2014-10-29
Amoron companies - don't do business with them.
Found this off some blog - study the list and avoid them. Doing business with them only helps them become an even bigger Monopsonist than they already are.
Microfibers - the other massive thing fucking up the planet's oceans.
Except evidently it's a problem no one wants to talk about, let alone do something about -
" Browne’s 2011 paper announcing his findings marked a milestone, according to Abigail Barrows, an independent marine research scientist based in Stonington, Maine, who has helped to check for plastic in more than 150 one-liter water samples collected around the world. “He’s fantastic – very well respected” among marine science researchers, says Barrows. “He is a pioneer in microplastics research.”
By sampling wastewater from domestic washing machines, Browne estimated that around 1,900 individual fibers can be rinsed off a single synthetic garment - ending up in our oceans.
Alarmed by his findings, Browne reached out to prominent clothing brands for help. He sought partnerships to try to determine the flow of synthetic fibers from clothing to the washing machine to the ocean. He also hoped his research might help develop better textile design to prevent the migration of toxic fibers into water systems.
He contacted leaders in the outdoor apparel industry - big purveyors of synthetic fabrics - including Patagonia, Nike and Polartec. But none of these companies agreed to lend support."
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/27/toxic-plastic-synthetic-microscopic-oceans-microbeads-microfibers-food-chain?curator=MediaREDEF
" Browne’s 2011 paper announcing his findings marked a milestone, according to Abigail Barrows, an independent marine research scientist based in Stonington, Maine, who has helped to check for plastic in more than 150 one-liter water samples collected around the world. “He’s fantastic – very well respected” among marine science researchers, says Barrows. “He is a pioneer in microplastics research.”
By sampling wastewater from domestic washing machines, Browne estimated that around 1,900 individual fibers can be rinsed off a single synthetic garment - ending up in our oceans.
Alarmed by his findings, Browne reached out to prominent clothing brands for help. He sought partnerships to try to determine the flow of synthetic fibers from clothing to the washing machine to the ocean. He also hoped his research might help develop better textile design to prevent the migration of toxic fibers into water systems.
The reaction wasn’t what he expected.
He contacted leaders in the outdoor apparel industry - big purveyors of synthetic fabrics - including Patagonia, Nike and Polartec. But none of these companies agreed to lend support."
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/27/toxic-plastic-synthetic-microscopic-oceans-microbeads-microfibers-food-chain?curator=MediaREDEF
2014-10-28
NASA contracting out space voyages ...
... how's that working out for them, you may ask?
Well ...
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Rocket-bound-for-space-station-explodes-5854450.php
"By hiring private companies, NASA hoped to reduce costs, improve efficiency and spur a new commercial space agency, and it has taken a similar approach toward launching its astronauts in the future.
Last month, NASA awarded contracts to SpaceX and Boeing to take astronauts to the space station beginning as early as 2017.
However, the failure of the Orbital rocket will likely raise questions about whether NASA has done enough to ensure the reliability of the rockets."
Uh no. It's Orbital's rocket, it's their responsibility to ensure their rocket's reliability.
Well ...
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Rocket-bound-for-space-station-explodes-5854450.php
Rocket bound for space station explodes
Conveniently the article directs the right question to the wrong entity -"By hiring private companies, NASA hoped to reduce costs, improve efficiency and spur a new commercial space agency, and it has taken a similar approach toward launching its astronauts in the future.
Last month, NASA awarded contracts to SpaceX and Boeing to take astronauts to the space station beginning as early as 2017.
However, the failure of the Orbital rocket will likely raise questions about whether NASA has done enough to ensure the reliability of the rockets."
Uh no. It's Orbital's rocket, it's their responsibility to ensure their rocket's reliability.
Fucked up picture of the day
Got this off someone's web browser favorites -
Can you say ... religious gun nut?
Can you say ... religious gun nut?
2014-10-27
Nonviolent Tactics Most Effective eh?
Interesting.
Link from the article - http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141540/erica-chenoweth-and-maria-j-stephan/drop-your-weapons
Link from the article - http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141540/erica-chenoweth-and-maria-j-stephan/drop-your-weapons
- Nonviolent movements were found to attract more people and be more powerful than violent ones—11 times bigger and twice as effective against authoritarian rulers. Co-author Erica Chenoweth remarks, "People power is really the main story here."
- Including people from different backgrounds (gender, socio-economic, and religious) also led to a higher likelihood of accomplishing an end goal.
- Utilizing a diversity of nonviolent tactics was found to be more compelling because it stretched thin the resources for quelling a movement. Scholar Gene Sharp cataloged 198 tactics which have since been added to with tools such as social media.
- It was also helpful for those involved to have a longer outlook; the average length of time the movements lasted was almost three years.
- In cases where the campaign fails, the study found that nonviolent movements were still more likely (four times as compared to violent campaigns) to eventually democratize, which was attributed to experiences in mobilization and coalition building.
2014-10-26
Open letter to IT recruiters
I'm not interested in doing your job for you.
What do I mean by that? Some background -
Even though I haven't updated my resume in a long time, it's out there on a number of different sites (all the big ones, CareerBuilder, Monster, DICE, LinkedIn, etc.), and because my primary role in IT is testing solutions, software and systems - regardless of what managers and agile proponents will tell you - testing is a human (thinking and acting) activity that's an integral part of any application solution life cycle , as well as constantly validating all business requirements.
So consequently, that need, 'needs' to be constantly filled by projects and initiatives who are falling apart and think testing or QA will magically makes things all right (that fact that testing is largely based on studying and asking questions about what the solutions and observing the answers by rationality, observation, logic, and fact; and isn't about exclusively solving problems, but rather lighting the way to solving problems is usually lost on people who don't know how software is built and subsequently, think QA can magically make everything all right, but I digress).
And by this, what happens is I get tons of emails requests from recruiters looking for testers or QA people. I even get tons of requests for automation testing (because these people, like many IT managers, believe that it's cheaper and just as effective to 'automate' all testing - as if somehow all testing can be replicated by something else cheaper and quicker and achieve the same results. Yes these people are deluded because software doesn't think - it only does what it's programmed to do. It isn't alive.). Of course most corporations want to get a lot of work for a low-ball amount, and on top of that, they are usually contract roles, or the infamous 'contract-to-hire' role. QA is one of those essential roles in IT that never gets the respect it's due because when it's done right it usually involves honesty and integrity and it's value exposes the reality of what some solution really is doing, and really, managers would not someone in authority who uses scientific methods and evidence to start or stop something from moving forward.
All of this I can normally deal with.
I can even deal with ones that are contract, and on top of that are really describing two different roles in one. Having done essentially an 'individual contributor' hands-on role in addition to a lead role for the past three years and essentially only got paid for the former as opposed to the latter, it's not surprising.
However if there's one thing that really I find very annoying is when - in addition to some recruiter sending me some long-winded job description for a role I'm not interested in, at a rate that's far below what I'm currently making, in a place no where near where I live - they ask me to look for people with such skills and send their names to them.
They respond thus - 'Hope to hear from you or someone you know!'. To me this is akin to when you get something in the mail with your name and 'or current resident' or 'valued customer' listed on your address. Yeah, some company really cares enough about you to send something in the mail to you, but really they're just trying to get any fucking human being at that address to spend money on their shit.
No.
Bad enough I wasted my time reading through another stupid job role, that some recruiter thinks I'm going to do their work for them by reaching into my 'network' of friends and co-workers and bother to dump their shit onto them.
'We are moving quickly.' - If they are moving so quickly, why send this on a Saturday? That's usually a sign someone abruptly quit.
'If you or someone you know is interested please send us your c/v. ' - See my response above.
'Who you are:
You are a strong leader that believes leadership is a greater motivator than management. You value an environment where individuals are focused on a common goal; where collaboration and team success are revered over individual accolades. You are skilled at helping teams reach peak performance. You have a passion for continuous improvement in software development.'
My observation has been that 'strong leaders' generally people who have been there and have grown their capacity for making good decisions through experience, as opposed to being hired in as a contractor where they won't have neither the experience or authority in a new situation. Given in this case, this was sent to a place I know, I happen to know this is not the description of the environment at all. It's no different than any other IT shop. And everything in IT revolves around status and sucking up. I think this is in large part one of the reasons why testing is not very well regarded or respected, because it purports to tell people the facts. I always tell people, the first job of testing software isn't to tell you what it's supposed to do. The first job of software testing is to tell people what their software is doing.
'This role will:
'• Build and lead a team; inspiring team members to reach higher levels of performance through trust, delegation, participation and coaching' - see above, not usually achievable as a contractor.
'• Require a technical aptitude allowing you to be "hands on" with developer/engineer deliverables' - that's an individual contributor role, not one of management.
'• Develop strong relationships with key partners within IT and those outside of IT in order to achieve exceptional results' - contractors generally don't fare very well here, unless they happen to be a friend of one of the existing managers, which in it of itself is generally suspect.
'• Ensure team is resourced to support future growth' - can't usually do that as a contractor - no authority.
'• Work collaboratively as part of the larger IT leadership team on strategies, initiatives, standards and cross-team resource allocation/financial planning' - That's nice if you're an honest person. But thrown into environments where much as described above are where people routinely are more interested in their own status - such honesty usually ends up being consumed when useful, and discarded when it isn't. And I've observed that bullshitters aren't collaborators.
'• Regularly interact with other leaders on project status, priority setting, and resource allocations, as well as IT-wide efforts or policy-level decisions ' - AKA - micro manager.
What do I mean by that? Some background -
Even though I haven't updated my resume in a long time, it's out there on a number of different sites (all the big ones, CareerBuilder, Monster, DICE, LinkedIn, etc.), and because my primary role in IT is testing solutions, software and systems - regardless of what managers and agile proponents will tell you - testing is a human (thinking and acting) activity that's an integral part of any application solution life cycle , as well as constantly validating all business requirements.
So consequently, that need, 'needs' to be constantly filled by projects and initiatives who are falling apart and think testing or QA will magically makes things all right (that fact that testing is largely based on studying and asking questions about what the solutions and observing the answers by rationality, observation, logic, and fact; and isn't about exclusively solving problems, but rather lighting the way to solving problems is usually lost on people who don't know how software is built and subsequently, think QA can magically make everything all right, but I digress).
And by this, what happens is I get tons of emails requests from recruiters looking for testers or QA people. I even get tons of requests for automation testing (because these people, like many IT managers, believe that it's cheaper and just as effective to 'automate' all testing - as if somehow all testing can be replicated by something else cheaper and quicker and achieve the same results. Yes these people are deluded because software doesn't think - it only does what it's programmed to do. It isn't alive.). Of course most corporations want to get a lot of work for a low-ball amount, and on top of that, they are usually contract roles, or the infamous 'contract-to-hire' role. QA is one of those essential roles in IT that never gets the respect it's due because when it's done right it usually involves honesty and integrity and it's value exposes the reality of what some solution really is doing, and really, managers would not someone in authority who uses scientific methods and evidence to start or stop something from moving forward.
All of this I can normally deal with.
I can even deal with ones that are contract, and on top of that are really describing two different roles in one. Having done essentially an 'individual contributor' hands-on role in addition to a lead role for the past three years and essentially only got paid for the former as opposed to the latter, it's not surprising.
However if there's one thing that really I find very annoying is when - in addition to some recruiter sending me some long-winded job description for a role I'm not interested in, at a rate that's far below what I'm currently making, in a place no where near where I live - they ask me to look for people with such skills and send their names to them.
They respond thus - 'Hope to hear from you or someone you know!'. To me this is akin to when you get something in the mail with your name and 'or current resident' or 'valued customer' listed on your address. Yeah, some company really cares enough about you to send something in the mail to you, but really they're just trying to get any fucking human being at that address to spend money on their shit.
No.
Bad enough I wasted my time reading through another stupid job role, that some recruiter thinks I'm going to do their work for them by reaching into my 'network' of friends and co-workers and bother to dump their shit onto them.
So next time you send one of these stupid useless job description, I'm going to post them here and deconstruct and expose how stupidly their email and job was put together.
Let's start with one one from Ms. 'Hope to hear from you or someone you know!'. I've captured some of the salient points from the email and will illustrate here (in this case, it was for a contract-to-hire IT manager, yeah what an oxymoron) -
'We are moving quickly.' - If they are moving so quickly, why send this on a Saturday? That's usually a sign someone abruptly quit.
'If you or someone you know is interested please send us your c/v. ' - See my response above.
'Who you are:
You are a strong leader that believes leadership is a greater motivator than management. You value an environment where individuals are focused on a common goal; where collaboration and team success are revered over individual accolades. You are skilled at helping teams reach peak performance. You have a passion for continuous improvement in software development.'
My observation has been that 'strong leaders' generally people who have been there and have grown their capacity for making good decisions through experience, as opposed to being hired in as a contractor where they won't have neither the experience or authority in a new situation. Given in this case, this was sent to a place I know, I happen to know this is not the description of the environment at all. It's no different than any other IT shop. And everything in IT revolves around status and sucking up. I think this is in large part one of the reasons why testing is not very well regarded or respected, because it purports to tell people the facts. I always tell people, the first job of testing software isn't to tell you what it's supposed to do. The first job of software testing is to tell people what their software is doing.
'This role will:
'• Build and lead a team; inspiring team members to reach higher levels of performance through trust, delegation, participation and coaching' - see above, not usually achievable as a contractor.
'• Require a technical aptitude allowing you to be "hands on" with developer/engineer deliverables' - that's an individual contributor role, not one of management.
'• Develop strong relationships with key partners within IT and those outside of IT in order to achieve exceptional results' - contractors generally don't fare very well here, unless they happen to be a friend of one of the existing managers, which in it of itself is generally suspect.
'• Ensure team is resourced to support future growth' - can't usually do that as a contractor - no authority.
'• Work collaboratively as part of the larger IT leadership team on strategies, initiatives, standards and cross-team resource allocation/financial planning' - That's nice if you're an honest person. But thrown into environments where much as described above are where people routinely are more interested in their own status - such honesty usually ends up being consumed when useful, and discarded when it isn't. And I've observed that bullshitters aren't collaborators.
'• Regularly interact with other leaders on project status, priority setting, and resource allocations, as well as IT-wide efforts or policy-level decisions ' - AKA - micro manager.
2014-10-23
Fucking up Oregon - you go Monsanto ... right the fuck off.
Seriously? Corporations like Monsanto and on and on really don't want people in Oregon (or any other US state) to know their food is fucked up due to GMOs
Seems pretty hypocritical when you consider the other countries these corporations label -
Source: (Yes on 92)
Oh, and then there's this -
"With the battle over GMO labeling already raging in in Oregon, the Center for Food Safety made a stunning announcement this morning: GMO soy engineered by Monsanto for heavy pesticide exposure has been found in infant formula purchased in Portland.
This makes our mission crystal clear: Parents, and all consumers, have the RIGHT TO KNOW whether the food they’re buying, eating and feeding the most vulnerable members of their families is laced with genetically engineered ingredients!
Finding soy in infant formula that has been genetically engineered by Monsanto specifically to survive high levels of toxic chemical pesticides is exceptionally troubling – and it makes a powerful case for the GMO labeling that would happen under Measure 92."
Seems pretty hypocritical when you consider the other countries these corporations label -
Source: (Yes on 92)
Oh, and then there's this -
"With the battle over GMO labeling already raging in in Oregon, the Center for Food Safety made a stunning announcement this morning: GMO soy engineered by Monsanto for heavy pesticide exposure has been found in infant formula purchased in Portland.
This makes our mission crystal clear: Parents, and all consumers, have the RIGHT TO KNOW whether the food they’re buying, eating and feeding the most vulnerable members of their families is laced with genetically engineered ingredients!
Finding soy in infant formula that has been genetically engineered by Monsanto specifically to survive high levels of toxic chemical pesticides is exceptionally troubling – and it makes a powerful case for the GMO labeling that would happen under Measure 92."
Disturbing image of the day.
I responded to an email that via Outlook. The sender's original message contained attachments and my response was that I would take a look at them.
When I clicked Send, here's what came up -
Now developers think software should do our thinking for me? I have to admit, of all the strange disturbing things I saw regarding email at Microsoft, this pretty much tops most of them.
No wonder back then, people at Microsoft used to call it 'Look out'.
When I clicked Send, here's what came up -
Now developers think software should do our thinking for me? I have to admit, of all the strange disturbing things I saw regarding email at Microsoft, this pretty much tops most of them.
No wonder back then, people at Microsoft used to call it 'Look out'.
2014-10-22
Hey Hershey ...
Going forward I'm going to avoid eating your products whenever and wherever possible; and I'm going to recommend others to do the same - why?
This is what high fructose corn syrup is -
"High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)—also called Glucose-Fructose in Canada,[1] Isoglucose, Glucose-Fructose Syrup or Fructose-Glucose Syrup in Europe[2][3][4] and High Fructose Maize Syrup in some countries—comprises any of a group of corn syrups that have undergone enzymatic processing to convert some of its glucose into fructose to produce a desired sweetness. Because of its low price compared to sugar,[5] HFCS is the predominant sweetener used in processed foods and beverages in the United States.[6] " (source Wikipedia).
- and not the shit you try to either side-step around, nor mention on your PR-written 'HFCS is good for you; buy our fucking products you moron customers' webpage.
This is what high fructose corn syrup is -
"High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)—also called Glucose-Fructose in Canada,[1] Isoglucose, Glucose-Fructose Syrup or Fructose-Glucose Syrup in Europe[2][3][4] and High Fructose Maize Syrup in some countries—comprises any of a group of corn syrups that have undergone enzymatic processing to convert some of its glucose into fructose to produce a desired sweetness. Because of its low price compared to sugar,[5] HFCS is the predominant sweetener used in processed foods and beverages in the United States.[6] " (source Wikipedia).
- and not the shit you try to either side-step around, nor mention on your PR-written 'HFCS is good for you; buy our fucking products you moron customers' webpage.
Seriously? $250K USD?
Maybe if I win the fucking lottery -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/10/22/retirement-savings-middle-class/17681877/
"Middle-class people in the USA have a median of $20,000 saved for retirement, far short of the $250,000 they think they'll need during that time of their lives, a new survey shows."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/10/22/retirement-savings-middle-class/17681877/
"Middle-class people in the USA have a median of $20,000 saved for retirement, far short of the $250,000 they think they'll need during that time of their lives, a new survey shows."
2014-10-21
2014-10-20
'Monopsony'? More like Moronicism.
Paul Krugman calls Amoron what they really are - a corporation abusing their market power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/opinion/paul-krugman-amazons-monopsony-is-not-ok.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk&wpmm=1&_r=0
Ah, but not a monopoly, but rather a monopsonist
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/opinion/paul-krugman-amazons-monopsony-is-not-ok.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk&wpmm=1&_r=0
In fact, it has systematically kept prices low, to reinforce its dominance. What it has done, instead, is use its market power to put a squeeze on publishers, in effect driving down the prices it pays for books —
Ah, but not a monopoly, but rather a monopsonist
Instead, it is acting as a monopsonist, a dominant buyer with the power to push prices down. And on that front its power is really immense — in fact, even greater than the market share numbers indicate.
2014-10-19
Next time I hear some white-bread feminist lament the imagery presented to women ...
... I am going to point them to this picture and say "This shit is marketed to you, not me."
2014-10-16
Interesting article about religions and atheism.
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/new-atheism-should-expand-its-horizons
The article talks about how religion or specifically the belief in a deity brings people a sense of control.
I've always felt that any ideology or belief system that operates in peoples' heads to such an extent as to compromise one's rational thought processes really is a control of sense.
Anyways, here's the best comment I see (seriously this should go on a t-shirt) -
The article talks about how religion or specifically the belief in a deity brings people a sense of control.
I've always felt that any ideology or belief system that operates in peoples' heads to such an extent as to compromise one's rational thought processes really is a control of sense.
Anyways, here's the best comment I see (seriously this should go on a t-shirt) -
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.
Insanity is believing your own hallucinations are real.
Religion is believing someone else's hallucinations are real."
When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.
Insanity is believing your own hallucinations are real.
Religion is believing someone else's hallucinations are real."
2014-10-15
2014-10-13
Hmm ... Seattle water not greasy enough for you? Why, add more Tesoro!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/13/seattle-s-tesoro-rail-facility-was-leaking-a-flammable-oil-byproduct-into-stormwater-system.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet&utm_campaign=CheatSheet%20%3A%20The%20Morning%20Scoop&via=desktop
Hmm ... good to the last oily drop.
Oil Tankers Leaking into Seattle’s Water
A
highly flammable byproduct flowed from oil tankers into an area
stormwater system for at least a year before state regulators inspected
the problem.
Hmm ... good to the last oily drop.
2014-10-09
Most hilarious comment I've seen on an article online yet.
"Yes it's true. This movie has no dick."
Hollywood to sink another film franchise into remake moronicism -
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/paul-feig-s-ghostbusters-3-to-star-hilarious-women-1.2793525
Doesn't anyone in entertainment or art have any original ideas that don't involve a ton of special effects, botox, crappy writing, terrible acting, and can appeal to all people, not just a particular group from largely one gender who pussy-whip their spouses and their children into theaters for this crap?
Hollywood to sink another film franchise into remake moronicism -
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/paul-feig-s-ghostbusters-3-to-star-hilarious-women-1.2793525
Doesn't anyone in entertainment or art have any original ideas that don't involve a ton of special effects, botox, crappy writing, terrible acting, and can appeal to all people, not just a particular group from largely one gender who pussy-whip their spouses and their children into theaters for this crap?
2014-10-08
Sigh - Nationals eliminated this year.
Now those steroid-driven Giants can face those cheating Cardinals.
I'm not bitter.
Really.
I'm not bitter.
Really.
2014-10-07
More frakenfood bullshit
Natural is NOT GMO-free.
http://www.greenerchoices.org/products.cfm?product=1014gmo&pcat=food
Seriously - just reading that first PDF link is scary. And to think corporations want Americans to be ignorant of what they are really eating.
And let's be clear about a few things.
If people don't want to know - or care what's in their food - that's their choice. So a label on a food product that says 'contains GMOs' shouldn't affect them.
And I for one am not claiming that having such a label on food products solves any sort of problem or somehow makes food automatically of higher quality - obviously it doesn't.
But that's not the reason why I support such a label.
I support labeling food that contains GMOs as such because I have a right to know so I can avoid them. I avoid them because none of these food product corporations have proven to me through any kind of adequate testing that it's safe.
http://www.greenerchoices.org/products.cfm?product=1014gmo&pcat=food
Seriously - just reading that first PDF link is scary. And to think corporations want Americans to be ignorant of what they are really eating.
And let's be clear about a few things.
If people don't want to know - or care what's in their food - that's their choice. So a label on a food product that says 'contains GMOs' shouldn't affect them.
And I for one am not claiming that having such a label on food products solves any sort of problem or somehow makes food automatically of higher quality - obviously it doesn't.
But that's not the reason why I support such a label.
I support labeling food that contains GMOs as such because I have a right to know so I can avoid them. I avoid them because none of these food product corporations have proven to me through any kind of adequate testing that it's safe.
Quote of the Day - 10-06-2014.
Courtesy - Jeff Ritterman, M.D.:
More about Monsanto's spray of death here -
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26614-monsanto-s-roundup-linked-to-cancer
The research shows that Roundup is linked to a host of cancers in those living in the heavily sprayed regions of Latin America. It has also been linked to B cell lymphoma, and to brain cancer.
More about Monsanto's spray of death here -
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26614-monsanto-s-roundup-linked-to-cancer
2014-10-06
Why do corporations have to be so blatantly dishonest ?
Look at this picture. The product being sold is clearly refers to three different fruit juices that are not the first ingredient - namely apple juice.
Why?
I don't claim to be so innocent - I admit I should've looked more closely at the ingredient list. It's just that when you grocery shop at a given business, you expect after awhile they can be largely trusted.
The fault I guess then really is mine then. Corporations cannot - and should never ever - be trusted.
Why?
I don't claim to be so innocent - I admit I should've looked more closely at the ingredient list. It's just that when you grocery shop at a given business, you expect after awhile they can be largely trusted.
The fault I guess then really is mine then. Corporations cannot - and should never ever - be trusted.
2014-10-04
Interesting article about Seattle and the NHL.
http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-expansion-roundtable-seattle/
Personally I'm partial to the name 'Seattle Rainiers'.
Personally I'm partial to the name 'Seattle Rainiers'.
The data breach corporations would rather you not think about.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/jpmorgan-discovers-further-cyber-security-issues/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
That's rich - this only came out because they were legally obligated to say this. Too bad for people like me that we find out months after-the-fact.
Still think your financial data is safe with these companies?
A cyberattack this summer on JPMorgan Chase compromised the accounts of 76 million households and seven million small businesses, a tally that dwarfs previous estimates by the bank and puts the intrusion among the largest ever.
The details of the breach — disclosed in a securities filing on Thursday — emerge at a time when consumer confidence in the digital operations of corporate America has already been shaken. Target, Home Depot and a number of other retailers have sustained major data breaches. Last year, the information of 40 million cardholders and 70 million others were compromised at Target, while an attack at Home Depot in September affected 56 million cards.
But unlike retailers, JPMorgan, as the largest bank in the nation, has financial information in its computer systems that goes beyond customers’ credit card details and potentially includes more sensitive data.
That's rich - this only came out because they were legally obligated to say this. Too bad for people like me that we find out months after-the-fact.
Still think your financial data is safe with these companies?
2014-10-02
"... moving the line forward."
Perhaps interesting lessons for people in general -
"Out of the latest round of public school bargaining, three lessons stand out. First, teacher unity and union solidarity made the difference. Second, the community supports public education, and people will back unions and political parties that stand up for popular public programs. Third, the best defence is offence. It's time to not just draw the line anymore, but to start moving the line forward."
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/09/19/BC-Teachers-Strike-Lessons/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=190914
"Out of the latest round of public school bargaining, three lessons stand out. First, teacher unity and union solidarity made the difference. Second, the community supports public education, and people will back unions and political parties that stand up for popular public programs. Third, the best defence is offence. It's time to not just draw the line anymore, but to start moving the line forward."
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/09/19/BC-Teachers-Strike-Lessons/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=190914
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)