Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Atari Online News, Etc. Volume 16 Issue 03
Volume 16, Issue 03 Atari Online News, Etc. January 17, 2014
Published and Copyright (c) 1999 - 2014
All Rights Reserved
Atari Online News, Etc.
A-ONE Online Magazine
Dana P. Jacobson, Publisher/Managing Editor
Joseph Mirando, Managing Editor
Rob Mahlert, Associate Editor
Atari Online News, Etc. Staff
Dana P. Jacobson -- Editor
Joe Mirando -- "People Are Talking"
Michael Burkley -- "Unabashed Atariophile"
Albert Dayes -- "CC: Classic Chips"
Rob Mahlert -- Web site
Thomas J. Andrews -- "Keeper of the Flame"
With Contributions by:
Fred Horvat
To subscribe to A-ONE, change e-mail addresses, or unsubscribe,
log on to our website at: www.atarinews.org
and click on "Subscriptions".
OR subscribe to A-ONE by sending a message to: dpj@atarinews.org
and your address will be added to the distribution list.
To unsubscribe from A-ONE, send the following: Unsubscribe A-ONE
Please make sure that you include the same address that you used to
subscribe from.
To download A-ONE, set your browser bookmarks to one of the
following sites:
http://people.delphiforums.com/dpj/a-one.htm
Now available:
http://www.atarinews.org
Visit the Atari Advantage Forum on Delphi!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atari/
=~=~=~=
A-ONE #1603 01/17/14
~ What Is Net Neutrality? ~ People Are Talking! ~ Yahoo COO Leaves!
~ Google Glass Case: Win! ~ XP AV Protection Ending ~ Facebook Snooping Bad?
~ Hackers Using A Fridge? ~ MSE Reprieve for XP Use ~ Teens Flee Facebook!
~ Protect Your Kids Online ~ What Windows 9 Must Do! ~ Facebook Does Trends!
-* Net Neutrality Struck Down! *-
-* Nintendo Confirms Wii U Has Flopped! *-
-* FCC To Fight Open-Internet Ruling Defeat! *-
=~=~=~=
->From the Editor's Keyboard "Saying it like it is!"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
We've had somewhat of a reprieve regarding the weather lately. Not too
bad having days with temps in the 40's or higher in New England! Most
of our snow cover is gone, at least in the yard. Those mountains of
snow in parking lots, etc. are still around, though! This recent trend
may be changing next week, but for now, I'm going to enjoy it!
Tech news has been dwindling/changing the past couple of years. News
pertaining to computer technology and internet use has been moving more
and more to more mobile devices and "apps" - something that we really
haven't covered much - nor intend to do so. Additionally, our sources
for news feeds, etc. have been constantly changing, making things more
difficult to do here. It's taking more time and effort to put together
an issue weekly; and our issues seem to be shrinking in size, over time.
We'll continue to monitor the situation, but putting A-ONE together
every week has become more work than enjoyment. If this continues, I
may have to reconsider A-ONE's future.
Until next time...
=~=~=~=
->In This Week's Gaming Section - Nintendo Confirms Wii U Has Flopped!
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
=~=~=~=
->A-ONE's Game Console Industry News - The Latest Gaming News!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Nintendo Confirms Wii U Has Flopped
Nintendo has confirmed what we knew already: its unhappy
controller/console combo, the Wii U, is a flop. The company said hardware
sales of the Wii U had failed to reach its target during the year-end,
pushing it into a third consecutive annual loss, Reuters reports.
We failed to reach our target for hardware sales during the year-end,
when revenues are the highest, said Nintendos president, Satoru Iwata,
at a shareholder briefing on the sales figures.
With the Wii U failing to shift off shelves and that despite a $50 price
cut last September, to $299 Nintendo has slashed its global sales
forecast for the device for the year to March 31 by almost 70%. It said
its expecting Wii U sales to number just 2.8 million units over that
period. It also cut its sales forecast for its handheld 3DS console to
13.5 million units from 18 million.
Both Nintendos devices are facing fierce competition from non-specialist
consumer hardware fuelled by thousands of often inexpensive games apps
aka the smartphones and tablets running on platforms such as Googles
Android OS and Apples iOS. Ownership of app-supporting mobile devices
has exploded since the original Wiis hey-day, of circa 2006, shifting
the gaming goalposts from the living room to peoples pockets.
Meanwhile, the home console market has been increasingly dominated by
Microsofts Xbox and Sonys PlayStation leaving Nintendo to be squeezed
out by those more powerful home consoles at the higher end, attracting
pro gamers with huge franchise titles such as Grand Theft Auto, and
driven out at the lower end by the consumerization of portable gaming
via mainstream mobile devices. Talk about a rock and a hard place.
The other point to note is that the Wii U itself just isnt very good.
Its neither fish nor fowl, so to speak. As TC columnist MG Siegler put
it back in September, its a poor concept accentuated by poor hardware.
He also described Nintendo as being in the beginning of a death spiral.
Todays sales forecasts pour more fuel on those flames.
Nintendo said it is now expecting an operating loss of 35 billion yen
($335.76 million) this business year vs its initial forecast of a 100
billion yen profit. It also warned of a net loss of 25 billion yen for
the year ending on March 31 having previously projected a 55 billion
yen profit. And expects revenues of 590 billion yen, down 36% from its
prior forecast.
=~=~=~=
A-ONE's Headline News
The Latest in Computer Technology News
Compiled by: Dana P. Jacobson
U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down 'Net Neutrality'
Any hope for net neutrality in America that is, the idea that your
Internet Service Provider should treat all content on the Internet
equally, regardless of what it contains or where it comes from now
relies on the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.
In the case of Verizon v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia on Tuesday struck down major portions of the Federal
Communications Commissions 2010 order that imposed network neutrality
regulations on wireline broadband services. The ruling is a victory for
telecom and cable companies who have fought several net neutrality
restrictions vociferously for years.
As Kate Tummarello of The Hill notes, the ruling is a blow to President
Obama, who made net neutrality a campaign pledge in 2008.
The original FCC order said that wireline ISPs shall not block lawful
content, applications, services or non-harmful devices, subject to
reasonable network management while also mandating that ISPs shall not
unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a
consumers broadband Internet access service.
In its ruling against the FCCs rules, the court said that such
restrictions are not needed in part because consumers have a choice in
which ISP they use.
Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have
options, the court writes. They can go to another broadband provider if
they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to
particular edge providers have been degraded.
The courts full ruling is available online here.
If the ruling is upheld, it could enable Internet Service Providers like
Verizon and Comcast to deliver certain services and websites at faster
speeds, a practice that was illegal under previous net neutrality rules.
Per Jeff John Roberts of GigaOM:
"The upshot of Tuesdays ruling is that it could open the door for
internet giants like Verizon and Time Warner to cut deals with large
content providers say Disney or Netflix to ensure that their web
content was delivered faster and more reliably than other sites. This
could not only restrict consumers choice but also provide a threat to
smaller websites who do not have the resources to pay for any express
lanes that the broadband providers but choose to create."
For a deeper definition of Net Neutrality, and why it matters, read this
explanation from Whitson Gordon, or this more technical explanation from
the technology site Ars Technica.
FCC To Fight Open-Internet Court Defeat
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission said it will fight to preserve
its power to require equal treatment of Internet traffic, prolonging a
battle that has pitted phone carriers that want to charge for carrying
content against Web companies that would pay.
The U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 14 sided with Verizon Communications
Inc. in its decision tossing out the FCCs rules against companies
blocking or slowing Web access. The court invited the agency to act, FCC
Chairman Tom Wheeler said today during a speech in Washington.
I intend to fight, said Wheeler, a Democrat.
The court ruling gives Internet-service providers including Verizon and
AT&T Inc. freedom to charge Web companies such as Google Inc.and Netflix
Inc. to reach subscribers. Policy groups say the ruling will set the
stage for service providers to throttle the wide-open Web and replace it
with sponsored channels. Verizon said in a statement that consumers Web
access wont change.
Using our authority we will re-address the concepts in the open
Internet order, as the court invited, to encourage growth and innovation
and enforce against abuse, Wheeler said.
Asked for details after the speech, Wheeler said, twice, Im going to
accept the invitation. Watch.
Supporters of the stricken rule have urged the FCC to reclaim power over
Internet service providers by using a legal framework different from the
theory attacked by the court. The three-judge panel in its decision also
pointed to FCC powers that remain following its decision for jurisdiction
over broadband.
Wheeler has said the FCC may appeal the decision.
Proponents say regulations are needed to keep Internet service providers
from interfering with rival video and other services. They say that
without rules, Internet providers could favor wealthier, established
players at the expense of startups, squelching innovation.
Verizon, based in New York, told the appeals court on Sept. 9 that the
FCCs rules may make it more difficult to manage increasing network
traffic, and would damp investment in more Internet capacity.
What Is 'Net Neutrality' and How Does It Affect You?
Net neutrality means that every side on the Internet should be equally
accessible, no matter whether you're going to Amazon, YouTube, or
Facebook. Your Internet Service Provider is supposed to offer you free
and equal access to all those sites.
But Tuesday's ruling against the FCC changes that.
Let's use video streaming services, like YouTube and Netflix as an
example.
Some sites like YouTube could cut a deal with your Internet Service
Provider to allow you to access it faster and to slow access to other
streaming sites like Netflix.
But that's just one possibility.
Net neutrality advocates say that these ruling could also allow Internet
Service Providers to slow everything, and then charge you extra to allow
faster access to a particular site, like Amazon.
If you don't like the sound of all this, note that net neutrality rules
have never applied to mobile devices. So mobile Internet providers in the
U.S. did not have to provide free and equal access to everything on the
Net.
Why Is Tuesday's Court Decision on Net Neutrality Such a Big Deal?
And What Happens Next?
Internet providers are now free to stop or slow sites and apps they
dislike and offer faster access to services they like an upgrade of
the Internet that could make it look a lot more like cable TV, where you
pay to get particular channels or bundles of channels.
Blame for the demolition of net neutrality goes to a federal court that
agreed with objections filed by Verizon. And the tough thing for Internet
users is that the courts opinion of the Federal Communications
Commissions rules isnt wrong. The FCCs rules were weak.
The 63-page ruling by judges David S. Tatel, Laurence H. Silberman and
Judith W. Rogers for the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit said that because the FCC declined to classify
broadband providers the way you probably think of them as common
carriers that deliver information without interference, as the phone
companies are considered it cant impose common-carrier-style
regulations through other means:
Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers
in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the
Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless
regulating them as such.
So informed, the court zapped provisions in the FCCs Open Internet Order
of 2010 that banned broadband providers from blocking lawful content,
applications, services or practicing unreasonable discrimination
against lawful network traffic. The court did keep a transparency rule
that providers must tell you if they block or discriminate for or against
certain types of traffic.
Verizon, the company that filed the suit, says it wont start blocking
sites but a statement posted under the name of General Counsel Randal
Milch didnt rule out slowing some sites or charging other sites for
faster delivery:
Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet which
provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to
lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want.
For an example of whats now possible, see AT&Ts announcement from last
week of a new Sponsored Data option on its wireless network through
which a company could give you free data use to coax you into trying out
its stuff. Or Google working with carriers in the Philippines to offer
Free Zone mobile access to its services. Or Facebook providing free
in-flight access to its services to GoGo WiFi users.
Those deals can be great if you get something for free. But for a startup
looking to compete with a large, established company that can now buy its
way to the head of the line and not just on wireless but in wired
broadband, where most Americans face a local monopoly or a duopoly
these deals are not nearly so awesome. Which means that free access may
cost you in terms of less competition and less innovation in Web services
and apps.
(Understand that Yahoo Tech is published by a large Internet firm whose
fortunes could be hindered by unfriendly Internet providers. But you
could say about the same of any newspaper, TV station or blogger.)
If you want to blame the court or Verizon for this state of affairs,
dont. The judges offered a fair reading of the law as it stands and
they had the good sense to ignore Verizons absurd,
corporations-are-people argument that net-neutrality regulations stomp
on its First Amendment rights. Verizon, in turn, did what most large
corporations with many lawyers on retainer do: Try to engineer the
loosest regulatory climate possible.
The FCC itself queued up this collapse back in 2002, when it chose to
classify cable Internet providers not as telecommunications services but
as information services, then repeated the mistake in 2005 when it put
phone-based broadband under the same category.
Whats the difference? The FCC says a telecommunications service is used
to deliver information without change in the form or content of the
information, while an information service consists of applications
that run over the pipes of a communications network and depend on
computers to generate, store, or process information.
If you think the former sounds a whole lot more like how Internet access
works yes! I dont pay Verizon to add some kind of value to the
information other people post on the Internet; I pay it for a fast FiOS
connection with the boring reliability of a good old dial tone, and
without any lingering Verizon aftertaste.
But thats not how the FCC acted under the Bush administration, and it
declined multiple opportunities to undo that mistake under the Obama
administration.
Now what? The FCC could try appealing, as Chairman Tom Wheeler suggested
in a statement. But the courts logic is clear and supported by all three
judges on the panel. The FCC could undo its mistakes of 2005 and 2002 by
saying that Internet access is, in fact, a telecommunications service
like you probably thought it was all along. But why would it change
course after playing a losing hand so stubbornly?
Congress could pass a law. But who are we kidding? Many Republicans hate
the idea of giving the FCC added regulatory authority, and many Democrats
dont want to gut it further, so expect nothing to happen there.
We may be stuck with public shaming and scolding maybe followed by a
different three-letter agency, the Federal Trade Commission, stepping into
particularly egregious cases to use its own authority to punish abuses of
market power. All it will take is for some Internet users to have their
ISP monkey with their connection and then make enough of a fuss about it.
Who will be first?
Yahoo COO de Castro Leaves With Millions
Yahoo Chief Operating Officer Henrique de Castro stepped down from the
Internet company on Wednesday after disappointing advertising results.
De Castro is leaving Yahoo, with millions of dollars in severance and
other compensation, effective Thursday, the company said in a regulatory
filing.
He came under pressure last year as a string of mobile content-focused
acquisitions, led by the Tumblr deal, failed to revive Yahoo's ad revenue
growth. That happened in the midst of a booming online ad market, led by
rivals such as Google, Facebook and Twitter.
De Castro, 48, was CEO Marissa Mayer's first major hire. A former Google
ad executive, he joined Mayer, also an ex-Googler, in October 2012 and
received a lucrative pay package for making the jump.
He will receive severance and other payments and equity awards that were
given to him when he joined, Yahoo said in its regulatory filing on
Wednesday.
The compensation package included restricted stock units with a target
value of $20 million. In the event de Castro was terminated, all the
equity would immediately vest, according to the original employment
agreement. He also got other equity awards that were worth $36 million
but vested over four years.
In total, de Castro may be leaving with about $30 million for less than
two years of work. The fact that Yahoo's Mayer is willing to take such a
hit suggests that the advertising side of the company's business needs a
lot of attention.
"This was not a decision they took lightly," said Ron Josey, an analyst at
JMP Securities. "He was brought in to help turn around Yahoo's core ad
business, and that didn't happen."
Despite all Mayer's investments, in 2013, Yahoo lost its spot as the No. 2
digital ad seller in the U.S. to Facebook for the first time, according to
eMarketer.
Yahoo's share of U.S. digital ad revenue dropped to 5.8% in 2013 from 6.8%
in 2012. Facebook's share grew to 7.4% in 2013 from 5.9% the year before.
Google, de Castro's old employer, remains the dominant player, with a
39.9% share, eMarketer data show.
Hackers Use Refrigerator, Other Devices to Send 750,000 Spam Emails
Hackers have launched what is being called the first attack from the
Internet of Things, which included a refrigerator.
According to BBC News, security researchers at Proofpoint discovered that
hackers used over 100,000 devices to send spam emails, exposing security
flaws in gadgets considered to be part of the Internet of Things.
Before I continue using that term, the Internet of Things is a fairly new
tech term that refers to every device in a home having a computer chip.
This includes devices like refrigerators, door locks, thermostats, etc.
The hackers broke into gadgets such as home-networking routers, computers,
televisions, connected multi-media centers and one refrigerator.
Through the use of these devices, the hackers successfully sent 750,000
spam emails to individuals and companies around the globe. The hack
occurred between December 23, 2013 and January 6, 2014.
It was reported that about 75 percent of the emails were sent using
traditional computers, while about 25 percent were sent from home
appliances.
Proofpoint noted that the job wasn't too difficult for hackers, as many
were easily broken into due to the owners not setting the devices up
correctly, or using default passwords that came with the devices.
"Many of these devices are poorly protected at best and consumers have
virtually no way to detect or fix infections when they do occur," said
David Knight, general manager of Proofpoint's information security
division.
Google Glass Driving Citation Case Dropped
Cecilia Abadie was found not guilty for a driving citation she received
after a San Diego police officer ticketed her for wearing her Google Glass
device while she was driving.
Back in October, Abadie had been pulled over for speeding, when the police
officer noticed she was wearing her Google Glass and issued an additional
citation.
Abadie then took to her Google + page where she wrote, "A cop just stopped
me and gave me a ticket for wearing Google Glass while driving!" She has
claimed that the device was not on while she was driving.
She had received the additional citation due to a California law that
stated that drivers are prohibited from using a device where they could
watch TV, except if it's being used for GPS.
Now the case has been tossed because Commissioner John Blair ruled that
the police officer had not provided proof she was using Google Glass while
driving, reports The Associated Press. He did note that the law that
Abadie had originally been cited under could be applied to Glass due to
its vague language.
She said after the case, "I believe it's an initial success but we have a
long way to go."
Microsoft Ending Anti-Virus Protection for Windows XP
The end is near for Microsofts widely used operating system, Windows XP.
April 8 the long-awaited end-of-support date for the 12-year-old OS
shouldnt take most users by surprise.
However, another Microsoft decision regarding XP may startle those
die-hard XP users who refuse to upgrade. This week, the company announced
that on April 8, it will also end support for the Windows XP version of
Microsoft Security Essentials, the companys free security and anti-virus
application.
Not only will users of Windows XP receive no more security patches after
April 8, but their installations of Microsoft Security Essentials will get
no more virus updates, leaving their machines doubly unprotected.
Ending support for Microsoft Security Essentials is Microsofts
not-so-subtle way of nudging XP loyalists toward its newest offering,
Windows 8.1. With the free security application out of the picture, the
millions of users still clinging to XP will have to find another free
anti-virus software product, or risk the onslaught of malware attacks that
will likely follow XPs demise.
Between 20 and 30 percent of Internet users worldwide still use Windows
XP, according to recent data, including more than 50 percent of users in
China. Businesses are scrambling to avoid the coming XPocalypse, but
millions of individuals will also need to update their systems to avoid
unrestricted malware attacks.
If youre still using XP on your PC, Microsoft recommends upgrading to a
newer version of Windows before April 8. To upgrade to the newest version
of Windows from XP, youll first need to download and run Microsofts
Window 8 Upgrade Assistant to check if your PC meets the hardware
requirements for Windows 8. If your PC doesnt, you should consider buying
a new computer preloaded with Windows 8.
Whether or not their PCs can support Windows 8, current XP users should
also back up any data they wish to transfer to their new systems, as
upgrading from XP (or Windows Vista) means losing all files, settings or
programs currently stored on the old OS.
Microsoft Grants XP Anti-Virus Software A Reprieve
Microsoft has backed off the impending XPocalypse at least a little.
The company has reversed last week's decision to end anti-virus updates
for the Windows XP versions of its in-house anti-virus software packages
on April 8, when Windows XP is expected to receive its final security
patch.
That would have been a serious blow to many Windows XP users, leaving
them doubly exposed to malware and attackers. It's estimated that between
20 and 30 percent of personal computers worldwide run Windows XP today,
and tens of millions of users aren't expected to have upgraded to other
operating systems by April 8.
Instead, Microsoft will continue anti-virus definition updates for its
Windows XP anti-virus software until July 14, 2015.
"For enterprise customers, this applies to System Center Endpoint
Protection, Forefront Client Security, Forefront Endpoint Protection and
Windows Intune running on Windows XP," stated a Microsoft blog posting
today (Jan. 15). "For consumers, this applies to Microsoft Security
Essentials."
Most third-party anti-virus software makers plan to continue support for
Windows XP well beyond April 8. A list compiled by German anti-virus
software testing firm AV-TEST finds that of 26 third-party vendors, 22
plan to continue XP support for at least two more years.
However, as the Microsoft blog post notes, "the effectiveness of
anti-malware solutions on out-of-support operating systems is limited."
Microsoft Security Essentials is a free anti-virus application for
consumer users of Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7, but users must
manually download and install it.
In Windows 8, a successor application called Windows Defender is built
in, but will go dormant if a third-party anti-virus product is activated.
Microsoft's blog posting did not specify whether the Windows XP version
of Microsoft Security Essentials would still be available for download
after April 8.
The Microsoft Malware Protection Center did not immediately respond to
a request for comment.
3 Easy Ways to Protect Your Kids Online
There are plenty of options for helping to corral your kids on the
Internet. Most do a decent job of keeping your progeny away from the
worst of the Web; all of them have flaws. But these three stand out above
the others for ease of use and effectiveness, and better yet two of
them are free.
Norton Family Online. The free version lets you monitor every site your
kids visit, examine a list of everything they search for, and track their
activity across social media via any Internet connection. You can tell
Norton to always allow (whitelist) or block (blacklist) certain sites,
customize the settings for each child, and set time limits so you can
boot them offline when its time for bed. A premier version ($50
annually) lets you monitor their instant messages, video consumption
and mobile devices.
The downside? Youll have to download and install a small bit of code on
every machine your kids use, as well as your own. And like most software,
it can be a bit finicky. Ive had to reinstall it a few times when
something wasnt working.
OpenDNS Family Shield. This free service uses a specially configured
domain name server (DNS) to secure every device that accesses the
Internet via your WiFi router. Think of DNS as a kind of phone book for
the Internet. Whenever you type a Web address (like Yahoo.com), your
browser uses a domain name server to translate the URL into an Internet
Protocol address (like 98.139.183.24) that computers can understand.
Using OpenDNS, you can choose which types of websites to block in 59
categories, as well as create whitelists and blacklists.
To use OpenDNS, though, you need to be comfortable futzing with your
WiFi settings. (The hardest part? Remembering the damned password for
the router.) And everyone who accesses the Net through that router has
to play by the same rules. If youve got little ones in the house,
youll likely find these limitations a bit, well, limiting.
Skydog Smart Router. This is, frankly, the best Web monitoring solution
Ive ever encountered. (See my full review of it.) The $149 Skydog
combines Nortons customizability with OpenDNSs router-based controls,
giving you one simple Web-based dashboard to rule over every
Net-connected device in your home. Parent company PowerCloud Systems
recently added Common Sense Medias age-based guidelines to its Web
monitoring product.
Just about the only thing Skydog cant do is stop your wee ones from
accessing the Web via their smartphones 4G connection. For that youll
need Norton or another mobile security app.
Facebook Snooping On Job Candidates May Backfire For Employers
Its 2014, which means that Facebook will be 10 years old this February.
Since the site launched it has become standard procedure for companies
to screen job candidates based on their social media profiles. A recent
study, however, suggests that the practice may actually drive away
qualified applicants who feel that their privacy has been compromised.
Researchers at North Carolina State University have found that when job
applicants realize an organization has viewed their social media profile,
they are less likely to perceive the hiring process as fair, regardless
of whether they are offered the position. The practice may have serious
repercussions for the hiring organizations reputation and make
applicants more inclined to resort to litigation, says Will Stoughton, a
doctoral student in industrial psychology and lead author of the paper.
The study was published in the Journal of Business and Psychology.
There could be all kinds of negative consequences for creating a
selection process that is perceived as invasive and unfair, says Lori
Thompson, a psychology professor at NC State and one of the papers
co-authors. When you think about the fact that top talent usually has a
lot of choices as to where they want to go to work, it begins to really
matter.
Although job applicants would not necessarily know if their social media
profiles had been screened, they do have several ways of finding out,
Thompson says. For instance, an applicant might be tipped off after
receiving a suspicious friend request or by talking with current
employees and hiring managers who disclose the information either
accidentally or on purpose in the course of the interview.
In 2013 almost half of all companies reported using social media profiles
to make hiring decisions, according to a survey by the London-based
Institute for Employment Studies. Although the practice is pervasive,
social media screening is a relatively new phenomenon, and many companies
lack clear guidelines about how and when it should be used raising
questions about whether the practice violates any anti-discrimination
laws. The legal landscape concerning the use of social media for
screening is changing quickly, Stoughton says. Organizations that
dont have formal processes regarding the use of social media for
selection may put themselves at risk of legal complaints because of
inconsistent practices.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act and
other anti-discrimination laws prohibit employers from making hiring
decisions on the basis of certain protected characteristics, such as an
applicants race, ethnicity, religion, gender or disability status. Those
details are often present on an individuals social media profile,
however, giving managers access to information that would not
necessarily be available to them otherwise. Profile screening could thus
potentially color their judgment of the applicant whether they realize
it or not. For instance, in a 2009 study conducted for the site
CareerBuilder, more than half of employers reported that the biggest
factor influencing their decision not to hire an applicant was the
presence of provocative photos on the candidates social media profile,
an issue more likely to affect women than men.
In the first of two experiments, 175 college students applied for what
they thought was a temporary research assistant position. Two weeks
later, the researchers informed some of the students that their social
media profiles had been screened for professionalism, whereas others
received no information about screening. The students were then asked to
give anonymous feedback on the selection process.
Students whose social media profiles had been screened found the
selection procedure to be unfair and were less attracted to the
organization than students who were not told they had been screened. The
result is consistent with previous research, which has indicated that
when potential employees feel they have been treated unfairly, they are
less likely to accept a job offer and may be more likely to quit if they
have already started employment. The screening and selection process is
the first interaction between the applicant and the company, Stoughton
says. Applicants may interpret poor treatment, such as screening via
social media, as an indication of how they would be treated on the job.
Its a particular concern in terms of thinking about the reputation of
the company and what they are communicating to future employees, agrees
Kristl Davison, an organizational psychologist at the University of
Mississippi School of Business Administration. I think it could
certainly lead to higher turnover in the long run.
The second experiment tested if the results generalized beyond college
students. Stoughton and his team recruited 208 American adults using an
online survey tool and asked them to imagine they were applying for a
job. Participants were given a hypothetical description of the hiring
practices at a fictional company and were separated into three groups.
One group was told that their Facebook profiles were screened and that
they had received a job offer; another was told that their profiles were
screened and that they had not received a job offer; the a control group
did not receive information on the companys social media policy.
As in the original experiment, the participants who were told that their
social media profiles had been screened formed negative opinions about
the hiring organization regardless of whether they had received a job
offer. They also reported that they would be more likely to sue an
organization if they found its hiring practices to be unjust.
Davison points out that although screening job applicants social media
profiles is now routine, few studies have assessed the practices
validity as a hiring tool. She thinks that the NC State paper is an
important first step but says that more research is needed to make sure
the information gleaned from an applicants social media profile actually
tells an organization relevant information about the applicants fitness
for the position, as well as whether the interpretation of that
information is standardized across all observers.
Its now accepted wisdom that job applicants should clean up their social
media profiles before sending out their resumes, but organizations should
also be careful when using sites like Facebook and Twitter in hiring
decisions, Davison says. She encourages companies to adopt strict
guidelines for social media screening, such as those developed by the
Chartered Institute of Professional Development, which include giving job
candidates a chance to respond if some aspect of their social media
profile has negatively influenced their application, and informing them
that their profile may be screened ahead of time.
Theres something to be said for doing this in a way that seeks the
applicants permission, paper co-author Thompson says. Its possible
that if that is handled well, that could even reflect positively on an
organization.
What Windows 9 Must Do To Avoid Flopping Like Windows 8
Windows 8 is a flop. It is a painful thing to say about one of the most
ambitious operating systems ever released, but the stats dont lie. It
has taken half the OS market share Windows 7 did in its first 12 months
(10% vs. 20%) and now the adoption rate is so slow it is barely gaining
on its 4 ½ year old predecessor. Finally Microsoft has had enough.
This week leaks flooded out that Windows 9 will be formally announced at
Build, Microsofts annual developer event in April. If true this is an
extraordinarily short gap for the company to jump between Windows
versions and it is thought Windows 9 will formally go on sale in early
2015 as part of the Threshold wave of updates it will apply to its
Windows, Windows Phone and Xbox OSes.
But if Windows 9 is to avoid the pitfalls of Windows 8 it is going to have
to make some major changes. These are my suggestions, and I welcome yours
in the comments.
In merging the traditional Windows desktop with a finger-friendly
touchscreen interface Windows 8 broke new ground, but the implementation
was jarring. Speculation is Microsoft may formally split the platform
into formal desktop and Windows RT only versions, but that would be a
backwards step.
Instead the two need better integration. Syncing wallpapers between both
was a step in the right direction, but the touch UI should have a
transparent background to feel more like a flyover to the desktop and
therefore never disorientating the user. It also needs to enable apps to
operate on the desktop (not in a split window) to encourage greater use
and spur on developers.
The advances Windows 8 made in touch usability were negated by the ropey
keyboard and mouse integration as Microsoft threw out the baby with the
bathwater. Catering for new laptop and tablet form factors is well and
good, but forgetting (or ignoring) 99 per cent of the market using
traditional laptops and desktops was foolish. A new, universally
accessible control method for Windows 9 is a priority particularly for
touchpads where compensatory gestures have become horribly fragmented
between PC makers.
Ever since the iPhone Retina Display ultra-high resolutions have been
all the rage first in phones, then tablets, now in laptops and desktops.
Windows 8 coders failed to address this and the increasingly wide array
of high resolution laptops and 4k monitors result in a ludicrous
Windows 8 desktop experience. Websites and text have to be blown up
around 200% while menus, tabs and other crucial parts of the user
interface shrink becoming microscopic.
The flaw is a lack of scaling, something Mac OS X wasnt immune to when
Apple launched Retina Display MacBook Pros but it still works better than
Windows 8. The trouble is not only does the Windows 9 desktop need to
scale, but it needs to introduce upscaling for legacy software to also
make these programmes useable. A huge, but essential task.
Hot Corners were introduced in Windows 8 to bring some of the touch
navigation gestures to keyboards and mice, but they are horrible. Hot
Corners are activated when a mouse pointer ventures near the top left,
top right and bottom right corners of the screen or when the pointer
gets to the bottom left corner then moves vertically.
Needless to say these areas of the screen are regularly visited by the
cursor in normal use when looking to open, close, minimise or maximum
windows and programmes. This causes endless frustration as users looking
to manipulate windows are dragged off into touch gesture shortcuts and
users looking for touch gesture shortcuts end up accidentally
manipulating windows (image right cursor over the close window option
brings up the Charms Bar). At the very least there needs to be an
option to disable HotCorners, if not redesigning them completely.
For Windows users part of the appeal is it is not Mac OS. That is Windows
brings greater freedom to pick, choose and customise itself using the
software you want in the manner you want. Windows 8 veers dangerously
away from this imposing Windows Live accounts on all users, SkyDrive for
backups, Bing for search and more. It is time Windows remembered where
its appeal comes from in the first place.
Microsoft may have thought it was leaping ahead of the pack with its
revolutionary Windows 8 UI but, in truth, both Apple and Google better
integrate their distinct mobile and desktop platforms. With Windows
Phone 8.1 lifting the lid on hardware restrictions and the Xbox One
launching with bags of unfulfilled potential Microsoft needs far better
communication between these powerful platforms.
This means synchronised media content, app purchases, remote control and
if Sony can make PlayStation 4 content run on the Vita, Microsoft should
be able to bring Xbox One gaming to Windows Phones and Windows 9 PCs and
tablets. No company has Microsofts breadth of platforms, it needs to
start capitalising on that.
While it has not met commercial expectations, the good news for Microsoft
is Windows 8 has already done much of the heavy lifting for Windows 9. It
is fast, efficient, stable and has excellent inbuilt security. With this
foundation the list above feels far from wishful thinking and Microsoft
should be looking to implement them all and much more.
Outgoing Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer famously said Microsoft bet the
company on Windows 8. It didnt. With its vast wealth Microsoft took a
calculated but affordable gamble. This time things are different.
Windows 9 is not coming off the goodwill of a respected predecessor, PC
and laptop sales are collapsing against the threat of tablets, Apple is
edging ever closer to Mac OS XI and Google is starting to gain momentum
in the desktop and laptop space with Chrome OS and Android both of
which are expected to unify during Windows 9s lifetime.
Windows 9 is now where Microsoft bets the company.
Facebook Adds Trending Topics to Its Site
Facebook on Thursday announced Trending, a new section in the top right
corner of the News Feed that highlights TV shows, events and articles
that are being talked about by its users. Stories that appear inside
Trending are picked by algorithms that identify spiking keywords on the
social network and then find associated articles to link to. Facebook
says that these articles will come from public Facebook Pages and public
figures, but also from Pages you follow and from posts by friends. You
cant yet buy sponsored trends like you can on Twitter, but Facebook
wont deny that theyre coming. Trending is rolling out first to the
US, UK, India, and Australia.
Facebook has experimented with trending stories and topics time and
again and in various places around the site. While Facebook hasnt yet
nailed down exactly where it wants to promote breaking news, one thing
is clear. In a world where RSS is dying and Twitter hasnt reached
critical mass, Facebook intends to be the place you check for news
whether its in the News Feed or inside a dedicated Facebook app just
for news.
Teens Flee Facebook, But Baby Boomers Take Their Place
Facebook started as a social network for college kids, and it really took
off from there.
But now, it may have reached a saturation point among that group. A new
study shows teens are turning away from Facebook. So who is liking the
social network these days?
Facebook might be more for grandpa these days, and junior is turning
away.
The social network was once a hallmark site for teens and young users,
but now, Facebook seems to be falling out of favor with that age group.
A new study from I-Strategy Labs said that over the past 3 years, the
number of 13 to 17-year-olds on Facebook plunged 25 percent. Also
falling? The second-youngest age group, 18 to 24-year-olds.
And look at who's logging on...baby boomers.
The growth among the 55-and-older group has exploded up to 80 percent in
the past 3 years!
It's not a huge surprise. Facebook's CFO said in October that it saw a
decrease in teenage daily users during the quarter, and the stock
plunged that day.
But not all experts are worried. One analyst said Facebook can recapture
those young users.
The company is trying to do just that. It bought Instagram a few years
ago, a site that's growing in popularity among teenagers.
=~=~=~=
Atari Online News, Etc. is a weekly publication covering the entire
Atari community. Reprint permission is granted, unless otherwise noted
at the beginning of any article, to Atari user groups and not for
profit publications only under the following terms: articles must
remain unedited and include the issue number and author at the top of
each article reprinted. Other reprints granted upon approval of
request. Send requests to: dpj@atarinews.org
No issue of Atari Online News, Etc. may be included on any commercial
media, nor uploaded or transmitted to any commercial online service or
internet site, in whole or in part, by any agent or means, without
the expressed consent or permission from the Publisher or Editor of
Atari Online News, Etc.
Opinions presented herein are those of the individual authors and do
not necessarily reflect those of the staff, or of the publishers. All
material herein is believed to be accurate at the time of publishing.
