the periphery.
The NY Times overlooks the fundamentals of digital news: Their website is still a news- paper website, instead of a news website. It's print newspaper articles copied to the web, rather than news on the web platform.
One problem is their inability to communicate using modern tools (i.e., anything but text). Just about any blogger can communicate by inserting images, audio, or video inline in a post, while the NY Times, with all its resources, seems to be text with an image or other multimedia occasionally stapled onto the top of the page or on a separate page.
Sometimes text is the appropriate tool; sometimes an image, audio, or video is. For example, if someone says something important (or dubious or otherwise extraordinary), rather than transcribe it to text, show a video clip of them saying it (i.e., Here is Hilary Clinton's response: ) Then the readers can judge the body language, intonation, etc. for themselves. Another example is their arts reviews, where they describe key visual aspects of a painting, film, or performance -- but in text. Why not use clips or images, inline, as needed? This is the web in 2013, not paper in 1950.
The clear answer seems to be the universal recipe for obsolescence: That's the way they've always done it. If the NY Times can't compete with anyone with a Wordpress blog, they are way behind the curve.
Perhaps some network guru can explain: Why wasn't this exploited long ago?
Maybe he's just earning a few bucks:
I'm waiting for the day political organizations engage in astroturfing with concerted efforts to silence critics of political positions they don't like by swamping it with sheer numbers to generate a false consensus.
How do you know it's not happening? Or are you being sarcastic?
Wouldn't you be surprised if many companies did not do it? Large companies? Politicians? Governments?
How many comments on Slashdot are astroturf?
spells out exactly what is being offered and why
Who, outside a very small circle in the Executive Branch, could tell us this? Was this article written by Susan Rice?