I won't promise not to hook Ajit Pai's nuts to a car battery and then use the lead to repeat the message in Morris code "Net Neutrality is fundamental to a free internet". Someday I hope regular people in the republican party realize that the party establishment only cares about corporate freedom, individual freedom and the protection of free market competition do not exist in their agenda. Just to prepare you in such an event, the dots are going hurt like hell, but the dashes will be truly and inhumanely excruciating.

Could they argue that the contents of their site are covered by copyright and that scraping the site and using that info for commercial purposes, or acting to republish the material is a violation? Ordinarily I side with the freedom of access on these things, but really outside actors scraping the data from Linkedin threatens their business. I don't really want my data on Linkedin if it's going to get misused by third parties. Somehow fraud is always the end result of too much personal information being too accessible.

Ever notice on Bing image search it throws in some odd stuff, like sometimes regular porn, nudist or family photos get mixed together and in that case some nude images of children or families are mixed in with porn. Personally I find that really disturbing because it exposes those images in a sexual context when the images were not intended as sexual. It creates a potential safe space for pedophile type behavior. I also get nude images of dead bodies sometimes mixed with porn images which is disturbing, but the kid stuff really worries me how accessible it's become seemingly by accident on Microsoft's part.

If the Republicans believe in the free market, tearing down Net Neutrality is a failure to practice what they preach. Part of a free market is ensuring competition is encouraged for the benefit of the consumer. When protecting freedoms they seem to favor corporate freedom over individual freedom about 100 to 1. That fucktard has no business making FCC policy. Hooray for regulatory capture!

Uh oh, Slashdot infiltrated with Russian propaganda? ...or just a shitty useless article. Boy you could just cut the racial tension with a knife, next we'll hear Ferrari dealers foster the same discrimination.

It's time we make an example and take away any authorization for Equifax to store or maintain any personal information. Not that the other agencies are better, but fuck, these people are fucking useless. 1) Shut them down - Equifax must be no more. 2) Rework with systems we use so that there is real authentication like maybe possessing a smart card / EMV that provides authentication. 3) Social security numbers need to be made invalid / illegal to use as a form of authentication. 4) Credit card account numbers must be made useless by themselves, EMV only protects you if others cannot execute non-EMV transactions on the account. (Yes I know CV1 CVV2 data is generally needed for transactions) 5) We must never again design systems where data that is shared with multiple third parties is used for authentication. 6) Maybe improve EMV with some OTP system in conjunction. 7) Credit agencies need to be completely reworked. Consumers must have reliable and responsive methods of fixing fraud and errors in the data within 45 days from the report date by law. 8) Consumers suffering data loss should have legal standing for class action suit, unauthorized disclosure is a form of harm even if it can't be linked to a monetary loss.

Possibility four: Jobs are not under serious threat, despite the media focus on automation, robots and AI.

Lenovo, I hope you are listening, because many of us would like this type of configuration. There are no laptops IMO currently on the market which meet these specs in a quality configuration for business users.

They are stupid by design. The typical Samsung TV pushes updates without any option to decline. It just puts up a notice about the upgrade with an "OK" button. No ignore, cancel, or decline, no close, just "OK". I don't think they understand what consent is supposed to mean. Consent is not actual consent if there is no other available option. Samsung, I'd like your product team to eat broken glass, "OK".

Even if one company's grapefruit isn't much different than the other, I just like to know that if the first company gets a little to adamant about always wanting to watch me eat my grapefruit, I can go to another company. I support Bing for one and only one reason, so Google will have competition. I block my computers from talking to Google entirely whenever possible. Microsoft may not get privacy right either, but the world is a better place if Google at least has competition who can at least claim to respect privacy more. I can't depend only on Startpage and Duckduckgo because they won't be able to really offer competition to Google for various reasons. Even if company B watches me eat my grapefruit, I'd rather they exist just to discourage company A from watching me eat my grapefruit in 4K video that they store for 10 years.

They can't let facts get in the way of shaming, bashing and firing someone who dares to challenge the pro-feminist, pro-everyone except white males agenda. Someone making a reasoned argument that some might disagree with doesn't go viral, but if we all just assume the argument is ignorant and is against accepted PC values then it can just go viral without anyone having to read the memo. Support your local SJW and help white males understand that their new role in society is to stand quietly in the corner contemplating their past sins until women and people of color grab up their fair share. I'm sure this strategy can't fail.

What they threatened is Doxxing, in a way. A person's name should be viewed as personal information when they post with the expectation of privacy. The internet loses much of it's power to foster free speech if you have to worry about the potential of anonymous speech being attributed to you publicly. Obviously there were always risks, but for a media company to publicly take that into their own hands crosses a line.

Has that been publicly acknowledged by the card issuers? I try and limit what they know by opting for cash on some transactions. If you are saying they are putting it in the marketing database when you make a purchase each item you buy, not just what store you shopped at, even if you don't give a rewards card or number, then that is level of personal violation I haven't seen documented.

It's hard to know what an appropriate system would be. I really hate the idea of everyone getting everything they buy delivered from online retailers. I also look at department stores and question the logic. Many retailers have a store full of stuff, but much of it isn't of any interest to many people. I don't have a better idea, but it's not hard to see the the inefficiency in online individual delivery of every consumer good a person could possibly want, or on the other hand the department stores filled with vast quantities of items nobody will buy.

It's those college students I'm most apt to protect. Everyone says we need to get all these masses of students ready for STEM jobs, but in order for inexperienced workers coming out of school to get good jobs there has to be some pressure on the market so employers are willing to take risks and invest in people. We owe it to young people to protect the market we are so busy telling them is their best path to a future.