I would actually have been insulted to have been given something

Of course you would; the reciprocation equalises the transaction. How can you remain superior if they return your selfless act of love?

I suppose the solution involves eliminating social and economic inequality. The culture that surrounds theft and it’s relative acceptability also needs to be changed. One would expect to find a relationship between those two points. What we see in that video are symptoms. Punishment deals only with symptoms of a problem, and violent punishment by the State serves only to expand the first point on s/e inequality. It also condones extreme violence and presents it as reasonable. There can be no solution until the problem, and its extent, is identified.

Another mention for Eddie, and I’ll add Dave Grohl.

I get only #cambridgeanalytics as an auto-fill. No mention of …tica ending and/or recent incidents of the hashtag, even when I type the full thing.

What is the fine for, specifically?

Have a look in permissions and see what has access to your camera/mic.

Some other people have had similar:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7846084

Try the stuff listed in there. If no work, just take it to an Apple store.

Who?

Can you post a picture? How you deal with it is going to depend on what kind of finish it has, as that’ll affect how another finish takes to it. Of course, much depends on how much the table means to you. Where are you located?

Are you sure it’s solid and not veneer? How big is the surface you’re thinking of sanding? What’s your skill level and what tools do you have available?

Can you buy direct from Samsung? How old is it? Why not a warranty job?

STW sabotaging their own forum may sound great in your head as you type it out, but makes no sense whatsoever.

That’s not what I said, don’t put words in my mouth.

I’ve just put a lengthy post about this on MySpace.

That’ll learn ‘em

The FB updates give more context and detail than the previous updates on here.

It’s exactly what people have asked for.

its almost as though STW would rather people migrated to FB.

What has happened to the substantial deposit that you took in order to cover at the least materials and some of your time?

Some nice selective quoting. I said that within the context of his knowledge/skills/experience he was rational. You’re all judging him in the context of what you believe and what other people can theorise, calculate or comprehend. If he can’t do the equations, can’t follow the theory, can’t picture the models required to accept the science, then what is he left with? Faith. So he wants to go and see for himself.

According to the BBC piece, the curvature of the earth is not <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>visible</span> until around 40,000ft, so that’s his journey. Good luck to him, though I wish somebody would offer to take him up there to save him getting obliterated by his own adventure.

I’ve a bit of cognitive dissonance with the notion that someone can think the Earth is flat and simultaneously have the nous to build a manned rocket

I don’t think he believes the earth is flat. He says in the piece that he doesn’t know one way or the other, that’s why he wants to go and look.  It could be argued that he’s highly rational with if the context of his skills/knowledge and experience. We all take on faith that the a huge amount of the knowledge imparted upon us is correct; we all take on faith theory as fact, otherwise we’d struggle terribly with the reality of the possibilities within our existence, and beyond. The only way you ever really know, really understand, really comprehend, is to stand before something and experience. I believe that the earth is round, because I can follow the science/evidence and I trust it. But true knowledge will only happen if I exceed 40,000ft and look down.

An odd comment to make? Why would you hope that?

You have an extraordinary manner and humour. It’s admirable and, I think, the kind of manner that is healthy for kids to grow up around.

I sincerely hope that you’re a parent, perchypanther.

I saw this yesterday. It’s a beautiful demonstration of the reasoning and rational of the two (polar) sides of the discussion. What happens when a highly scientific mind meets a wholly unscientific mind.

Apparently a bug in some versions of MacOS. It won’t copy files larger than 2GB to FAT32.

Nailed it CraigW. I’ve reduced it to 1.5 GB in Handbrake and it copied across. It’s a pain as some films I like to compress as little as possible. I’ll run a backup and reformat my external drive to exFAT.

Thanks for everyone’s input, much appreciated.

It can if you connect via smb:// always has. sometimes need to allow permission though.

Wut? I want to drag and drop, not **** about with Terminal and things and permissions and computers.

File A is the original file that I downloaded, it was not compressed/zip. I just used Handbrake to reduce the file size (still MKV) of a few hundred MB, it copies over fine. It’s not an MKV issue. File B (2.39 GB), which previous resided on the drive, can not be returned to the drive because “it is too large for the volume’s format”. It was there, it must be able to go back there.

The file (file A) is in a folder on the desktop and has never been anywhere else on the computer’s file system. macOS doesn’t have drives (C, D, E etc). The other MKV (file B) I copied from the drive to test if there was a problem with file A isn’t even in a folder.

The external drive is FAT32 as it contains my movie collection and needs to be read/write compatible between my macOS and any Windows systems that other people use. macOS/OS X can’t write to NTFS, only read. There was a reason for not using exFAT when the drive was originally formatted, which could easily by five years ago, but that escapes me now. I could try reformatting the drive, I suppose.

I’ve never had any issues with this set-up until today when I tried to copy the the MKV.

Is the drive full?

It’s a 1TB drive with 625.36 GB available. I’ve also emptied the trash (recycle bin on Windows), so nothing hiding.

thanks mattyfez. I’ve always named movie files the same way, which is just to write them out as they are. Normal spacing, no underscores or hyphens. The file that started all this is ‘Bunny Lake is Missing.mkv’. I’ve renamed it to bun.mkv on your advice, to no avail. The file I copied from the drive is called ‘Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow.mkv’. It’s been on the drive, has been watched from the drive, but throws up an error if I try to copy it back onto the drive.

As per the OP, I’m aware of the 4GB limit.

It’ll all dry more evenly if it’s converted to boards, then left to dry further in stacks/boules before being kiln dried. An uncut trunk is not going to dry much beyond the first few cm from the end cuts. You can get a device to use a chainsaw to convert to planks, though it may be more sensible to get somebody in to do it unless you intend to use the gear more in future. Stacks need to be kept in a covered shed with plenty of air flow. You’ll also need stickers/strips to put on top of one board to elevate the one above it so that air moves freely around all faces of all boards.

What size/thickness are the trunks? Most turners prefer wet wood to turn with – less chance of splitting, easier to cut, faster to cut. Some really fine and delicate bowls can be produced from fresh/green wood. If you cut the trunk into bowl-size chunks, then apply a PVA or similar to the cut faces to preserve the moisture content.

What is 11-28?

Also known as a ‘road’ cassette:

no, but i made this from an old coffee table

That’s a real talent, some proper avant-garde shit right there. Hats off..

I think my fit till? Therefore my fit till?

I came in here hoping – hoping! – for some new car content and was not disappointed.

A wherwand sounds like something that comes with a responsibility few people could handle.

Presumably Windows? What browser?

macOS. Firefox and Safari show same increase in advertising elements.

What platform?

Desktop.

FWIW, there are now fewer adverts than there were on the old site. Overall there’s about a third less, and there’s a 20% reduction over what casual viewers see if you’re actually logged in (as a regular free member, not a [P] subscriber).

I’ll oppugn that. There may (or may not) be fewer ads overall, but they’re more intrusive – included in people’s posts, every few posts. My browser tells me how many advertising elements it’s handling. This page has 25 on it until I log in, then it has 61. The typical/average seems to be 20-30 additional elements when I’m logged in.

There’s FB tracking code on every page on this site. Here it is

And here it is:

It’s astonishing how many people can’t/won’t/don’t see beyond the end of their own nose. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, I’ll quote the führer: “What luck for rulers that men do not think.”

On Friday night, Facebook suspended the account of Cambridge Analytica, the political-data company backed by the billionaire Robert Mercer that consulted on both the Brexit and Trump campaigns.

The action came just before The Guardian and The New York Times dropped major reports in which the whistle-blower Christopher Wylie alleged that Cambridge Analytica had used data that an academic had allegedly improperly exfiltrated from the social network. These new stories, backed by Wylie’s account and internal documents, followed years of reporting by The Guardian and The Intercept about the possible problem.

The details could seem Byzantine. Aleksandr Kogan, then a Cambridge academic, founded a company, Global Science Research, and immediately took on a major client, Strategic Communication Laboratories, which eventually gave birth to Cambridge Analytica. (Steve Bannon, an adviser to the company and a former senior adviser to Trump, reportedly picked the name.)

The promise of Kogan’s company was that they could build psychological profiles of vast numbers of people by using Facebook data. Those profiles, in turn, might be useful to tune the political messages that Cambridge Analytica sent to potential voters. Perhaps a certain kind of message might appeal more to extroverts, or narcissists, or agreeable people.

To gather that data, the Times reports, Kogan hired workers through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to install a Facebook app in their accounts. The app, built by Global Science Research, requested an unusual (but not unheard-of) amount of data about users themselves and their friends. That’s how 270,000 Turkers ended up yielding 30 million profiles of American Facebook users that could be matched with other data sets.

From the current reporting, it seems that Kogan violated Facebook’s terms of service in saying he was using the data for academic research, but then selling it to Strategic Communications Laboratories. That’s what got Cambridge Analytica and Kogan in trouble. (Cambridge Analytica told The Guardian that they do not have possession of the data nor did they use any of this data in the 2016 election. An anonymous source in the Times story disputes this.)

There’s a lot about Cambridge Analytica that doesn’t quite add up. Are they data geniuses who swung the Brexit vote and got Trump elected, or pretenders bluffing their way to fat marketing contracts? Right after the election, several stories pointed to their psychological profiles of voters as a crucial piece of the Trump digital machine. As time has gone on, their role has come to be seen as less important, more in line with the tiny slice of the Trump campaign treasury that they got, roughly $6 million.

While the specifics of this particular violation are important to understand, the story reveals deeper truths about the online world that operates through and within Facebook.

First, some of Facebook’s growth has been driven by apps, which the company found extended the amount of time that people spent on the platform, as retired users of FarmVille could attest. To draw developers, Facebook had quite lax (or, as one might say, “developer-friendly”) data policies for years.

Academic researchers began publishing warnings that third-party Facebook apps represented a major possible source of privacy leakage in the early 2010s. Some noted that the privacy risks inherent in sharing data with apps were not at all clear to users. One group termed our new reality “interdependent privacy,” because your Facebook friends, in part, determine your own level of privacy.

For as long as apps have existed, they have asked for a lot of data and people have been prone to give it to them. Back in 2010, Penn State researchers systematically recorded what data the top 1,800 apps on Facebook were asking for. They presented their results in 2011 with the paper “Third-Party Apps on Facebook: Privacy and the Illusion of Control.” The table below shows that 148 apps were asking for permission to access friends’ information.

But that’s not the only way that friends leak their friends’ data. Take the example of letting an app see your photos. As the Penn State researchers show, all kinds of data can be harvested: who’s tagged in photos, who liked any of the pictures, who commented on them, and what they said.

If one were to systematically crawl through all the data that could be gleaned from just a user’s basic information, one could build a decent picture of that person’s social world, including a substantial amount of information about their friends.

Facebook has tightened up some of its policies in recent years, especially around apps accessing friends’ data. But TheGuardian’s reporting suggests that the company’s efforts to restuff Pandora’s box have been lax. Wylie, the whistleblower, received a letter from Facebook asking him to delete any Facebook data nearly two years after the existence of the data was first reported. “That to me was the most astonishing thing,” Wylie told The Guardian. “They waited two years and did absolutely nothing to check that the data was deleted. All they asked me to do was tick a box on a form and post it back.”

But even if Facebook were maximally aggressive about policing this kind of situation, what’s done is done. It’s not just that the data escaped, but that Cambridge Analytica almost certainly learned everything they could from it. As stated in The Guardian, the contract between GSR and Strategic Communications Laboratories states, specifically, “The ultimate product of the training set is creating a ‘gold standard’ of understanding personality from Facebook profile information.”

It’s important to dwell on this. It’s not that this research was supposed to identify every U.S. voter just from this data, but rather to develop a method for sorting people based on Facebook’s profiles. Wylie believes that the data was crucial in building Cambridge Analytica’s models. It certainly seems possible that once the “training set” had been used to learn how to psychologically profile people, this specific data itself was no longer necessary. But the truth is that no one knows if the Kogan data had much use out in the real world of political campaigning. Psychological profiling sounds nefarious, but the way that Kogan and Cambridge Analytica first attempted to do it may well have proven, as the company maintains, “fruitless.”

It’s possible that these new stories will cause Facebook to restrict the use of its data by people outside the company, including legitimate researchers. But that kind of self-imposed or external regulation would not strike at what’s actually scary about these efforts.

If Cambridge Analytica’s targeted advertising works, people worry they could be manipulated with information—or even thoughts—that they did not consent to giving anyone. And societally, a democracy running on micro-targeted political advertisements tuned specifically for ever tinier slices of the population is in trouble, as scholars like Zeynep Tufekci warned in 2012 (and in 2014).

Those two concerns extend far beyond Cambridge Analytica. In fact, the best system for micro-targeting ads, political or otherwise, to particularly persuadable segments of the population is Facebook itself. This is why Facebook’s market value is half a trillion dollars.

In Facebook’s ad system, there are no restrictions on sending ads to people based on any “targetable” attribute, like older men who are interested in the “Confederate States of America” and the National Rifle Association and who are “likely to engage with political content (conservative).”

That’s to say nothing of the ability to create databases of people from other sources—electoral rolls, data on purchasing habits or group affiliations, or anything gleaned by the hundreds of online data companies—then letting Facebook itself match those people up to their Facebook accounts. Facebook might never reveal the names in an audience to advertisers or political campaigns, but the effects are the same.

Facebook’s laxity and the researcher’s malfeasance are newsworthy. But is the problem with privacy-obviating social networks, psychological profiling, and political micro-targeting that some researcher violated Facebook’s terms of service? Or is it that this controversy estranges the whole enterprise, providing a route to approach the almost unthinkable changes that have come to democratic processes in the Facebook era?

Source

I used to work for a political party in Canada. All that stuff you’ve just mentioned we just used to do on foot by walking the streets of neighbourhoods.

I’m still having a tough time caring.

How long would it take you to canvass the entire population of one town, or indeed all of Canada? How would you be sure that people were giving honest answers? How long would it take you to correlate all the information into useful statistics? You don’t care because you don’t see.

Also be aware that Facebook (and Google) run scripts and cookies on pretty much every web page in existence. All of this information can be connected to all the other information already connected to a particular user. The more information the system has on individual habits and connections, the more able it is to create demographics and influence content, not only for an individual, but, more importantly, for demographics. This is how social media manipulation is able to leverage such influence of political/sociopolitical process. And that’s before companies like CA conspire to fabricate/construct content designed to sway voters/policy in a particular direction.

Since its beginnings in the 00s, I’ve told everyone who asked why I didn’t join about the potential for all this, the vast majority told me I was paranoid. It is that majority, I would imagine, that continue to use it because they do not care about or consider the implications.