The right balance is what.uk domains have - free information hiding for non-trading individuals, but information displayed for companies. They still have your information, but you don't have to show it to the world and you don't have to pay someone to hide it. As long as "squatting on a domain and pumping it full of ads" is considered "trading" then it's the perfect balance.
I slightly disagree. The right balance is complete anonimity unless one is suspected of having committed a crime, at which point only a court may order the service provider to expose your information. The same way all online crime vs. anonimity should be treated, from copyright violation to bank fraud.
God forbid that one of this days you have an accident and loose any of your senses, especially your sight. Only then you may appreciate why there's all this talk of putting beepers on pedestrian crossings, making websites accessible to screen readers, and hell, even putting car-tones on electric cars.
It's one thing to try to help the handicapped in society. It's another to define something as worthless just because it hasn't yet been adapted to some handicapped audiences. You see one is being just, and one is being a fucking dick. I'll leave it to you to solve the puzzle.
More legal costs. Let's say you were sued and won. Congratulations, you win the lawsuit but now have to pay $20k (hypothetically) in legal fees. You don't feel that's justified, so you countersue for legal damages and lose. Now you owe $40k.
Lawyers ain't cheap. They bill hundreds of dollars per each hour they spend on your case. Even calling them or emailing and asking a simple legal question can will often result in a hefty bill. I personally witnessed firsthand, and a 20 minute phone call ended up costing $180.
So it's not as simple as:
They can ask the judge to grant it, but it doesn't always happen.
There is a actually a process afterwards in which your lawyer needs to attend. Alright got it, but in which cases does one get paid for lawyer costs? Is it when the person suing is clearly out of line? If so then back to my question with a slight variation: why would anyone even hesitate to ask for that when up against Mr. Thompson?
Basically I understand that shouting "nigger" and hitting a black person is illegal,
Note, by the way, that hitting a black person without shouting "nigger" is illegal.
Come to that, hitting anyone, whether or not you shout "nigger" is illegal, no matter the race creed, color or national origin of your chosen punching bag. It's called "battery"....
Of course, but without the "nigger" my example wouldn't necessarily be a hate crime, which was the point of the example.
I agree completely with you that Facebook didn't make people hate him...his own actions did. Unfortunately Jack Thompson might (for once) have something on his side since he's complaining that Facebook didn't remove the hate groups against him (like the now removed "i'll pay someone $50 for a video of you punching Jack Thompson in the face" post) but removed a poll of "Should Obama be shot." I don't think it's unreasonable he found a lawyer to help him on this one.
Excuse my european ignorance for not understanding. But is it illegal to hate people in the US? If not, is it illegal to form groups sharing the same hate? Please before anybody answers, I'm not referring to hate crimes, which infact doesn't tend to be about the hate, but rather what actions people have taken against eachother. Basically I understand that shouting "nigger" and hitting a black person is illegal, but is it illegal to tell that same person: "I hate you. Infact I've formed a group and we all hate you. It has nothing to do with your heritage, but with the choices you have made in life that have affected me."
If there has been threats made towards him then it's not even up for debate, no matter what kind of an asshole he is, it's not fair to make illegal threats to him or anyone. If he truly wants redemption he should sue those who have threatened or urged others to harm him illegaly. Still Facebook was merely a tool in this case. If I call you and threaten you, can you then sue your phone company? And if it's more about Facebook not preventing/correcting this when having the knowledge that this is occuring I'll paint another more relative scenario. Hypothetically, if your phone company knows that I am going to call you and threaten you, and they choose to not block that call, is it then justified to sue the phone company at hand?
I could swear that I saw this concept in a movie at one point in time. Any reason why someone didn't think of this approach sooner? What are the drawbacks?
This is the first step towards having our severed heads living in fluid, without the need of a body at all, such as foreseen by Futurama.
Of course when it's about Microsoft winning a patent troll, it's because they "bribed judge".
Nobody else than you said that in this thread. Why are you so quick to jump to Microsofts defense all the time? I've seen many of your posts and you always tend to point your finger at everybody else saying that they hate Microsoft thus Microsoft is innocent. Can't you just look at things objectively for once? Besides it doesn't matter what is said here anyway, if you want to show the truth behind the story and "prove everybody wrong" you have to provide information why this was or wasn't a correct verdict. And your half-assed attempt to try to prove anything by saying:
Actually I haven't still heard any case where MS has gone patent trolling...
if true means nothing to this case in particular. By that logic nobody is ever guilty of anything because they were once innocent. Really -- your tendency of making a holy war out of everything regarding Microsoft is getting fucking tiresome.
> In FOSS however you can fork the project, which you can't here.
Yes, you're free to fork the Android project and do whatever you want with it, it's under a FOSS license.
What you can't do with the fork is distribute Google's proprietary apps that happen to run on Android: if you need their capabilities you have to write an alternative. While such applications feature strongly in the "google phone" as usually sold, they have no technical advantage, and there is nothing in the system that prevents alternative applications from taking their place.
Please at least read the summary before you post.
Either way, these apps aren't open source, and that's why they aren't included in the Android source code repository.
Any idiot knows that Andoid is a FOSS project, I was obviously referring to the binaries he distributed without permission.
This actually seems like a more-or-less legitimate point by Google. I'll probably get flamed for this, but it seems like people may have overreacted a little bit.
No you shouldn't. It is completely valid, and it's not only because it's not open source, it's also illegal to make use of anothers trademark, such as the case with Firefox/Debian. In FOSS however you can fork the project, which you can't here. Still I see no reason why this is even noteworhty. Google is careful about its channels. I wouldn't want my brands to be associated with just anything either.
Microsoft passes the cost of running the live servers, bandwidth, etc. on to the customer. Nothing to do with piracy.
1. That was my point, which you seem to have missed completely. 2. A big part of that charge is revenue, so let's not pretent it's just "covering costs".
This is great news if you believe that Microsoft is pure evil and Google is goodness and light. I suspect that google will have their own lock-in however.
Why are you so quick to jump to Microsofts defense? Bottom line is: avoid proprietary lock-in. The reason: when that solution is no longer the best/most painless/cheapest you will have a hell trying to change it. It's about risk and assessment, and you can put whatever label you want on it, be it Google, Microsoft or Joe's Software. There are other options. Options that try to keep you as a customer by being the best, instead of holding your data hostage. How is this difficult to anyone?
what bullshit arguement? im not following you now...
Microsoft CHARGE their users MONEY to play the games they bought ONLINE
Piracy doesnt even come into it, I haveno issue PAYING for a game, but am astounded MICROSOFT should think to CHARGE me if i want to play it in MULTIPLAYER ONLINE
What? Xbox 360 games aren't bought online, what are you talking about? You seem lost brother, until we're talking about the same thing it's worthless arguing about it.
This is what's actually good in Windows Mobile. Anyone can write software for it and anyone can start a Store site for it. In this respect Windows and Windows Mobile are quite open architectures. All iPhone, Palm and Symbian are really restricted and closed architectures (Symbian requires you to get certificate for the app too), and getting your apps on the stores are a real bitch.
Symbian is hopefully dying in favor of Maemo, and what goes for iPhone you don't even want to get me started. However this isn't "good about Windows Mobile", this is required for me to even look at it once, and I'm not asking for much here. I don't know why the author bothers to develop for Palm when... well do I need to continue that sentence or can I let TFA speak for itself?
It has nothing to do with piracy! or the cost of games, but, any xbox game has an added expense if microsoft charge their "customers" a monthly fee for the "priviledge" of playing games online!
Come on, are you honestly saying that you haven't heard this bullshit argument? Even for online games?
Any XBox 360 game is expensive if microsoft continue to charge users to play online...
Well it's all because of those damn pirates. I mean if people would stop copying games, usually kids and others who don't have the financial means to do otherwise, or even those who wouldn't pay for it anyway, then money would magically appear in their pockets and they would be willing to spend this magical money on games. Then all the games in the world would be cheap! Because that's how unfairly treated EA and Blizzard and Microsoft are, struggling in this harsh and cruel world to barely make ends meet.
Not following? Me neither.
Disclaimer: I'm not for or against piracy, I keep my worthless morals to myself, and you keep your worthless morals to yourself. I'm just exposing bullshit.
Since when was IT prestigious? It once used to be the hot new industry where people made lots of money, but it was never 'sexy'. Lucrative, not glorious. And now it's not even that, so much.
People are still impressed when I filter out duplicate cells in rows in Excel. It may not be prestigious to you because you know the sillyness behind the scenes, but for people who don't understand simple computing it truly is like magic, and you as an IT become the magician behind it. Have you seen the looks of people when you connect to their computers through VNC? When you do you'll know what I'm talking about.
They are made for the sole purpose of being sold and making as much money as possible.
In a capitalistic world, what isn't? I'm not being philosophical, I'm actually asking you. Art, tools, entertainment, they are all created for profit -- in a capitalistic world that is, not in general.
It's a very rare player that has rights to their own name, image, and likeness. For the most part, when you sign your contract with the NCAA and professional leagues you must turn over those rights to the league. This gives them the ability to license that data for things like games.
Whether the games are expressive works or not, the rights to those likenesses should lie with the leagues, not the players.
For the record it's just like the record companies. They own the entire brand of their artists, unless the artists actually negotiated (very, very rare) other terms. How does this scenario play out when we swap sports players with musical artists?
Slashdot Mirror
The right balance is what .uk domains have - free information hiding for non-trading individuals, but information displayed for companies. They still have your information, but you don't have to show it to the world and you don't have to pay someone to hide it. As long as "squatting on a domain and pumping it full of ads" is considered "trading" then it's the perfect balance.
I slightly disagree. The right balance is complete anonimity unless one is suspected of having committed a crime, at which point only a court may order the service provider to expose your information. The same way all online crime vs. anonimity should be treated, from copyright violation to bank fraud.
Does anybody have an alternative link?
God forbid that one of this days you have an accident and loose any of your senses, especially your sight. Only then you may appreciate why there's all this talk of putting beepers on pedestrian crossings, making websites accessible to screen readers, and hell, even putting car-tones on electric cars.
It's one thing to try to help the handicapped in society. It's another to define something as worthless just because it hasn't yet been adapted to some handicapped audiences. You see one is being just, and one is being a fucking dick. I'll leave it to you to solve the puzzle.
More legal costs. Let's say you were sued and won. Congratulations, you win the lawsuit but now have to pay $20k (hypothetically) in legal fees. You don't feel that's justified, so you countersue for legal damages and lose. Now you owe $40k.
Lawyers ain't cheap. They bill hundreds of dollars per each hour they spend on your case. Even calling them or emailing and asking a simple legal question can will often result in a hefty bill. I personally witnessed firsthand, and a 20 minute phone call ended up costing $180.
So it's not as simple as:
They can ask the judge to grant it, but it doesn't always happen.
There is a actually a process afterwards in which your lawyer needs to attend. Alright got it, but in which cases does one get paid for lawyer costs? Is it when the person suing is clearly out of line? If so then back to my question with a slight variation: why would anyone even hesitate to ask for that when up against Mr. Thompson?
Note, by the way, that hitting a black person without shouting "nigger" is illegal.
Come to that, hitting anyone, whether or not you shout "nigger" is illegal, no matter the race creed, color or national origin of your chosen punching bag. It's called "battery"....
Of course, but without the "nigger" my example wouldn't necessarily be a hate crime, which was the point of the example.
Why is he still going? Don't they make him pay his opponent's costs when he loses? Shouldn't he be broke?
No. You don't automatically pay your opponent's costs when you lose in the U.S. They can ask the judge to grant it, but it doesn't always happen.
First, thanks for that info. Second, why would anyone even hesitate to ask for that?
I agree completely with you that Facebook didn't make people hate him...his own actions did. Unfortunately Jack Thompson might (for once) have something on his side since he's complaining that Facebook didn't remove the hate groups against him (like the now removed "i'll pay someone $50 for a video of you punching Jack Thompson in the face" post) but removed a poll of "Should Obama be shot." I don't think it's unreasonable he found a lawyer to help him on this one.
Excuse my european ignorance for not understanding. But is it illegal to hate people in the US? If not, is it illegal to form groups sharing the same hate? Please before anybody answers, I'm not referring to hate crimes, which infact doesn't tend to be about the hate, but rather what actions people have taken against eachother. Basically I understand that shouting "nigger" and hitting a black person is illegal, but is it illegal to tell that same person: "I hate you. Infact I've formed a group and we all hate you. It has nothing to do with your heritage, but with the choices you have made in life that have affected me."
If there has been threats made towards him then it's not even up for debate, no matter what kind of an asshole he is, it's not fair to make illegal threats to him or anyone. If he truly wants redemption he should sue those who have threatened or urged others to harm him illegaly. Still Facebook was merely a tool in this case. If I call you and threaten you, can you then sue your phone company? And if it's more about Facebook not preventing/correcting this when having the knowledge that this is occuring I'll paint another more relative scenario. Hypothetically, if your phone company knows that I am going to call you and threaten you, and they choose to not block that call, is it then justified to sue the phone company at hand?
I could swear that I saw this concept in a movie at one point in time. Any reason why someone didn't think of this approach sooner? What are the drawbacks?
This is the first step towards having our severed heads living in fluid, without the need of a body at all, such as foreseen by Futurama.
I am not a doctor.
It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.
It's worse than that, she's dead Jim!
No wait.
Of course when it's about Microsoft winning a patent troll, it's because they "bribed judge".
Nobody else than you said that in this thread. Why are you so quick to jump to Microsofts defense all the time? I've seen many of your posts and you always tend to point your finger at everybody else saying that they hate Microsoft thus Microsoft is innocent. Can't you just look at things objectively for once? Besides it doesn't matter what is said here anyway, if you want to show the truth behind the story and "prove everybody wrong" you have to provide information why this was or wasn't a correct verdict. And your half-assed attempt to try to prove anything by saying:
Actually I haven't still heard any case where MS has gone patent trolling...
if true means nothing to this case in particular. By that logic nobody is ever guilty of anything because they were once innocent. Really -- your tendency of making a holy war out of everything regarding Microsoft is getting fucking tiresome.
> In FOSS however you can fork the project, which you can't here.
Yes, you're free to fork the Android project and do whatever you want with it, it's under a FOSS license.
What you can't do with the fork is distribute Google's proprietary apps that happen to run on Android: if you need their capabilities you have to write an alternative.
While such applications feature strongly in the "google phone" as usually sold, they have no technical advantage, and there is nothing in the system that prevents alternative applications from taking their place.
Please at least read the summary before you post.
Either way, these apps aren't open source, and that's why they aren't included in the Android source code repository.
Any idiot knows that Andoid is a FOSS project, I was obviously referring to the binaries he distributed without permission.
This actually seems like a more-or-less legitimate point by Google. I'll probably get flamed for this, but it seems like people may have overreacted a little bit.
No you shouldn't. It is completely valid, and it's not only because it's not open source, it's also illegal to make use of anothers trademark, such as the case with Firefox/Debian. In FOSS however you can fork the project, which you can't here. Still I see no reason why this is even noteworhty. Google is careful about its channels. I wouldn't want my brands to be associated with just anything either.
It works great for the flashblindness, nausea, dizziness, disorientation. The occasional vomiting? Maybe not ;)
Really? Cool! You should cut out that last comment though because it sounded like the whole project didn't work.
brilliant !
Watch the movie. It didn't really work, to my disappointment as well.
Microsoft passes the cost of running the live servers, bandwidth, etc. on to the customer. Nothing to do with piracy.
1. That was my point, which you seem to have missed completely.
2. A big part of that charge is revenue, so let's not pretent it's just "covering costs".
Why are you so quick to jump to Microsofts defense?
So if you don't gush over Google that means you're jumping to Microsoft's defense?
Bottom line is: avoid proprietary lock-in.
So then why are you using Google's proprietary products then?
I'm not following. Where did I say that I'm using Google's proprietary products?
This is great news if you believe that Microsoft is pure evil and Google is goodness and light. I suspect that google will have their own lock-in however.
Why are you so quick to jump to Microsofts defense? Bottom line is: avoid proprietary lock-in. The reason: when that solution is no longer the best/most painless/cheapest you will have a hell trying to change it. It's about risk and assessment, and you can put whatever label you want on it, be it Google, Microsoft or Joe's Software. There are other options. Options that try to keep you as a customer by being the best, instead of holding your data hostage. How is this difficult to anyone?
what bullshit arguement? im not following you now...
Microsoft CHARGE their users MONEY to play the games they bought ONLINE
Piracy doesnt even come into it, I haveno issue PAYING for a game, but am astounded MICROSOFT should think to CHARGE me if i want to play it in MULTIPLAYER ONLINE
What? Xbox 360 games aren't bought online, what are you talking about? You seem lost brother, until we're talking about the same thing it's worthless arguing about it.
This is what's actually good in Windows Mobile. Anyone can write software for it and anyone can start a Store site for it. In this respect Windows and Windows Mobile are quite open architectures. All iPhone, Palm and Symbian are really restricted and closed architectures (Symbian requires you to get certificate for the app too), and getting your apps on the stores are a real bitch.
Symbian is hopefully dying in favor of Maemo, and what goes for iPhone you don't even want to get me started. However this isn't "good about Windows Mobile", this is required for me to even look at it once, and I'm not asking for much here. I don't know why the author bothers to develop for Palm when... well do I need to continue that sentence or can I let TFA speak for itself?
It has nothing to do with piracy! or the cost of games, but, any xbox game has an added expense if microsoft charge their "customers" a monthly fee for the "priviledge" of playing games online!
Come on, are you honestly saying that you haven't heard this bullshit argument? Even for online games?
It's not foolish to pay for something you like and enjoy.
However many things are foolish to like and enjoy.
Any XBox 360 game is expensive if microsoft continue to charge users to play online...
Well it's all because of those damn pirates. I mean if people would stop copying games, usually kids and others who don't have the financial means to do otherwise, or even those who wouldn't pay for it anyway, then money would magically appear in their pockets and they would be willing to spend this magical money on games. Then all the games in the world would be cheap! Because that's how unfairly treated EA and Blizzard and Microsoft are, struggling in this harsh and cruel world to barely make ends meet.
Not following? Me neither.
Disclaimer: I'm not for or against piracy, I keep my worthless morals to myself, and you keep your worthless morals to yourself. I'm just exposing bullshit.
Since when was IT prestigious? It once used to be the hot new industry where people made lots of money, but it was never 'sexy'. Lucrative, not glorious. And now it's not even that, so much.
People are still impressed when I filter out duplicate cells in rows in Excel. It may not be prestigious to you because you know the sillyness behind the scenes, but for people who don't understand simple computing it truly is like magic, and you as an IT become the magician behind it. Have you seen the looks of people when you connect to their computers through VNC? When you do you'll know what I'm talking about.
They are made for the sole purpose of being sold and making as much money as possible.
In a capitalistic world, what isn't? I'm not being philosophical, I'm actually asking you. Art, tools, entertainment, they are all created for profit -- in a capitalistic world that is, not in general.
It's a very rare player that has rights to their own name, image, and likeness. For the most part, when you sign your contract with the NCAA and professional leagues you must turn over those rights to the league. This gives them the ability to license that data for things like games.
Whether the games are expressive works or not, the rights to those likenesses should lie with the leagues, not the players.
For the record it's just like the record companies. They own the entire brand of their artists, unless the artists actually negotiated (very, very rare) other terms. How does this scenario play out when we swap sports players with musical artists?