Maybe the attitude has changed. We've just invaded Pakistan (not a failed state). We've just attacked Libya (without a declaration of war or Congressional authorization). Maybe now we can raid Somalia and steal their attack boats.
Lumpy(tm) is a registered trademark of LumpyCo a subsidary of the Lumpy Foundation.
Honestly, if you pull the same shenanigans that corporations do you can control them.
Trademark your persona along with copyrighting it. then you have a legal standing to FORCE companies like facebook, blogger.com, etc.. to do what you tell them to.
No you don't--not if the contract with Facebook, etc. states that you relinquish those rights. That's really bad advice.
I've seen too many poor and stupid people who are good people. Especially in the military. America needs and depends on the poor and the stupid. The least we can do is treat them well, rather than exploit them.
When you get one of those noncompete clauses in a contract you like, you might want to talk with a specialized employment lawyer. In a lot of states, unreasonable noncompete clauses are void. But then, is it worth the money . ..? FWIW
It's called USURY. Our legislators permit it. It exploits the poor and the stupid. The Republicans hate usury legislation. They think that the poor and the stupid should be freely exploited.
Rent-to-own is one of the biggest ripoffs on the face of the universe.
The real question is not whether the NSA can crack a Truecrypt partition. The question is WHEN can the NSA crack it. Can they do it now; will it require a lot of processing; or will it require the development of new technology? Sooner or later, they are going to get it.
A business will only host material that is profitable. If it is unprofitable to host the material, the business will not host it. Unless they are protected by a more powerful government, a business will always remove material when directed to remove that material by a government. Google and Facebook are in this to make money for their shareholders.
In the sixties, a black man couldn't kiss a white woman on TV because many affiliates wouldn't carry the show. You still don't see it very much on TV. The TV programming is racist because you can make money easier with racist programming.
Any algorithm will only have an impact if it conveys reliable information to Facebook/Google about how the inclusion/exclusion of the material helps the company's bottom line. In other words, does it impact page view and advertising revenue? If the complainers don't matter to the bottom line, blow them off. If they cost money, censor the material. That's the only kind of algorithm that makes sense. Study the complainers in depth and chart their influence over time. Base your censorship decisions upon the results.
I'm convinced that a free alternative to Facebook is essential. In a free environment, the user can rely on his or her own self-defined filters to determine what will or will not be received--not some profit-driven corporate censorship algorithim.
Read the contract carefully. Providers generally exclude themselves for all liability in the contract that they post on the Internet.
But there is one big time bomb in those cloud storage contracts that nobody talks about: The contracts often impose a "duty to defend" upon the customer. That particular little bedbug means that if a person sues the provider over the data you store on their site, that you have a duty to defend the provider. That means you pay for all the provider's lawyer, expert, and court costs. The person suing the provider may have a bullshit case, but you will still have a duty to pay for the provider's defense. The language is often written extremely broadly.
Do you want to sign up for an indeterminate liability amount for a provider that you don't really know?
The Feds could readily determine that the router was unsecured. That means that anybody within a certain radius of the computer could have downloaded the picture.
Probable cause means facts and circumstances that would cause a person of reasonable prudence to believe that the computer in the house that was searched was used to download criminal material or used to store criminal material.
The router is evidence of a crime. It is the device used to get the criminal material. The feds had a legit reason for the search and seizure of the router.
The problem that I have is that the ICE agents behaved like pigs--complete pigs--with respect to the man whose home they invaded. They had facts sufficient to know that they had no probable cause to believe that the man they threw on the ground had done anything wrong. They were under no threat, yet they assaulted him for no good reason.
If you've got a judgment rendered in state court, the fed courts won't let you re-present the same case in federal court. The general doctrine is called abstention, and the particular variant is called the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
If they're jerking the same people around over the same subject matter, the federal judge will eat their face.
I will never patronize Comcast (ATT, Xfinity, or whatever) unless I have absolutely no choice. They try to get a monopoly and then they exploit it (by jacking up prices) for all they are worth.
Corporations get their money from two general sources: equity contributions and loans. Both of those contributors lose their investment when the corporation goes insolvent. These people know the risk of what they are getting into. They also have the opportunity to estimate the scope of what they don't know.
The problem isn't the limited liability aspect of the corporation. Society needs that in order to build grand things (like railroads, canals, roads and other infrastructure). The problem is that people want to deregulate corporations. This is madness. We're seeing enormous executive overcompensation not because of market forces, but because of cosy relationships. We're also allowing the corporate insiders the ability to freely water down the stock of investors by giving stock options to other insiders. And then there's the ungodly and unnecessary tax that every business must pay to Wall Street.
Unregulated business is politics. It's worse than the worst government.
This could be a great software patent showdown. I'm always hoping. I want to see federal circuit court address the software patent issue squarely. The earlier poster was right about Groklaw.
Slashdot Mirror
It does say that. It's not a lie, it's the truth.
Problem is that you've got to pay the good guru. Really pay him or her. Otherwise, you've got to find yourself a good guru.
Maybe the attitude has changed. We've just invaded Pakistan (not a failed state). We've just attacked Libya (without a declaration of war or Congressional authorization). Maybe now we can raid Somalia and steal their attack boats.
Lumpy(tm) is a registered trademark of LumpyCo a subsidary of the Lumpy Foundation.
Honestly, if you pull the same shenanigans that corporations do you can control them.
Trademark your persona along with copyrighting it. then you have a legal standing to FORCE companies like facebook, blogger.com, etc.. to do what you tell them to.
No you don't--not if the contract with Facebook, etc. states that you relinquish those rights. That's really bad advice.
You may not be a lawyer, but your post makes good sense. And CNET is not a judgment-proof defendant.
I've seen too many poor and stupid people who are good people. Especially in the military. America needs and depends on the poor and the stupid. The least we can do is treat them well, rather than exploit them.
When you get one of those noncompete clauses in a contract you like, you might want to talk with a specialized employment lawyer. In a lot of states, unreasonable noncompete clauses are void. But then, is it worth the money . . .?
FWIW
As long as the Germans don't start having rallies for Suse, everything should be all right. Don't worry.
It's called USURY. Our legislators permit it. It exploits the poor and the stupid. The Republicans hate usury legislation. They think that the poor and the stupid should be freely exploited.
Rent-to-own is one of the biggest ripoffs on the face of the universe.
You are totally right. The leaking of the "treasure trove of intel" is definitely designed to motivate flight behavior.
A selfish man who had others die for him is not likely to be overmuch careful about protecting the people who remain alive after he is dead.
I bet he was really sloppy and undisciplined.
The real question is not whether the NSA can crack a Truecrypt partition. The question is WHEN can the NSA crack it. Can they do it now; will it require a lot of processing; or will it require the development of new technology? Sooner or later, they are going to get it.
I didn't have anything to do with it. Honest.
A business will only host material that is profitable. If it is unprofitable to host the material, the business will not host it. Unless they are protected by a more powerful government, a business will always remove material when directed to remove that material by a government. Google and Facebook are in this to make money for their shareholders.
In the sixties, a black man couldn't kiss a white woman on TV because many affiliates wouldn't carry the show. You still don't see it very much on TV. The TV programming is racist because you can make money easier with racist programming.
Any algorithm will only have an impact if it conveys reliable information to Facebook/Google about how the inclusion/exclusion of the material helps the company's bottom line. In other words, does it impact page view and advertising revenue? If the complainers don't matter to the bottom line, blow them off. If they cost money, censor the material. That's the only kind of algorithm that makes sense. Study the complainers in depth and chart their influence over time. Base your censorship decisions upon the results.
I'm convinced that a free alternative to Facebook is essential. In a free environment, the user can rely on his or her own self-defined filters to determine what will or will not be received--not some profit-driven corporate censorship algorithim.
But "Defense wins Championships."
Read the contract carefully. Providers generally exclude themselves for all liability in the contract that they post on the Internet.
But there is one big time bomb in those cloud storage contracts that nobody talks about: The contracts often impose a "duty to defend" upon the customer. That particular little bedbug means that if a person sues the provider over the data you store on their site, that you have a duty to defend the provider. That means you pay for all the provider's lawyer, expert, and court costs. The person suing the provider may have a bullshit case, but you will still have a duty to pay for the provider's defense. The language is often written extremely broadly.
Do you want to sign up for an indeterminate liability amount for a provider that you don't really know?
The cops did everything right, except the part about brutalizing the homeowner.
Wait! So if my neighbor pours toxic sludge all over my backyard, I have to fund his legal defense? Good luck with that one!
The Feds could readily determine that the router was unsecured. That means that anybody within a certain radius of the computer could have downloaded the picture.
Probable cause means facts and circumstances that would cause a person of reasonable prudence to believe that the computer in the house that was searched was used to download criminal material or used to store criminal material.
The router is evidence of a crime. It is the device used to get the criminal material. The feds had a legit reason for the search and seizure of the router.
The problem that I have is that the ICE agents behaved like pigs--complete pigs--with respect to the man whose home they invaded. They had facts sufficient to know that they had no probable cause to believe that the man they threw on the ground had done anything wrong. They were under no threat, yet they assaulted him for no good reason.
If you've got a judgment rendered in state court, the fed courts won't let you re-present the same case in federal court. The general doctrine is called abstention, and the particular variant is called the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
If they're jerking the same people around over the same subject matter, the federal judge will eat their face.
Start up the sanction motions!
I will never patronize Comcast (ATT, Xfinity, or whatever) unless I have absolutely no choice. They try to get a monopoly and then they exploit it (by jacking up prices) for all they are worth.
Support your municipal cable company!
Sell beyond capacity. I've seen that movie. It's called "The Producers." Those guys went to prison for fraud, though.
As long as they don't try to attack my computer, I appreciate their input.
Lawless jerks.
Corporations get their money from two general sources: equity contributions and loans. Both of those contributors lose their investment when the corporation goes insolvent. These people know the risk of what they are getting into. They also have the opportunity to estimate the scope of what they don't know.
The problem isn't the limited liability aspect of the corporation. Society needs that in order to build grand things (like railroads, canals, roads and other infrastructure). The problem is that people want to deregulate corporations. This is madness. We're seeing enormous executive overcompensation not because of market forces, but because of cosy relationships. We're also allowing the corporate insiders the ability to freely water down the stock of investors by giving stock options to other insiders. And then there's the ungodly and unnecessary tax that every business must pay to Wall Street.
Unregulated business is politics. It's worse than the worst government.
This could be a great software patent showdown. I'm always hoping. I want to see federal circuit court address the software patent issue squarely. The earlier poster was right about Groklaw.