3
Showing posts with label Social Network. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Network. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Oscars.."The King's Speech" overkill upsets race?










As the countdown for the upcoming Oscar celebrations wind to a close, slick promos for "The King's Speech" have revved up to a fever pitch.

Uh-huh!

Blockbuster ads have sputtered to life in rich media all over the blogosphere - and on high-brow show-biz terrain exclusive to the mainstream all across the country - as studio brass rubs their hands with glee over the truckload of nods which include Best Director, Best Actor, Best Film, and-so-forth-and-so-on.

In addition, the brokers behind-the-scenes have seen fit to trot out the stars of the flick in a media blitz, in a bold-faced effort to rustle up sales at the box office.

And, for Academy consideration, of course!

Strike while the iron is hot.

Go figure!

But, one has to wonder amidst all the hoopla, if the dizzying overkill may prove fatal at the glitzy Kodak Theatre in Hollywood come Oscar Night?

Only the "Social Network" knows for sure, folks!

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz




Best Actor Noms

Monday, September 6, 2010

Facebook...Mark Zuckerberg & Social Network crosses privacy line! Again!



After catching a preview of the upcoming feature film "The Social Network" - which is the tawdry tale about the unscrupulous young entrepreneur who allegedly stole the idea for "Facebook" from his best friend in College - I've been pretty much decided that the folks were run the social hub are true scumbags.

For starters, the brass at the company - which is finally earning a profit hand-over-fist after many lean years (despite the networking giant's popularity) - don't give a damn about a member's right to privacy.

Indeed, in recent years, Facebook appears tobe the only company on the Internet facing widespread criticism on the issue.

Is the owner of Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) really that clueless?

Or, does he just feign ignorance, in a deceitful effort to push the privacy limits?

What is obvious to most in respect to individual rights, fails to utter up a blip on the radar at Facebook headquarters.

In spite of continued protests - and bad press - Zuckerberg continues to slap  members in the face.

Recently, I have been hot under-the-collar over so-called security measures they implemented to ensure that individuals who check in from Wi-Fi hot spots around the Nation when they are on vacation or a business trip out-of-town - are "who" they allege they are with a right to access their account.

For instance, I encountered a lot of hooey when I attempted to log on from a cafe in San Francisco, in spite of the fact I inputted my correct ID and password.

Once the data was  keyed in, an unexpected pop-up dialogue informed me that since I was checking in from a location which was not my normal log-in site, they required that I identify "friends" circled in photographs "lifted" from my Facebook page.

As I noted in my previous post, Facebook proceeded to select images of "friends" of "friends" who I was not familiar with by "sight".

How was I expected to name a total stranger I never met before?

Needless to say, they were obviously embarrassed by the goof  - because they proceeded to not only ignore my e-mail communications - but the post as well.

Post: 08/18/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/facebookstupid-security-measures.html

However, at this juncture, the fishing expedition shifted into a more sinister mode.

When I attempted to log in today, for instance, Facebook offered up two options to verify my identity.

I could continue the process of photo identification (a waste of  valuable time) or input a code they would provide by e-mail or telephone call.

Say what?

Since I did not provide Facebook with any current land-line telephone number, my antennae suddenly went up.

Did the staff think that I wanted to be bothered on my personal phone line with such nonsense?

Needless to say, their latest attempt to intrude - and secure confidential contact information by deceitful surreptitious means - is highly suspect.

Why didn't they try to reach me by normal means - by e-mail communication - for instance?

It's never failed before!

Clearly, this was a diabolical ploy to obtain my private telephone number, so they could turn around and pass it out to - pushy advertisers, snake-oil salesmen, singles club floggers  - you name it.

Does Facebook honestly think that I have nothing better to do than answer telephone calls from  slimy bozos like that throughout the day and long into the night after the dishes from the supper hour have been stowed away?

Go fly a kite, Zucker!




a**hole!


Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Twitter...synonym?



A synonym for Twitter?
A cluster fu**


Julian Ayrs
The Daily Planet
Collection of Poems
&
Truisms

http://www.julianayrs.com

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Facebook...terms of use changed in wake of protests!



When FACEBOOK announced in a press release the other day that terms of use at the interactive social hub were being changed - and that content on the web site would be viewed as the property of the site providers - a thought crossed my mind.



"Oh, oh! Folks ain't gonna like that."



Curiously, over the past few days, I haven't heard a peep out of a multitude of Facebook-savvy "friends".



Have they been holding back on their "secret passionate thoughts" for fear FACEBOOK staff will squirrel 'em away for future posterity?



On the heels of that startling news - and the uproar that erupted thereafter on the blogosphere and throughout civilized parts of the known world - FACEBOOK did an about - um - face!



Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg assured concerned FACEBOOK members that the company was revising its policies this week in respect to the "Governing Document" which dictates the terms of use.



Feedback from the 170 million or so users at the trendy Internet watering hole is welcome, the pimply-faced CEO was quick to note for the record.



Some breathed a sigh of relief.



A content of a post on Zuckerberg's blog - during the throes of the controversy in recent days - disturbed die-hard fans, after all.



The chief's pollyanna attitude - "just trust us" - didn't fly with many!



But, there was a silver lining to the whole fiasco.



In the aftermath of the avalanche of protests, FACEBOOK has taken up the arduous task of zealously crafting a spirited "Bill of Rights" to facilitate the sharing of information in the future.



"We need a license in order to help share information with your friends, but we don't claim to own your information."



The way the unexpected "take over" of data came down - and was summarily abandoned by virtue of a hasty retreat - remains highly suspect to a posse of industry-insiders.



Harvard Professor Harry Lewis - who teaches in the field of Computer Science - was in accord with analysts who opined on the issue.



"People will have legitimate suspicions until they see the result."



Something tells me - no matter how the issue is ultimately resolved by FACEBOOK - that Big Brother is still watching.



Welcome to an Internet version of George Orwell's 1984.










http://www.julianayrs.com



 
coompax-digital magazine