I'm a bit puzzled finding myself defending facebook, but when a researcher gathered data on their platform and it got sold to Cambridga Analytica, they got slammed. When someone scraped the publicly available information and made it public, they got slammed. And now that they prevent a researcher scrapping them... they get slammed ?

This sounds like just another overpriced rebranding the drop shipping industry is so fond of. Notice I didn't say scam ?

I keep seeing those article about how a company tried to do something on millions of post and someone figured out that they missed some. If the company doesn't heed the warning that does tell something about them, but reporting that a semi automated language processing system isn't perfect, is that news ? Do they expect it to be once they track three hashtags ?

I know it's easy to flag those hastags. And if they refuse to do it then sure, that's something I want to know. But "as of writing, computers have not mastered the subtleties of propaganda"... come on.

And the fact that they didn't find the exact same problem on facebook is supposed to say something as well ? It's a facebook PR piece, right ?

As we all know, the great library of Alexandria had barely 50 books when it burned down... At any given time, it takes a lifetime to keep abreast of someone else's lifetime work. History filters out most of it, thank god. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist, or even was obviously ignorable at the time.

The indian government views the weakness of indian law with serious concern ? Well I can understand. Especially if only facebook can do something about it.

A friend of mine got a test ride : http://berlinique.jimdo.com/2012/04/06/lumia-900-a-walk-on-the-wild-side/ It does take good photos.

the hotness, that is.

Yes it was. The new laptop supposedly a match to the decade old onboard computer. They might even have thrown in a little "this is called Moore's law kids". The sole question of computing power did make sense to me. Interfacing was another problem, but the hot chick was a "plane hacker" too (and that, on the other hand, doesn't make any sense).

well yes of course. I don't see the trouble here (apart on jailkept iphones obviously) Did I miss something ?

As a french chemist, I have to disagree. The best Champagne experience doesn't mean having as much gas as possible ! I completely agree serving it "freefalling" lets a lot of gas out, but that's precisely the point. Plus it is served in two times, the first draw gets really bubbly, and during the second, the liquid hits the bubbles from the already poured liquid instead of the glass, and releases a lot less gas. By waiting more or less between the two, you can influence how much gas will be left in the first pour, and, with training, get to the real Champagne experience.

I read the article. They have so much insight. They should tell Socrates about it.

So the Salz-guy's plan is sweeter then the Zucker-guy's one. Am I the only one fearing a bad german joke ?