Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Joonsik Yoon
Joonsik's interests
View all
Joonsik's posts

Post has attachment
"Comey said that Americans are wrong to think that the “government is sweeping up all of our communications” because “that’s not true.”

“Perhaps it’s time to suggest that the post-Snowden pendulum has swung too far in one direction — in a direction of fear and mistrust,” Comey said. “It is time to have open and honest debates about liberty and security.”"

This is why Comey or the FBI, or anyone else in U.S. federal government cannot be trusted right now on privacy. Statements such as this, full of untruths and misleading assertions. Comey is either lying or is completely ignorant of the issues involved.

We know the U.S. government is actually "sweeping up all of our communications", and on a scale we never even imagined. Snowden has provided ample proof of this, none of which has been successfully refuted by the state.

And it is the federal government that is not only unwilling to have an "open and honest debates about liberty and security", but is actively preventing it by claiming national security to prevent any openness on the subject. Law enforcement around the U.S. is engaged in utmost secrecy in using all kinds of spying technology to snoop on private citizens with little to no oversight, asserting coercive powers they should have no right to in a free society. But Comey claims we should trust them, just because.

The likes of Lockheed Martin have good reason to fear Chinese hackers and spies, but the only hackers private citizens should fear other than criminals, are those working for the U.S. government paid to spy on their own citizens.

Post has shared content

Post has attachment
Basically, American cops are no different from thugs with badges in Russia, Egypt and Iran. What a company to keep...

Post has shared content
It's like the Universe is yelling at the U.S. going, "What are you people doing?!"
"There’s only so much you can do holding up your hands against structural and long-term racial problems, that Ferguson has clearly shown. This is the end of post-racialism. The question is, is it the beginning of something else?" asks law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, founder of The African American Policy Forum.


Post has attachment
"These effects are not mere blackboard theory. Countries such as France, Spain and Italy that have shunned labour market flexibility have paid a high price."

This seems like a really weak and highly selective argument to support their thesis. What about other European countries who have "shunned labour market flexibility", like Germany?

The proposed solution, more education and training, is also naive at best. What is the evidence that sufficient numbers of the low-skilled can be sufficiently trained to make the labour market transition the authors propose? And the capitalist response to rising wages in low-skilled work has always been to automate to make labour redundant, not increase wages. Why would that mode of operation and thinking change now?

These authors are two of the smartest men in their fields, but their policy-making smacks of as much blind ideology as the rest of them.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
This would be really awesome if you could connect a mechanical-switch keyboard to the iPad to use it. Still not the same as an actual typewriter, but it would be pretty close.

Post has attachment
What these stories overlook is the fact that the reason they resonate with the public is that despite the PR BS Comcast puts out, these are typical experiences for customers of Comcast. And if they are typical, you can't say that Comcast doesn't want their customers to have these experiences. Not that they do, but they clearly don't care what experiences customers have! They only care about bad publicity when it happens. Otherwise they would put processes in place to make sure these kinds of shenanigans don't happen.

And exactly what value is an apology from Comcast anyway? Do they think a "my bad" makes the Universe all wonderful again, or give back hours of the customer's life they've wasted? This is why business needs proper regulation and consumer protection. Nothing says a corporation is sorry like having to pay a huge fine.

Post has attachment
I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone. If anyone has used Office for iPad, they would know the reason why it is not a revenue driver for Microsoft: it's not that good.

Let me explain that rather provocative statement. Office for iPad is actually a pretty good version of the software. Especially if you're used to the clunky software Microsoft likes to put out. But it's not that much more functional, if at all, than Google Docs or other comparable software you can get on the iPad. Since Office for iPad cannot match the full PC/Mac version of Office for functionality, it's not clear to me why you would pay for the edit capability when you can create documents for free with Google Docs. If you're concerned about full Word/Excel/PowerPoint compatibility, you're probably no better off with Office for iPad, since any format fine-tuning would still be necessary on a PC version anyway with Office for iPad or Google Docs.

It is possible that Office for iPad will eventually get more and more functional to the point that it can replace the use of PC/Mac, but that kind of misses a large part of the attraction of an iPad over a full-PC: it's much less fuss to use. That's a large part of what Microsoft seems to miss with its Surface. Lack of functionality is a compromise, but so is increasing complexity.

The attraction of Office for iPad lies not in generating new sales, but in adding yet another factor in Office's favour when competing against Google Docs and other potential competition for office productivity software. That will mean a few new conquests in people who might be willing to pay for Office over free Docs given the myriad options and function. But mostly, it will mean keeping paying customers who might otherwise have defected to free or cheaper alternatives.

Post has attachment
I don't know if this is any more or less ethical than Facebook; they're both sleazy. But it does seem to be more criminal, since doesn't this service charge people for getting matched to people? They are saying that they deliberately set out to provide something other than what they promised they would to paying customers. That seems like fraud to me.
Wait while more posts are being loaded