Slashdot Mirror
Google Slams Viacom For Secret YouTube Uploads
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Reuters: "Google, Inc. accused Viacom, Inc. of secretly uploading its videos to YouTube even as the media conglomerate publicly denounced the online video site for copyright infringement, according to court documents made public on Thursday."
As "statements from the corporate counsel's office" go, this post on the YouTube blog is pretty hot reading.
I always suspected lonelygirl15 was actually Andy Rooney. This seems to confirm it.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" ."
Croupier: "Your winnings, sir.
Have gnu, will travel.
Would you happen to know of a bathroom nearby, I think I need to take a SCO.
floor votes are so pre-hope and change. Let's just deem it.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.
You should be quite used to that.
Grandpa is starting to have moments like this.
Have gnu, will travel.
As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.
You know what your industry needs? A good PR person to spin your image for you.
If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.
Even double negatives.
Never, ever screw with a company that's in the business of collecting information. Heck, that's Google's *ONLY* business.
No kidding, can you imagine the resources Google's legal team has to build a case. It's not just the support they get for customized searches of case law. They can get a report of all search terms used by Viacom's legal team. They can see every page loaded that's using adsense. God forbid if viacom is using gmail, google docs, or google voice.
I really take perverse pleasure in imagining Google serving customized goatse ads to Viacom's legal team. "Oh I'm sorry our advanced algorithms determined based on your browsing history that it was relevant to your interests"
Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method."
When I was in high school, we were taught to write essays using the "three-pronged thesis" method. The main reasons for this are because it produces short essays, the essays are easy to grade and it encourages creativity in coming up with bullshit to fill the third paragraph when used in situations where the third paragraph should be unnecessary.
Three-pronged thesis statements produce short essays because they encourage the writer to produce 5 paragraphs. One paragraph is used for the introduction to the essay. The next three are used to expand upon each "prong" of the thesis, one paragraph per prong. The final paragraph is used to conclude the essay, and usually is nothing more than the introductory paragraph re-worded.
In addition, these essays are easy to grade because teachers can check the essay by scanning it for key parts. Many teachers grade these essays by checking to see if the introductory paragraph does have a three-pronged thesis and that the opening sentence of the next three paragraphs each refers to one prong of that three-pronged thesis. Unfortunately, teachers who rely on this cursory grading may overlook that their students had inserted off-topic references to bananas in their essays.
Finally, three-pronged essays encourage making up bullshit like this paragraph when the essay's subject matter just doesn't require three paragraphs to cover. Seriously, who needs three paragraphs to explain why the kid in The Scarlet Ibis died? Kid had a weak heart and died of a heart attack. It was sad, the end.
In conclusion, three-pronged thesis statements lead to short essays that are easy to grade and full of bullshit. I spent entirely too long writing this thing, and if I never write anything like this again, it will be too soon.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
87 B+
Overall solid essay, clearly written and well organized. Needs a stronger introduction: lead with your thesis statement, not just a topic sentence. Needs citations! Can't get into A-range grade without citing your sources (Wikipedia, or really any encyclopedia, doesn't count). Seemed to go off on a tangent at one point about bananas--was this a typo? Proofread! Argument got weak toward the end--could have used some direct quotes to reinforce your position regarding Doodle's death. A straightforward reading is acceptable, but I think it would have been better if you could have expanded on the context leading you to this interpretation? It may be that the literal causal story is less important than the intent of the author--what emotions in the reader did Hurst try to evoke by telling the story with Doodle dying in the end?
Love,
Your TA
The Rise and Fall of Online Community