But they don't really hate us; they just dislike us with some odd mixture of contempt and envy.
This may have been mostly true before the GW Bush presidency, but don't count on it now. Even your strongest allies are getting pretty sick of Pax Americana, and most everyone else has gone from contempt to hatred. There is probably still lots of envy for the Western lifestyle, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it's specifically the American lifestyle that people envy. Many people also feel that this latest economic recession marks the beginning of the end for the American hegemony, and are starting to cast their covetous eyes elsewhere.
But many Koreans really really hate the Japanese. Something about it not being that many generations ago that the Japanese overran their country and committed terrible war crimes against the civilian population. And I'm not just repeating third-hand stereotypes--I'm speaking from personal experience with Korean friends and their parents.
Although I'm sure you're right, I think the GP was trying to say that despite how the Koreans and Japanese feel about each other, Korean and Japanese corporations (and the people who run them) are far less concerned about recent history than they are about improving their margins. With South Korea being even more capitalistic than the US, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Korean corporate culture had put aside their hatred in pursuit of more profit.
Better still to either simply deny fraudulent claims, or have your actuaries work out how much the fraud claims cost and factor that into the price of insurance. Which is probably what the company is doing.
It's not necessarily dumb to give them brand new models where electronics is concerned. It's actually better to replace an old phone with a new model because a) you don't have to keep around supplies of your old phone in inventory, b) the new phone is probably cheaper to make than the old model was.
No, it's not preventing zero-day piracy, it's preventing zero-day purchases If your customers won't buy your product until the pirates have cracked it, that's not good for the company. They may still get the money (eventually), but they probably also got a lot of bad press and a lot of lost sales on top of it. The certainly lose a lot of that zero-day sales hype that comes when you have long lines of gamer nerds waiting for their local store to open. That's a less tangible and harder to quantify loss, but a loss it is.
Somebody has conflated the kind of "free-thinking creativity" of artists, designers, etc. with the kind of free-thinking of the open software movement. "free thinking" to an artist means the freedom to create her own vision without interference by anyone else, not freedom to collaborate on or elaborate someone else's vision. This artist's "free-thinking" often looks more like the Jobs method of top-down control than like the open-source movement's wide-distribution collaboration philosophy. Which isn't to say that artists never collaborate, of course.
The point is probably to create and keep a nice big portfolio of patents to be used the next time Google gets sued for patent infringement. It's common practice for big tech firms (and others, of course) to hold a reserve of patents at the ready in the event that they need to defend against a patent suit. The aggressor company sues for infringement, the defender digs up a few patents that the aggressor is violating, and they settle out of court for a mutual licensing agreement.
Of course it's ridiculous, and sounds stupid, but it's a symptom of the broken patent system, not a peculiarity of Google.
If it is proven they broke into computer systems in order to aid a foreign country against the interests of the United States, it can be considered as the crime of treason. (I am assuming they are American citizens).
It's very unlikely that the culprit is American.
If they are citizens of China, they can still be judged on the ground of breaking into a computerized system and on the ground of conspiracy.
Why exactly would they be tried for obeying orders from their government? They might be punished for getting caught, but we won't likely hear about that.
USA has no extradition treaties with China so I think they have no obligations to let China judge them.
Except that the investigation is in Google China, which is in...wait for it...China.
Anything the US gov can do will be diplomatic in nature, and given how closely tied the economies of the US and China are, any diplomatic action the US can take will be largely symbolic. Though there may be plans for a more covert retaliation in the works as we speak, those plans won't likely involve wasting time trying to extradite the hackers/mole/whoever.
I've found that there is some benefit to having a heavier gauge speaker wire, in extreme conditions. I used to work at a smaller electronic store, and was responsible for taking care of the audio/video department. I had to run two each of every speaker we carried, all from one amp, through switches so that any pair of speakers could be played alone, or all of them could be played at once. Needless to say, this involved a lot of wire, and I found that if I used the lighter gauges, the whole thing sounded like garbage. I think 16 ga was about the lightest I could get away with and still have it sound good (though of course it wouldn't pass muster for an audiophile, but then we weren't selling gear to audiophiles), and I generally just ran 12 because we often had a lot of it handy.
I also found that with such a setup we did get line noise from interference, but again, it's a pretty extreme situation, and the store's electical was rather elderly and being taxed to the very limits.
I do agree that what kind of wire used would have made no difference, I could have wired it up with lamp cord wire and gotten the same effect.
I've done a lot of work as a sound tech for live shows (as a volunteer and amateur, not a professional), and I can say that the only benefit I've found to more expensive cabling has nothing to do with the sound -- well-made cable tends to stay where you put it when you lay it down, and it will generally lie flat instead of looping back up and needing a lot of tape to hold the loops down. Clearly this would not be a huge issue for a home listener.
So you're saying the system as it is doesn't protect the rights of the citizens? Maybe you need to change the system then. There should be sufficient protections in your systems that jury nullification shouldn't be necessary.
What happens when, say, the mob buys enough jury members to have the jury strike the RICO laws? Who's protected then?
Protecting the citizens means protecting ALL the citizens, not just the 12 people sitting in the jury box. If your system needs 12 people not smart enough to avoid jury duty to protect it, then it's pretty badly broken anyway, and can probably benefit from a complete overhaul.
Who says it's erroneous? Juries are not the best judges of law. Law is supposed to be made by duly elected officials, and interpreted by the courts. Juries simply are not qualified, and furthermore, to allow juries to change the law is to let them short-circuit the democratic process.
No, that wouldn't necessarily work, especially not for a summary judgment. But then it's probably not needed. Canadian courts will enforce judgments from other countries if those other countries, among other things, have similar legal structures, and have been willing to enforce Canadian judgments. No new trial would be necessary.
I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...
Yes it is, because arguing from religion isn't argument. It's taking a stand based on faith. You're free to take such a stand, but you are not free to impose your faith on me, either through the force of law or through social manipulation. At all. You can frown all you want, but that's about it.
If you want to make an argument for your position, use reason, not faith, because I don't share that faith.
Slashdot Mirror
People like you need something better to do with their time.
People like you are the reason that the rest of the world has (unjustly) stereotyped American people as ignorant and arrogant.
But they don't really hate us; they just dislike us with some odd mixture of contempt and envy.
This may have been mostly true before the GW Bush presidency, but don't count on it now. Even your strongest allies are getting pretty sick of Pax Americana, and most everyone else has gone from contempt to hatred. There is probably still lots of envy for the Western lifestyle, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it's specifically the American lifestyle that people envy. Many people also feel that this latest economic recession marks the beginning of the end for the American hegemony, and are starting to cast their covetous eyes elsewhere.
But many Koreans really really hate the Japanese. Something about it not being that many generations ago that the Japanese overran their country and committed terrible war crimes against the civilian population. And I'm not just repeating third-hand stereotypes--I'm speaking from personal experience with Korean friends and their parents.
Although I'm sure you're right, I think the GP was trying to say that despite how the Koreans and Japanese feel about each other, Korean and Japanese corporations (and the people who run them) are far less concerned about recent history than they are about improving their margins. With South Korea being even more capitalistic than the US, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Korean corporate culture had put aside their hatred in pursuit of more profit.
China's already started dumping its T-bills. Strangely, this doesn't seem to be getting a lot of play in the media...I wonder why?
Times of India
Reuters
Better still to either simply deny fraudulent claims, or have your actuaries work out how much the fraud claims cost and factor that into the price of insurance. Which is probably what the company is doing.
It's not necessarily dumb to give them brand new models where electronics is concerned. It's actually better to replace an old phone with a new model because a) you don't have to keep around supplies of your old phone in inventory, b) the new phone is probably cheaper to make than the old model was.
As noted above, e-mail itself is not HIPAA compliant.
No, it's not preventing zero-day piracy, it's preventing zero-day purchases If your customers won't buy your product until the pirates have cracked it, that's not good for the company. They may still get the money (eventually), but they probably also got a lot of bad press and a lot of lost sales on top of it. The certainly lose a lot of that zero-day sales hype that comes when you have long lines of gamer nerds waiting for their local store to open. That's a less tangible and harder to quantify loss, but a loss it is.
Exactly.
Either that or I'm missing something.
Just an ear for metaphor and simile.
Somebody has conflated the kind of "free-thinking creativity" of artists, designers, etc. with the kind of free-thinking of the open software movement. "free thinking" to an artist means the freedom to create her own vision without interference by anyone else, not freedom to collaborate on or elaborate someone else's vision. This artist's "free-thinking" often looks more like the Jobs method of top-down control than like the open-source movement's wide-distribution collaboration philosophy. Which isn't to say that artists never collaborate, of course.
I suspect that incapacitating the driver might be a little more dangerous than using a smartphone while driving. But it does sound like fun.
The point is probably to create and keep a nice big portfolio of patents to be used the next time Google gets sued for patent infringement. It's common practice for big tech firms (and others, of course) to hold a reserve of patents at the ready in the event that they need to defend against a patent suit. The aggressor company sues for infringement, the defender digs up a few patents that the aggressor is violating, and they settle out of court for a mutual licensing agreement.
Of course it's ridiculous, and sounds stupid, but it's a symptom of the broken patent system, not a peculiarity of Google.
If it is proven they broke into computer systems in order to aid a foreign country against the interests of the United States, it can be considered as the crime of treason. (I am assuming they are American citizens).
It's very unlikely that the culprit is American.
If they are citizens of China, they can still be judged on the ground of breaking into a computerized system and on the ground of conspiracy.
Why exactly would they be tried for obeying orders from their government? They might be punished for getting caught, but we won't likely hear about that.
USA has no extradition treaties with China so I think they have no obligations to let China judge them.
Except that the investigation is in Google China, which is in...wait for it...China.
Anything the US gov can do will be diplomatic in nature, and given how closely tied the economies of the US and China are, any diplomatic action the US can take will be largely symbolic. Though there may be plans for a more covert retaliation in the works as we speak, those plans won't likely involve wasting time trying to extradite the hackers/mole/whoever.
I've found that there is some benefit to having a heavier gauge speaker wire, in extreme conditions. I used to work at a smaller electronic store, and was responsible for taking care of the audio/video department. I had to run two each of every speaker we carried, all from one amp, through switches so that any pair of speakers could be played alone, or all of them could be played at once. Needless to say, this involved a lot of wire, and I found that if I used the lighter gauges, the whole thing sounded like garbage. I think 16 ga was about the lightest I could get away with and still have it sound good (though of course it wouldn't pass muster for an audiophile, but then we weren't selling gear to audiophiles), and I generally just ran 12 because we often had a lot of it handy.
I also found that with such a setup we did get line noise from interference, but again, it's a pretty extreme situation, and the store's electical was rather elderly and being taxed to the very limits.
I do agree that what kind of wire used would have made no difference, I could have wired it up with lamp cord wire and gotten the same effect.
I've done a lot of work as a sound tech for live shows (as a volunteer and amateur, not a professional), and I can say that the only benefit I've found to more expensive cabling has nothing to do with the sound -- well-made cable tends to stay where you put it when you lay it down, and it will generally lie flat instead of looping back up and needing a lot of tape to hold the loops down. Clearly this would not be a huge issue for a home listener.
So, all Amazon needs to do is turn back on the text-to-speech feature...
No, you're not the only one, but you probably won't get a lot of sympathy here. Got to protect the shareholders, don'tchyer know.
Er...you're not supposed to do that?
Music labels still release albums on iTunes even though there is no longer any DRM on that system, etc.., etc...
FTFY
He seems to have dropped the pregnant pauses though. I think in Star Trek he was more a victim of bad directing than a bad actor.
Or maybe you're just a pedantic ass.
So you're saying the system as it is doesn't protect the rights of the citizens? Maybe you need to change the system then. There should be sufficient protections in your systems that jury nullification shouldn't be necessary.
What happens when, say, the mob buys enough jury members to have the jury strike the RICO laws? Who's protected then?
Protecting the citizens means protecting ALL the citizens, not just the 12 people sitting in the jury box. If your system needs 12 people not smart enough to avoid jury duty to protect it, then it's pretty badly broken anyway, and can probably benefit from a complete overhaul.
Who says it's erroneous? Juries are not the best judges of law. Law is supposed to be made by duly elected officials, and interpreted by the courts. Juries simply are not qualified, and furthermore, to allow juries to change the law is to let them short-circuit the democratic process.
No, that wouldn't necessarily work, especially not for a summary judgment. But then it's probably not needed. Canadian courts will enforce judgments from other countries if those other countries, among other things, have similar legal structures, and have been willing to enforce Canadian judgments. No new trial would be necessary.
I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...
Yes it is, because arguing from religion isn't argument. It's taking a stand based on faith. You're free to take such a stand, but you are not free to impose your faith on me, either through the force of law or through social manipulation. At all. You can frown all you want, but that's about it.
If you want to make an argument for your position, use reason, not faith, because I don't share that faith.
You need an education to be blue-collar these days. Marijuana convictions create a growing class of criminal entrepreneurs, not blue-collar workers.