Maybe there wouldn't be an issue if they were being 100% transparent and explicit about what information they are collecting and how it will be used. However, the article seems to paint a fairly compelling picture that FB is not acting in good faith.
The fact that they're targeting kids makes it that much more unethical.
JUXT is a Creative Innovation Agency based out of San Francisco, CA.
We are on the hunt for kick-ass creative technologists (remote and local.) Primarily we are interested in things like these (in order of importance):
- "Creative Coding": Unity, Cinder, Openframeworks, TouchDesigner, etc.
- Web Technologies: node.js, python, ruby, php, etc.
- Databases & Queuing: MongoDB, MySQL, Redis, RabbitMQ, etc.
- DevOps: Docker, Vagrant, CI/CD, etc.
- Hardware & Microcontrollers: Arduino, Tessel, etc.
We are expecting to have a lot of new work beginning in about a month, but always open to chat and expand our pool of trusted vendors. Check out our work at http://www.juxt.com/work. If you think we may be a good match, let us know why by sending a message & CV to [email protected]
Any insights into how you reached the top of the Amazon rankings in under a year? If half of your sales are from referrals and social media, what about the other half?
The article title isn't very accurate. It's more about how big data and analytics (whether coming from online sources or not) impact our day-to-day lives.
"[Kate Crawford] and a colleague propose a system of “due process” that would give people more legal rights to understand how data analytics are used in determinations made against them, such as denial of health insurance or a job."
The only reference to social status in the article comes at the end, citing situations where social media may be used to prioritize relief from natural disasters (if a particular neighborhood does not have this technology, there will be no data, even though there may be a larger need for assistance.)
Agreed, but it would also vary by the nature of the hackers' intent. With the current global economy, taking down Wall Street would create an immediate impact worldwide and would have long term rippling effects. Hacking into and disrupting a power grid could do the same, but is heavily dependent upon location and timing, no? Maybe I just don't know enough about how the power grid works.
Granted, if we're talking about physically destroying infrastructure as opposed to just hacking, then I'd have to agree with you.
Security flaws in financial institutions has got to be one of my greatest fears. Wall street doesn't understand software[0][1] yet they rely so heavily on it with algorithmic trading[2]. The day that something goes terribly wrong, they're going to have no idea what happened...
(And just to clarify, I wouldn't consider all software "art", but neither do I consider all paintings "art" - it's really about the user's/viewer's experience interacting with the piece.)
Don't get caught up on the word "art" or "artists." There's a great article by Carolyn Dean[0] that goes into depth about the history of the word and the problems with it. What I got out of it is that "calling something art reveals nothing inherent in the object to which the term is applied; rather, it reveals how much the viewer values it."
As a software developer, I consider software itself art because I understand the various complexities that arise when creating it, and also how it transforms hardware into something completely different (without software, hardware does nothing.)
Would I compare software to painting, sculpture, or music? Definitely. But that's just me, and before you can convince anyone else otherwise, you first need to convince them to value software as much as you do. The same goes for anything: fashion, cooking, even natural objects and phenomena.
On a side note, has anybody heard of the LifeStraw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeStraw)? It seemed to have massive potential to combat this issue, but I guess it was turned into a consumer product instead..??
So we should donate to this because... it has "Reddit" in the title? The project description has no mention of how the funding will be used, just that whatever is planned will cost ~$50, followed by a meaningless message containing "facts" about water quality with no direct relationship to the campaign at hand.
I do believe that access to potable water is one of the world's largest issues, but I'd much rather donate my money to an organization with a clear plan.
(Also, does this money simply go to Charity Water, or does "Trey" run this campaign & project himself? I couldn't find anything about that, but I'd be concerned that the majority of his projects haven't even raised over $80 in funding. http://my.charitywater.org/p/myprojectsview?project_id=ET.IR... )
The fact that they're targeting kids makes it that much more unethical.