Zuckerberg: No Plans for 'Dislike' Button (PCMagazine)

• BY STEPHANIE MLOT
• DECEMBER 12, 2014

During his second public Q&A, the Facebook CEO covered the real-name policy, New Year's resolutions, and more.

Even the California storms couldn't dampen Mark Zuckerberg's enthusiasm during the Facebook CEO's second public Q&A session.

Held Thursday in Menlo Park (video below), Zuck covered everything from the social network's real-name policy to his personal New Year's resolutions and favorite pizza topping. (Spoiler alert: It's fried chicken.)

Most notably, the Facebook chief discussed future plans—or lack thereof—for theoft-requested dislike button.

"We're thinking about it," he told the audience, but said a virtual thumbs-down could be more harmful than helpful.

"I don't think there needs to be a voting mechanism on Facebook [for] whether posts are good or bad," Zuckerberg said. "I don't think that's socially very valuable or good for the community. But the thing that I think is very valuable is that there are more sentiments that people want to express than just positivity or that they like something."

The Facebook team acknowledged those moments when friends and family post sad thoughts or tough commentary, and the "like" button doesn't offer the appropriate sentiment.

And while there is no plan just yet to roll out a "dislike" option, Zuckerberg revealed an internal dialogue about ways to express a broader range of emotions on the social network. Last year, for example, there were reports that Facebook was considering a "sympathize" button.

Zuckerberg also fielded questions about the site's "real name" controversy. In September, the company came under fire from several San Francisco-area drag queens who were forced to use their given names, rather than stage titles, on Facebook profiles. Eventually, Facebook apologized and pledged to come up with a better solution.

"Usernames on Facebook [are] actually less important than the fact that … most people refer to themselves as their real name," Zuckerberg said this week. "And that's a really important part of the culture of the community. Asking everyone to use their real name grounds the community in … reality and ties it back to all the real-world relationships that we have."

He also listed some functional reasons, like being able to simply search for and find someone using their name, and the idea that forced identification breeds accountability, discouraging people from using Facebook for evil.

"It's all part of building a safe community that's tied into the world," Zuck said.

On the lighter side of the hour-long town hall meeting, the Facebook chief admitted that while he takes New Year's resolutions "pretty seriously," he typically doesn't decide on one until the last week of the year.

Past personal challenges have included learning to cook and to speak Mandarin—a talent Zuckerberg showed off during an October visit to Beijing.

"If you have ideas, post them on the [Q&A with Mark Facebook] page," he suggested.

One possible resolution: Stop eating fried chicken on pizza.

Stephanie began as a PCMag reporter in May 2012. She moved to New York City from Frederick, Md., where she worked for four years as a multimedia reporter at the second-largest daily newspaper in Maryland.

En Mi Opinión: Perfeccionismo o realidad?

Por: Ricardo Tribín Acosta

Los únicos que no cometen faltas son aquellos que no se arriesgan ni hacen nada y están prácticamente anulados en vida. Este gran aserto recuerda nuestra condición humana de seres imperfectos, susceptibles de equivocarnos, y por lo tanto estamos expuestos a las críticas de los demás las que, como cosa rara no faltan, sobre todo cuando se nos van las extremidades  o mejor dicho,  metemos la pata.

Juzgar es bien fácil pues las personas en su mayoría prefieren ver la pajilla en el ojo ajeno que la viga en el propio. Por eso, si cometemos errores, lo más indicado será reconocerlos rápidamente, asumir las consecuencias derivadas de ellos, e iniciar el proceso de mejora y de enmiendas de manera inmediata.

Eso de estar juzgándonos con severidad no es sano, especialmente cuando nuestra mente nos lleva a ser fiscales, jueces, y victimarios de nosotros mismos, dejando poco margen al propio perdón el cual sicológicamente es una de las armas más poderosas para echar para adelante, estando eso si en cada caso dispuestos sinceramente a no reincidir en lo que ha generado diferentes tipos de situaciones y problemas, adoptando actitudes que conduzcan a un cambio positivo.

http://ricardotribin.blogspot.com

Miami, Diciembre 13 de 2014

Who owns the data once it becomes part of big data? (TechRepublic)

By Michael Kassner December 8, 2014

The battle over who retains ownership of the data is heating up. Learn how one group came up with a win-win solution.
In the beginning, personal data was exchanged for a desired free digital service. Then mission creep led to organizations using their clients' and or customers' information even if the service wasn't free. A recent example would be Verizon's PrecisionID.

Verizon's cellular service is not free, the company is tagging their user's data traffic with a permanent UID, allowing user's whereabouts on the internet to be tracked. And there is a good chance that information is being sold to third parties. Yet no remittance is being made for the use of it; neither is there any disclosure to the original owner when the data moves beyond the intended recipient, nor any mention whether the original privacy and security stipulations travel with the data.

Apathy is fading

This behavior is not news to privacy pundits. They have been warning about "losing control of data" for years. However, their patient efforts, plus recent privacy-related events, are changing people's attitude from apathy to concern. As proof, I submit this internet governance and data ownership survey involving more than 23,000 internet users from 24 countries. The project, sponsored by the Centre for International Governance Innovation(CIGI), determined that 63% of the survey participants disagreed with the following statement: "Share personal information with private companies online all the time and think 'It's no big deal' to do so."

And third on the CIGI survey's list of top concerns, following hacking into personal bank accounts and stealing personal information, was monitoring customers' online activities by companies that would then sell the appropriated information for commercial purposes without the owner's consent.

Farmers and ag-tech providers decide who owns the data

The agriculture community is being dragged into the big-data era by Agriculture-Technology Providers (ATP). Not a bad thing: big-data analytics should help farmers face the uncertainties inherent to farming. However, farmers are hesitant to lose control of their data and want assurances before they sign contracts.

Mary Kay Thatcher, Senior Director of Congressional Relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) is one expert the farmers are calling. Thatcher explains the process began two years ago when several farmers called her expressing their concern about losing ownership of their farm data. Contracts were already signed, leaving Thatcher's hands tied. However, Thatcher discussed the topic with several State Farm Bureaus. No one had a real sense of what it all meant -- that's when Thatcher knew something needed to be done.

Today, after two years of sometimes difficult negotiations: the AFBF, Thatcher, and State Farm Bureaus obtained a consensus between organizations representing farmers and several notable ATPs such as John Deere, DuPont Pioneer, and Dow AgroSciences -- with all parties agreeing to sign a document called Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data. "The privacy and security principles that underpin these emerging technologies: whether related to how data is gathered, protected, or shared, must be transparent and secure," says Bob Stallman, AFBF President in this AFBF press release. "Farmers are excited about this new technology front, which is why Farm Bureau asked these groups to come together and begin this collaborative dialogue."

Key principles

There are 12 principles in the agreement. The following three representatives, with minimal changes, would work in most circumstances where an individual or organization is asked to provide data to a third-party entity:

● Ownership: We believe farmers own information generated on their farming operations. However, it is the responsibility of the farmer to agree upon data use and sharing with the other stakeholders. The farmer contracting with the ATP ensures that only the data they own or have permission to use is included in the account with the ATP.

● Collection, Access and Control: An ATP's collection, access, and use of farm data should be granted only with the affirmative and explicit consent of the farmer. This will be by contract agreements whether signed or digital.

Notice: Farmers must be notified that their data is being collected, used, and how the farm data will be disclosed. This notice must be provided in an easily-located and readily-accessible format.

● Transparency and Consistency: ATPs shall notify farmers about the purposes for which they collect and use farm data. They should provide information about how farmers can contact the ATP with any inquiries or complaints, the third parties to which they disclose the data, and the choices the ATP offers for limiting its use and disclosure.

An ATP's principles, policies and practices should be transparent and consistent with the terms and conditions in their legal contracts. An ATP will not change the customer's contract without his or her agreement.

Thatcher said all parties are encouraged. Rather than stifling the adaption of big-data technology, everyone feels this agreement will speed up big-data's acceptance. Something other industries may want to consider.

Delta's New Seating Arrangement Somehow Makes Coach Even Worse (BusinessWeek)

By Justin Bachman December 09, 2014

Delta Air Lines has a request for the traveling public: Please don't confuse the bespoke airfares available on our airplanes as anything like what our rivals have to offer. 

Starting next year, Delta plans to segment its airplane cabins into five sections based on price and service, with three flavors of economy and two premium cabins. The marketing scheme announced on Monday is aimed at identifying certain products and services with particular fare classes, an attempt at creating brand recognition inside the airplane cabin. Coach is so generic, a bland catch-all commodity. Delta wants travelers to instead weigh the distinctions between Main Cabin and Basic Economy, while perhaps considering a splurge on Delta Comfort+, where you'll get extra legroom and a free alcoholic beverage.

Delta isn't alone in focusing on in-flight amenities. American Airlines announced plans on Monday to spend $2 billion to bring its fleet up to the same standard as its domestic rivals. The money will bring new seats, Wi-Fi, and electrical power outlets at seats across American's fleet. The giant airline, which merged with US Airways in December, is eager to ditch the 1980s-era MD-80 airplanes that have served as the workhorse of its domestic fleet for three decades.

Part of the change at Delta, the third-largest airline in the U.S, means rewriting the vocabulary of status. Business Elite, the old name for Delta's top-of-the-line cabin for long-haul international and cross-country flights, will be replaced by Delta One, which is meant to evoke seats that go flat with linens from the Westin hotel chain. The second-highest service tier, First Class, will be available only on domestic flights.

Related: Bloomberg Businessweek's Airport Frustration Index

Delta's news release announcing the five-tier system, which goes into effect on March 1, could have easily been titled: "We Are Not All the Same, Folks." The remaining Big Three global carriers in the U.S. are all deeply committed to creating differences passengers will notice—the starker, the better—as the airline giants battle the commodification of travel. The majority of people see little to differentiate a Delta flight from one on United or American, with the vast majority of travelers making choices according to price and travel times.

Airlines hate that particular generic framework. They argue that their investments in Wi-Fi service, streaming entertainment, newer seats, and larger overhead bins, among other marginal amenities, should make it clear to savvy travelers that not all carriers are created equal. Delta and United, for example, both allow passengers to stream music, movies, and television shows on personal Wi-Fi-enabled devices without buying Internet access; so far, at least, there's no evidence that it has affected the way we book tickets.

On all three airlines, over time, economy will come in a variety of flavors that are based on how much you paid for your ticket. If you pay more or become an elite member of the airline's frequent-flier program, the airline will let you sit in an economy seat with extra leg room. "When a carrier says it is 'refreshing' coach cabin, that's weasel jargon for cutting legroom," travel columnist Joe Brancatelli observed on Twitter. This broad industry effort is likely to make cramped leg room even worse for those sitting in the cheapest seats, although Delta says its new cabin names won't involve any seat reconfigurations.

If price trumps all, Delta's cheapest tier, "Basic Economy," will draw most of the attention—even with a long list of restrictions that take effect on Feb. 1—including no advanced seat assignments or the chance to upgrade. That fare is currently offered to only 33 cities from four Delta hubs, mainly on routes where the company competes with Spirit Airlines. But the basic fare is understandably popular, and Delta spokesman Paul Skrbec says it could expand to more cities next year. Still, Delta would much prefer that you splurge on a fancier, pricier ticket.

Bachman is an associate editor for Businessweek.com.

En Mi Opinión: El dumping y el contrabando técnico

 Por: Ricardo Tribín Acosta

Colombia está sufriendo con rigor el negativo impacto de la nefasta influencia del "dumping" y del contrabando técnico, lo cual le está haciendo mucho daño al país, ya que con ello la competitividad se viene al suelo, punto que afecta a las empresas que actúan acordes con la ley, y por ende al empleo, y a la economía en general.

Estos dos ilegales procedimientos se han querido neutralizar con el uso de aranceles más altos para productos objeto de cuestión, lo cual en la práctica no aplica puesto que, sí se comparan dos productos, el uno importado en forma legal, digamos por valor de USD $10 , y el otro ilegal por USD $1, resulta absolutamente imposible que los precios puedan competir, así se pongan aranceles altísimos y/o comparativos de precios de referencia, situación que para los efectos no funciona e incluso va en vía contraria a los procedimientos estipulados por la Organización Mundial de Comercio- OMC.

La solución reside, basados en el valor de transacción, que si es permitido por la OMC el que, a través de compañías internacionales que poseen amplias bases de datos para muchos países, bien sea por programas gubernamentales de certificación de precios o para el establecimiento de estándares de importación, se maneje un plan con la aduana que permita cuestionar el precio de un producto que no corresponda y elevarlo cuando fuese necesario de forma tal que se logre una equilibrada competencia, se reduzca la evasión, y se evite el frecuente lavado de dinero.

http://ricardotribin.blogspot.com

Miami, Diciembre 6 de 2014

Here Are Some Surefire Signs You've Got a Bad Boss (Salary.com)

7 Signs You Have a Terrible Boss

Here Are Some Surefire Signs You've Got a Bad Boss

 

Is Your Boss Actually Terrible?

Everyone thinks they have a terrible boss, but how do you know if it's actually true.

Do you like your job and company but dread your boss? Are you constantly taking the fall for your boss because of decisions you didn't even make? Do all of your coworkers agree with you regarding your assessment of your supervisor? Or could it be YOU who is the problem, not your boss?

It's important to determine because most people don't quit jobs, they quit bosses. So if you can pinpoint your boss as the cause of the majority of your distress -- especially during the job interview process -- you can start to plan your future and career path accordingly. So here are seven ways you can tell if you've got a dud of a boss on your hands.

 

7. Lack of Team Cohesion

If one person complains about a boss, that's fairly normal. But if every single one of your coworkers is up in arms about a boss, then that's a big tipoff that there's a major problem.

Look, bosses can't please everyone. If they did, they'd probably be doing something wrong. But at the same time, if an overwhelming majority of his/her employees are quitting or complaining, that's a gargantuan red flag. There needs to be at least enough cohesion and teammwork to get things done. If a boss can't muster up enough good will for employees to do the very basics of their jobs, then that's a bad boss.

6. Failure to See Employees as Humans

Yes, there is work to be done, goals to be met, and money to be made. No one is questioning that. But while the machine that is work must always be in operation, good bosses realize employees are not robots.

Workers are paid to work, but human beings have feelings. Sometimes the level of work suffers because of personal problems -- divorce, a new baby, death in the family, etc. Bosses who see a significant drop-off in employment from an otherwise productive worker should stop and ask themselves why it's happening. It's a tough tightrope to walk because bosses shouldn't pry unnecessarily into the lives of their employees, but at the same time it helps to be cognizant of whether something is wrong. 

It's far beneficial to give someone a few days off to get their affairs in order than to threaten a struggling employee with being put on a plan -- or worse, fired. A little compassion goes a long way, and could make that employee far more loyal and productive in the future. If your boss is heavy-handed with punishments while never seeming to care what's going on personally, you're in trouble.

5. Expects Everyone to be Like Him/Her

Your boss gets in early, stays late, and puts in constant amount of overtime. So therefore you should do the same.

Unfortunately, far too many employees talk about bosses who think just because they act a certain way, their employees should too. This, of course, is ridiculous. People are individuals with various personality styles and differing methods for getting work done. Some people require extra time so they show up early and stay late to complete the necessary work. But that doesn't mean someone else who can complete the work in half the time should be punished just for being able to work quickly. And while a bad boss wants everyone to emulate him/her, a good boss realizes the value of diversity on his/her team.

  

4. Has Unreasonable Expectations

Difficult goals that require hard work and dedication? Excellent ideas. Completely unrealistic goals everyone knows cannot be met? Potential disaster.

If your boss sets your goals (or assists you in setting goals) and simply says "quadruple sales every quarter" when that's never been accomplished in the company's history, you've got yourself a terrible boss. The bad bosses throw out random and often unresearched goals that are virtually impossible to meet, because they think it'll motivate you. However, what they fail to realize is it does the opposite. You work hard but realize you're not coming anywhere close to the goal, so you just say "the heck with it" and don't put forth the maximum effort.

Challenging goals are smart, but bad bosses throw out huge numbers without giving it the proper amount of thought.

3. Spending Too Much Time in the Trenches

It can be great when bosses roll up their sleeves and spend some time in the trenches, but it can also be disastrous.

Don't get me wrong, all bosses should be able to do the same work their employees do. But sometimes, if a boss is spending too much time there, it can devolve into a pretty bad situation very quickly. For instance, if a boss came from sales where they were a high performer, they might have a tendency to start micromanaging the existing sales staff. When managers start doing work for employees, it makes them feel like they aren't trusted or valued. 

Besides, a good boss needs to know how to delegate and when to let their team work on their own. If you have a manager who doesn't trust anyone else to do the work right, it's going to be a very frustating place to work

  

2. Can't Admit Mistakes

This might be the most annoying aspect of a terrible boss.

How many times have you pitched your idea during meetings, only to be overruled by your direct boss. So you diligently play the part of a team player doing the work you've been ordered to do against your better judgment, and eventually you turn in a finished product. Only guess what? Suddenly your boss thinks the work is bad or the original strategy is flawed. Instead, he has a better idea -- your original one. Only now he's passing it off as his own. Not only that, you're now in trouble for substandard work even though you had a great idea in the first place and were just doing what you were directed to do.

You, my friend, have a bad boss. Bad bosses are notorious for never taking any responsibility when things go south, because they have to answer to their boss and you-know-what rolls downhill. Good bosses spread praise amongst team members during wins, and accept the blame when things go wrong. So if you have a boss who has never, ever, EVER been wrong or mistaken about anything and also has avoided any blame for backfires, you might want to think about going somewhere else.

1. They Don't Even Want to be a Boss

In the end, a part of me feels bad for some terrible bosses. Namely, the ones who never really wanted to be bosses in the first place.

Unfortunately, far too many executives at top companies still believe in the misguided idea that top performers will automatically be stellar bosses and managers. The thinking is that because they were rock stars at their jobs, they will seamlessly transition to a management position overseeing others doing the same job. Unfortunately, this is far from the case in many instances. Truth be told, some people either don't want to lead, or aren't good at it. Sure they were spectacular in their former roles, but that doesn't mean they're cut out to supervise others. Maybe the job they were doing was suited to their personality and didn't involve collaboration. Whatever the case, far too many people lunge at the increased salary and fancier job title, only to find out they have no business being in charge of others.

Your horrible boss might have fallen into this trap, and desperately wishes they could go back to the way things used to be. So try to keep that in min

You Can Hate Your Boss, But You Still Need to Negotiate

Whether your boss is the best or an absolute nightmare, the fact is you're going to have to go to him/her and negotiate salary. And Salary.com can help you get paid fairly what you do.

The first thing you should do is research, so you're able to come to the table armed with the knowledge of what your job is worth. Use our free Salary Wizard below to find out what's a fair salary for your position. You can enter your location, education level, years of experience and more to find out an appropriate salary range before you negotiate.

Good luck.

How much are you worth?

·        Personal Salary Report

·        Search US Salaries

·        Search Canadian Salaries

·        Browse Job Openings