Article actually details Google's love-love relationship with this practice. Now they just need to come up with a way to get a taste of the 419 action. You know, do no evil, but if other people are doing evil get a percentage.
A little OT, but I had an English prof in college (the mid-80s) who wouldn't let students use a word processor to write their papers because it would be "too easy!"
If you take the time to read the post as carefully and closely as it deserves, you will see that each paragraph is a new person talking, like a chat transcript. Obviously this is a subtle, clever metaphor for Sony's embarrassment. Bravo, AC. More!
I have to go with the NYTimes over this blogger on this one, from an earlier story posted on SlashDot http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/16/1250239. Blockbuster is actually beating Netflix at its own game:
"By the first quarter this year, after years of outstripping Blockbuster in subscriber growth, Netflix added 480,000 new subscribers while Blockbuster signed up 780,000 new members. And in the second quarter of this year, Netflix, which prides itself on customer loyalty, lost 55,000 customers. Blockbuster added 525,000, bringing its total to 3.6 million."
I think the original commenter's post was meant to point out that there have been a lot of unreasonable, unrealistic posts to the effect that if you're a good parent then you don't need to block porn. Part of being a parent is to limit your child's exposure and access to harmful things. If you believe that porn is harmful then it makes sense to try to keep it out of the house or out of reach of your children, just as you would cigarettes, alcohol, guns or drugs. Not that porn == those things in its effects, but they are all items that it takes a certain maturity to handle properly. You wouldn't say to a parent who places detergents and medicine out of reach of a toddler that, because there are ways around that, they should make access easy and instead "just be a parent."
There's some bad lawyering going on in that article. The lawyer for the city claims attorney-client privilege over emails to Google. Not covered. Only some communications between client and lawyer are privileged. Communication between lawyer and a third party, in this case Google, are never privileged. Doesn't mean she has to hand the emails over on a simple demand, but they're not privileged.
The quote from the "open government" lawyer about how an image is not a copy is pretty bizarre. But so is claiming copyright as the reason to take the images down. That must just be a buzzword to trigger Google's action. I'm not an IP lawyer, but surely if the US Government can't copyright its works then Claremont, CA, can't.
Embarrassing, but not so bothersome as most people don't make decisions about physics that effect others (yeah, cars, but they generally avoid having to jump 70 feet in the first place). But a similar result, the "CSI Effect," where people believe that the techniques they see on forensics shows are infallible, is more worrisome, because any of that horde may be a peer on your jury listening to a forensics witness.
If it keeps the paranoid from driving their cars around Manhattan, that's a bonus reduction in traffic. I'm all for it. In fact, publish the data if you can't satisfactorily explain why you need to take your car in. Make it hurt to not take public transport.
Slashdot Mirror
Article actually details Google's love-love relationship with this practice. Now they just need to come up with a way to get a taste of the 419 action. You know, do no evil, but if other people are doing evil get a percentage.
A little OT, but I had an English prof in college (the mid-80s) who wouldn't let students use a word processor to write their papers because it would be "too easy!"
If you take the time to read the post as carefully and closely as it deserves, you will see that each paragraph is a new person talking, like a chat transcript. Obviously this is a subtle, clever metaphor for Sony's embarrassment. Bravo, AC. More!
Reminds me of the sailing mechanism of "Taipan!" Anyone? Anyone?
I have to go with the NYTimes over this blogger on this one, from an earlier story posted on SlashDot http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/16/1250239. Blockbuster is actually beating Netflix at its own game: "By the first quarter this year, after years of outstripping Blockbuster in subscriber growth, Netflix added 480,000 new subscribers while Blockbuster signed up 780,000 new members. And in the second quarter of this year, Netflix, which prides itself on customer loyalty, lost 55,000 customers. Blockbuster added 525,000, bringing its total to 3.6 million."
I think the original commenter's post was meant to point out that there have been a lot of unreasonable, unrealistic posts to the effect that if you're a good parent then you don't need to block porn. Part of being a parent is to limit your child's exposure and access to harmful things. If you believe that porn is harmful then it makes sense to try to keep it out of the house or out of reach of your children, just as you would cigarettes, alcohol, guns or drugs. Not that porn == those things in its effects, but they are all items that it takes a certain maturity to handle properly. You wouldn't say to a parent who places detergents and medicine out of reach of a toddler that, because there are ways around that, they should make access easy and instead "just be a parent."
There's some bad lawyering going on in that article. The lawyer for the city claims attorney-client privilege over emails to Google. Not covered. Only some communications between client and lawyer are privileged. Communication between lawyer and a third party, in this case Google, are never privileged. Doesn't mean she has to hand the emails over on a simple demand, but they're not privileged. The quote from the "open government" lawyer about how an image is not a copy is pretty bizarre. But so is claiming copyright as the reason to take the images down. That must just be a buzzword to trigger Google's action. I'm not an IP lawyer, but surely if the US Government can't copyright its works then Claremont, CA, can't.
Embarrassing, but not so bothersome as most people don't make decisions about physics that effect others (yeah, cars, but they generally avoid having to jump 70 feet in the first place). But a similar result, the "CSI Effect," where people believe that the techniques they see on forensics shows are infallible, is more worrisome, because any of that horde may be a peer on your jury listening to a forensics witness.
If it keeps the paranoid from driving their cars around Manhattan, that's a bonus reduction in traffic. I'm all for it. In fact, publish the data if you can't satisfactorily explain why you need to take your car in. Make it hurt to not take public transport.