or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 45  

post #661 of 21760
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Not quite. Privacy settings allow you dictate who can tag you in pictures/posts and, if you so choose, you can completely disable tagging.


The issue is with plain (excuse me) stupidity. A girl in the year above me here at pharm school posted a rant about one of her professors on FB. This professor is friends with a friend of hers, and saw the post. Of course, the girl was punished. However, who is truly at fault, FB or the girl?

Okay, I didn't know you could choose not to be tagged, but the picture itself will still be up, right?


The girl is responsible for her own opinions, there is no doubt about it. Was her rant meant to be private among friends or was it public? Did it include confidential stuff? Because, I can't say I agree with the professor punishing her for it. Understandable, yes, but not the optimal way to go.


Amidst all this paranoia, let's not forget that Facebook is only a tool, a service that can be used by you and against you.



Also, there is a research paper written by Whitten and Tygar, that is widely spread around in the computer science community concerning the easability of using security. It's called Why Johnny Can't Encrypt. I don't expect you to read it, but I did link to it, in case you are interested. I will however use it a bit here. Information security is not the primary objective for a personal computer, and it will never be, thus most people are concerned enough to use it properly. Security will always be secondary, and as another result, there is far too little studies and research done on how to make security an approachable and easy for most people. What Whitten and Tygar came to conclude in their study is that most security software and such, aren't too easy to use, and as a result of that - security (and privacy) will take a blow.


I think it's pretty applicable to Facebook as well. If their privacy and security options are tedious (as jgray said) or complex to use, a big chunk of people will automatically compromise it. I don't think it has to do with stupidity (although sometimes it does, human stupidity is the cause of many bad things) as much as it has to do with security awareness.

Edited by Coq de Combat - 9/17/12 at 3:42am
post #662 of 21760
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

You have to realize eke that is is very easy to hack facebook accounts. I know people who can easily do it and it's quite disturbing.


No, Lee. The only way a person can hack your account is by having physical access to your machine, and installing a keylogger that will record your keystrokes when you log in. Another method that could be tried is via a brute force dictionary attack, which will fail after a few attempts because FB will lock your account.


Putting "OMG I'm sooo totally gaaaayyyy, and I love peeniss" as a status update for a person who left their accounts logged in does not constitute "hacking."

post #663 of 21760

You'd be quite surprised eke by what hackers can do. Never say never. wink_face.gif

post #664 of 21760
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

You'd be quite surprised eke by what hackers can do. Never say never. wink_face.gif


Yes, but that clam has yet to be substantiated...or are you saying you've found a way to infiltrate Zuckerberg's servers, and steal information? 


I personally don't believe there's any incentive to hacking into FB. There's really no credit card info, except for the few that REALLY like farmville enough to pay for stuff using real money. AT most, you'll get some bragging rights.

post #665 of 21760

Of course I haven't lol. I don't deal in those kinds of things. I've hacked programs before (nVidia drivers, and removed protections from games that I own) but that's something different. I figure if I paid for an item and am being blocked from using it then hell ya I'm gonna do something about it. Especially when it comes to EAs stupid protections. I've had instances where I had multiple computer problems and my limit for reinstalling the game was up so I was blocked from doing so unless I got EAs permission? This was an instance where the very protections they implemented punished the paying customer....


I'm not saying that others haven't though ;). Remember the fiasco on the PlayStation networks? There are people out there that are a lot more capable than we'd give them credit for. It's quite scary when you think about it. Although it hasn't stopped me from conducting business online but I am always weary about it and try to be cautious.

Edited by lee730 - 9/17/12 at 5:05am
post #666 of 21760
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post

Personally I think Zuckerberg is a disconnected and insensitive person who has either never had anything to hide, or no empathy towards those who have things they want to keep personal. He has a reductionist view that increased transparency necessarily leads to increased tolerance, and he forwards his business interests by advancing the facile argument that people who act differently in different contexts are being dishonest. 

It behooves Zuckerburg and colleagues and rivals to emphasize that identity is a singular thing with a singular instantiation, because that's optimal for their business model.

It's rather adolescent, though. We don't even present singular identities to friends and family and colleagues, all of whom know us personally. We behave in faceted ways and there are many reasons to restrict our sharing with others purely to our commonalities, and this has nothing to do with self-incrimination; most of my friends are bored to tears when I talk about audio equipment, for example.
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

I think because of this meet I may have set myself up for more hate from my wallet. I've already started looking around on Amazon and the FS forums for the DT990 600 ohm version

Any reason to aim at the 600 Ohm version specifically? It doesn't seem necessary to me unless you've got a production studio headphone amp, or a home receiver, or something like.
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

I personally don't believe there's any incentive to hacking into FB. There's really no credit card info, except for the few that REALLY like farmville enough to pay for stuff using real money. AT most, you'll get some bragging rights.

For whatever it's worth, transaction records on in-game sales are kept on the respective game company's server's. So that's up to Zynga, not Facebook, to keep secure.
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

Remember the fiasco on the playstation networks? There are people out there that are a lot more capable than we'd give them credit for. It's quite scary when you think about it.

You're being pretty silly about Facebook right now. Paranoid fantasies about the seekrit haxx0r eleet who can go anywhere and do anything and want to mess you up just for lulz are unhelpful and misled.

I have no love for Facebook and their conduct, and prefer to stay off the site. To quote somebody else in their moment of wisdom: "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."

I also know them as a company that's taken data security seriously after their initial growth has stabilized, and most of the data attacks that have worked in the past are easily rebuffed these days. However. People tend to use bad, easily-guessable passwords, reuse them from site-to-site, and this makes it trivially easy for the login and account data used on one compromised site to be reused to attack other sites. This has always been, and always will be, the critical means by which any specific individual's account can be compromised.

Now, Facebook's interest in security is as much on your behalf as potentially against your better interests: Every website with a Facebook "Like" button tracks your visit and correlates it with your account (if you have one, and have logged into it with the browser in use). Their demographic information extends far beyond users' conduct on their site, and their usefulness as a data resource to marketers rivals only Google's. Personally I find this unsavory on both Facebook's and Google's parts. I also find it easily defeatable, but that does not even require scriptkiddy-grade l33tness; just use Firefox or Chrome and relevant preconfigured plug-ins.
post #667 of 21760

I could see someone wanting to hack FB for the sake of getting email addresses and passwords to try on other sites since most people use the same info everywhere.  Hackers already do that with message boards -- they find some way to get data off the server and decrypt the password log.  I'm sure FB is really secure and the repercussions of hacking its database would be severe, but authoritatively stating no one could get your password there without a keylogger is a bit naive.

post #668 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

I'm not saying that everything was perfect for women's right 100 or 200 years ago in the developed world, because it sure as hell wasn't, but there were times in the past when women had it far worse.  Sure somebody wrote something amazingly misogynistic and maybe even had some legitimacy but common practice wasn't as bad as that summary you gave.  Maybe women were expected and socially pressured to marry young, have babies, be mothers, and seen as inferior to men but fathers didn't sell their daughters to other men to cement business relations between the two families or something.


My exact analogy was a pot full of dirt and fertilizer.  While this doesn't and isn't intended excuse the kind of treatment that women received at the time, allow me to extend this analogy by saying that, "generally unfit for any role besides gardening" is still a promotion from being the pot.  They both suck and are horrible ways to treat a person but one is certainly worse.


Or am I wrong on a specific fact?  Has history been whitewashed enough that I missed out on the fact that women were treated as chattel more recently in western history than I realized since I haven't studied this specific question?



The problem with metaphor in describing the situation of human beings is that such situations can't be reduced to those terms. On the one hand, I know what you're saying with regard to the whole fertilizer / pot / gardening thing, but on the other hand I think you're cutting the lines of distinction a bit too sharply. In my opinion the "pot < role as a gardner" thing simply doesn't work. First, because one can just as easily dehumanize / objectify someone by classifying them as an animal (sub-human), and do animals not also have roles tending to their young (what I assume you mean by gardening)? I'm assuming that is the main difference between being the pot and being the gardener, the ability to have some kind of role and not simply sit there, yes? Actually, it was during the Edwardian era where women were told to just sit at home and sew, expected to not take part in society beyond their own closed, ultimately irrelevant and quaint niche, and by contrast in ancient Israel, in "biblical days," women were in charge of the household finances and procurement of goods.


Another issue is that we were originally talking about *viewpoints* and not necessarily societal norms, which undoubtedly are shaped by viewpoints but still do not fully encapsulate them. I originally said "one doesn't have to go that far back to find those types of views" not "one doesn't have to go that far back to find women treated like chattel / flower pots / inanimate objects in society." Is it that unreasonable to think there were still men around the turn of the century that considered women as such, even if they were forced to conform to social norms outwardly? I don't think so, because one can find these types of ideas and expressions in their writings across various disciplines, sometimes subtly and othertimes not-so-subtly.


Again, I'm talking about objectification of women as an operative worldview, which is why I continue to point to the denying of women's subjecthood / subjectivity. When you deny a person this, they no longer have that uniquely human quality of self-understanding or self-determination and are, in fact, reduced to mere animals.


As for modern society and social issues, again, it's going to largely depend on how you draw the lines of distinction. FGM, foot-binding and other forced modifications, force-feeding (believe it or not, there's a tribe in Africa which force-feeds young girls until they've fattened up to the standards of the men in the tribe), forced abortions, etc. etc. Not to mention rape statistics (rape is, after all, mostly about control). I'll stick with the first example of FGM however. Do a search for some of the statistics, and they might surprise you. Here's the first hit from a google search: 




Though I cite these things with hesitancy, because I know someone will see them and accuse me of selective reading, saying I'm ignoring all the awful things that happen to men. I'm most certainly not ignoring them, and I'm most certainly aware men are mutilated and raped (and it often goes unreported for a variety of reasons). I'm not trying to deny such things, but rather mentioning instances of women being denied a voice and treated as sub-human which still go on today in various societies, not all of which are developing. It's not as much of a fringe as one might think.


Also I'm by no means denying that, in general, things have improved for women over time tremendously, and that society today on average is much more progressive. That was never a point of disagreement for me.

Edited by MuppetFace - 9/17/12 at 5:48am
post #669 of 21760
Thread Starter 

I kind of like the way to new iPod Nano looks. Especially in green. Hmm...


I've also been thinking about switching back to a desktop for home use a while and leaving my MacBook Pro in my office on campus. I'd probably get the "12-Core" Mac Pro for the sake of overkill.

Edited by MuppetFace - 9/17/12 at 6:17am
post #670 of 21760
Originally Posted by jgray91 View Post

I'm having trouble understanding that little quote from the New Yorker. Is he (Zuckers) disappointed or something? I also can't understand his view in that. May I have the link for the interview?


I think Zucker's is sad and disappointed where people live in a world where people have things to hide. (Heavens no!)


Here is a link to the full article / interview which is quite a good read: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas?currentPage=all


Here's also the full quote in the contest of the article:




Zuckerberg’s critics argue that his interpretation and understanding of transparency and openness are simplistic, if not downright naïve. “If you are twenty-six years old, you’ve been a golden child, you’ve been wealthy all your life, you’ve been privileged all your life, you’ve been successful your whole life, of course you don’t think anybody would ever have anything to hide,” Anil Dash, a blogging pioneer who was the first employee of Six Apart, the maker of Movable Type, said. Danah Boyd, a social-media researcher at Microsoft Research New England, added, “This is a philosophical battle. Zuckerberg thinks the world would be a better place—and more honest, you’ll hear that word over and over again—if people were more open and transparent. My feeling is, it’s not worth the cost for a lot of individuals.”


Zuckerberg and I talked about this the first time I signed up for Facebook, in September, 2006. Users are asked to check a box to indicate whether they’re interested in men or in women. I told Zuckerberg that it took me a few hours to decide which box to check. If I said on Facebook that I’m a man interested in men, all my Facebook friends, including relatives, co-workers, sources—some of whom might not approve of homosexuality—would see it.

“So what did you end up doing?” Zuckerberg asked.

“I put men.”

“That’s interesting. No one has done a study on this, as far as I can tell, but I think Facebook might be the first place where a large number of people have come out,” he said. “We didn’t create that—society was generally ready for that.” He went on, “I think this is just part of the general trend that we talked about, about society being more open, and I think that’s good.”


Then I told Zuckerberg that, two weeks later, I removed the check, and left the boxes blank. A couple of relatives who were Facebook friends had asked about my sexuality and, at that time, at least, I didn’t want all my professional sources to know that I am gay.

“Is it still out?” Zuckerberg asked.

“Yeah, it’s still out.”

He responded with a flat “Huh,” dropped his shoulders, and stared at me, looking genuinely concerned and somewhat puzzled. Facebook had asked me to publish a personal detail that I was not ready to share.


Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

I don't know what to make of that picture..


It reminds me of something though.  A few days ago I was at a friend's house and he was telling me about the new gun he bought, the special ammo that doesn't go through walls, self defense technique and what not.  He ended up showing me a video on youtube.  It was a dash cam from a cop car that showed an officer getting shot to death because he hesitated and the whole incident was something used as a case study in police training.  Anyway, all the recommended videos were more cop car dash cams except for one...


She's everywhere!

post #671 of 21760
pon pon pon.
post #672 of 21760
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

I've also been thinking about switching back to a desktop for home use a while and leaving my MacBook Pro in my office on campus. I'd probably get the "12-Core" Mac Pro for the sake of overkill.


I've been in computer upgrade limbo for a while. My mid 2010 MBP is okay, but I really would love a quad core machine and I'm itching to go back to a desktop again. Between waiting for the new iMacs / Mac Pro's and eyeing the rMBP, its frustrating that it takes 2 hours to render a 10 minute video.

post #673 of 21760
I like the Retina Display MBP, but I do have to qualify that: It's not so great for video watching and probably not for gaming.

High-res videos can have obvious frameskips because the computer's struggling to keep all the extra pixels up to date. Not too disruptive for me; I don't watch that many videos, and the ones I watch are usually on an external display where there's no problem. But your mileage etc.
post #674 of 21760
post #675 of 21760
One of the things I very much dislike about my job is that I'm expected to be the corporate network police - and that goes against everything I personally believe in. The corporate world wants their salaried employees to be tethered to their computers 24/7/365 via laptops, WWAN, smart phones, etc, etc - yet the corporation ALSO says that anything you do using company provided HW/SW is fair game for monitoring & eavesdropping. In the USA, there is NO right to privacy when using a company computer, phone or internet connection. Personally, I'm a Cory Doctorow fan, but professionally, I have to tell employees that I can and will read their emails and anything they post or fetch while using the corporate network or company-supplied HW/SW. Of course, we don't *actually* do any monitoring (who the he11 has time for that?!?) but I'm still expected to be able to do it when requested. My advice is not to ever make the mistake of treating your work laptop as your personal computer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2