41075701
submission
cayenne8 writes:
I've been a staunch advocate of NOT joining Facebook or Twitter or the other social networks to protect my privacy and to not voluntarily give all my personal information away to corporate America, or even the Government.
However, I'm beginning to look into making money through various means on the side, one of them being photography/videography. With these mediums, being seen is critically important. Having a business facing site on Facebook/Google+ and even using Twitter can be great for self promotion, and can open up your business to a huge audience.
If you were to open your FB and other social network accounts with business ONLY information, and keep your personal information (name, image, etc) off the facebook account...will this keep your personal privacy still from them, or are their algorithms good enough to piece together who you are from the business only sites?
Is the payoff worth the potential tradeoff for generating potential customers for your business and guiding them to your primary website?
30784503
submission
cayenne8 writes:
The JOBS Act bill, passed in the house, has stalled in the senate. One section of this bill, which would legalize "Crowdsourcing" in the US, as it is in other countries, allowing companies and startups (like indie film makers) to solicit investments for profit over the internet. This differs from sites like Kickstart, which allow you to only donate money, in that this bill will allow the common citizen to invest for potential profit ($10K or 10% of income for investor limits) in new ideas and companies. Surely this could help jumpstart the economy, and get ideas off the ground quickly, and allow the common man to take some risks and make a little profit. I'm guessing there are plenty of Slashdotters out there with the ideas and skills, that this type of program could help.
3833183
submission
cayenne8 writes:
I'm wanting to experiment at home with setting up multiple VMs and installing sofware such as Oracle's RAC. While I'm most interested at this time with trying things with Linux and Xen, I'd also like to experiment with things such as VMWare and other applications (yes, even maybe a windows 'box' in a VM).
My main question is, what to try to get for hardware? While I have some money to spend, I don't want to, or need to, be laying out serious bread on server room class hardware. Are there some used boxes, say on eBay to look for? Are there any good solutions for new consumer level hardware that would be strong enough from someone like Dell? I'd be interested in maybe getting some bare bones boxes from NewEgg or TigerDirect even.
What kind of box(es) would I need? Would a quad core type processor in one box be enough? Are there cheap blade servers out there I could get and wire up? Is there a relatively cheap shared disk setup I could buy or put together? I'd like to have something big and strong enough to do at least a 3 node Oracle RAC for an example, running ASM, and OCFS.
583664
submission
cayenne8 writes:
Ok, this is interesting. At the Digital Living Room conference recently, Gerard Kunkel, Comcast's senior VP of user experience stated that the cable company is experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who's in your living room — According to this article from Newteevee.com. They're experimenting with cameras on the settop boxes that while apparently NOT using facial recognition software, can still somehow figure out who is in the room, and customize user preferences for cable (favorite channels, etc).
While this sounds 'handy', it also sounds a bit like the tv sets in 1984, where Big Brother watches you, as you watch tv. I am sure, of course, that Comcast wouldn't tap into this for any reason, nor let the authorities tap into this to watch inside your home in real time without a warrant or anything.
I don't think even my tinfoil hat would help with this...
246589
submission
cayenne8 writes:
Way back when (2000), during that election, there were some sites set up (voteswap.com and votexchange.com) for people across the nation to agree to swap votes. This was set up mostly for Nader and Gore voters to work against Bush.
California representatives threatened to proscute these sites as criminal offenses, and many of them shut down. On Monday, the 9th US court of appeals upheld that "the websites' vote-swapping mechanisms as well as the communication and vote swaps they enabled were constitutionally protected" and California's spurious threats violated the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit also said the threats violated the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause."
See the story HERE .
