"Fahlman is widely credited with inventing the keyboard-rendered facial expression. But as his emoticons gained traction on early computer systems, they took on emotional lives of their own. The frown emoticon that Fahlman pitched to mark a serious post “quickly evolved into a marker for displeasure, frustration, or anger,” Fahlman wrote. “Within a few months, we started seeing the lists with dozens of ‘smilies’: open-mouthed surprise, person wearing glasses, Abraham Lincoln, Santa Claus, the pope, and so on,” each of which conjured a slightly different vibe when deployed in a new context. Fahlman had devised the emoticons to help clarify the meaning of online texts. But he soon realized that the meanings of emoticons themselves were highly subjective. And that was before we started communicating our feelings through endless combinations of tiny, colorful images--pouting cats, silly ghosts, and grinning piles of poo."
15yr-old daughter and I recently had an emojimail exchange involving poo-heaps, fart-winds, etc. But, bizarrely, the one that made me laugh the most was the one she used as a 'conversation'-ender: an Easter Island head.
The stone-faced seriousji was the funniest.
So, yeah. Subjective.
"Just one ISP hit by a broad-ranging warrant has the potential to affect the privacy of millions of Americans.
"But when one Atlanta, Georgia-based Internet provider was served a top-secret data request, there wasn't a suited-and-booted federal agent in sight.
"Why? Because the order was served on a so-called "trusted third-party," which handles the request, served fresh from the secretive Washington D.C.-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court. With permission from their ISP customers, these third-parties discreetly wiretap their networks at the behest of law enforcement agencies, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and even intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA).
"By implementing these government data requests with precision and accuracy, trusted third-parties — like Neustar, Subsentio, and Yaana — can turn reasonable profits for their services.
"Little is known about these types of companies, which act as outsourced data brokers between small and major U.S. ISPs and phone companies, and the federal government."
"It's not hidden, but it's not visible."
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SCIENTIST PUNISHED FOR PUBLISHING RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF NEONICOTINOID INSECTICIDES ON POLLINATING INSECTS
"Dr. Jonathan Lundgren is a Senior Research Entomologist and Lab Supervisor for the USDA Agriculture Research Service based in South Dakota. His cutting-edge research has drawn national attention and international recognition. He has worked for USDA for eleven years with great success—until recently.On August 3, 2015, the USDA imposed a 14-day (reduced from 30 days) suspension on him in connection with two events:
"In private, however, commanders and intelligence officials are far more direct. They report that from the North Sea to Northeast Asia and even in waters closer to American shores, they are monitoring significantly increased Russian activity along the known routes of the cables, which carry the lifeblood of global electronic communications and commerce.
"Just last month, the Russian spy ship Yantar, equipped with two self-propelled deep-sea submersible craft, cruised slowly off the East Coast of the United States on its way to Cuba — where one major cable lands near the American naval station at Guantánamo Bay. It was monitored constantly by American spy satellites, ships and planes. Navy officials said the Yantar and the submersible vehicles it can drop off its decks have the capability to cut cables miles down in the sea."
SICK OF THE SHITTY,
Prepare to have your mind blown:
"Since the invention of a ground-breaking factoring algorithm by Peter Shor  in 1994 and the (not proven) availability
of quantum computer hardware capable of running the algorithm efficiently , , the scientific interest in finding a
“Post-Quantum Key Exchange” - a key exchange that resists quantum computer attacks, is immense. Shor’s algorithm
 is capable of factoring a number on quantum computer hardware with an execution time that is “only” polynomial
in the number of bits. The operating principle was first verified experimentally in 2001 .
"Quantum computers with approximately 512 qubits are now claimed to be available to companies like Lockheed
Martin and government agencies like the CIA, NSA and NASA  . This has fuelled speculations about the actual
code-breaking capabilities of government organizations like the NSA. In order to break keys with 2,048 bit key length,
approximately 6,150 qubits are although required. Quantum control and correction accounts for an even higher number
of qubits that are required to mount an attack on 2,048 bit keys so that, depending on the chosen strategy, 20,000 ..
332,100 qubits must be present. The output of the quantum computer is not the desired solution. An additional step using conventional computers with time complexity O(bits 3 ) is required to identify the actual key, provided the
quantum system finishes in coherent state. Decoherence (change of state caused by spontaneous decay or interaction
with the environment of a quantum system) drags the probability of the success of the quantum computation step down
as the quantum lifetime is limited by experimental conditions, and eventually by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
in general. This problem increases with increasing number of bits used for the encryption because the number of
quantum operations and, therefore, the computation time, increases with O(bits 3 ) as well. The greater the size of the key
that is attacked, the less the number of useful quantum computer results."
(Yes, the article has foot-notes. Deal with it.)
(Interesting opening gambit (for me, at least - I used to work / code in a SAP environment a few years ago when it was starting to look like a archaic-monolithic tech-architectural slab like the IBM mainframes I first worked on; but SAP have started re-positioning themselves as Big Data / flexible Big Search)):
"The global enterprise solutions provider SAP rebranded itself in 2010 with a rather curious byline: “In a Clear New World You Can See Far into the Present”. At first, this appears intuitive—greater analytics equates with efficiency, foreknowledge of future trends, the ability to anticipate consumer and production demands and to modify supply chains, all the those supposed benefits that sustain the general discourse of “smartness”, big data, and high-technology managed logistics. On second consideration, however, the SAP ad is quite unintuitive, even offensive, to its client base. This ad campaign openly admits that human perception, and human intelligence, simply cannot comprehend the systems we manage. In turn, SAP invokes a notion of an eternally extendable real-time or present, one with a sort of in-built futurity, the actual contours and teleology of which is never specified. This suggestion of the future-present (a “deep” present one can see “far” into), combined with this transparency that sees nothing (in the ad, in fact, one cannot see much in all the bright light of the window), justifies the penetration of computing into the lived environment as a solution to the problem of the human inability to “see” or know the systems we supposedly manage and the futures that we need to create. SAP’s advertising embraces the infinite invisibility but operability of our logistical infrastructures."
Intrigued by (have never thought about) the idea of a Deep Present. Though kinda obvious-after-the-fact, I guess, LOL. Infrastructural invisibility (and stactivist counter-measures / gambits) are something that interest me - declouding The 'Cloud', etc. I'm pretty thick / never dun philustophy at skool, but doesn't the idea of Deep Presents and Deep Pasts suggest a sort of return to a 'Structuralist' approach - the idea of levels / 'depths' to ideas / concepts / abstractions? But, then, doesn't Big Data itself represent a sort of TechnoStructuralism, that informational levels / depths can be uncovered / mined / even used to project and extrapolate meanings that were not implicitly visible on the surface? But, hey, I dunno...
Love this bit:
"Despite needing machines to provide intelligence, and no longer being able to make decisions, humans appear eager to embrace this situation. As the architect Jesse LeCavalier has artfully noted, and the corporation United Parcel Services makes explicit, “We Love Logistics”. This “love”, an icon not even denoted in language, encapsulates the fact that logistics are un-representable, and satisfy—if not automate—our desires by answering every demand of consumption with ever greater responsiveness and supply chain flexibility."