Apparently, they just piss off the slanderers even more, and this just causes more and more of the postings Reputation Defenders is supposed to deal with. Look what happens when you Google the name of one of Reputation Defender's first clients:
That's not helping, is it? I think companies and people should try their hardest to not post things on the Internet they don't want publicized. Hiring some startup does not seem to be working too well.
You make a good point about unintended consequences. However, we have to balance the unquantifiable future harms caused by this technique with the future benefits it promises. More than a million people a year die from malaria, ninety percent of them in Africa, and seventy percent of them children under five. Seven hundred thousand children are dying every year from this disease. That is the equivalent of seven Boeing 747s crashing into mountains every day of the year. At some point, we simply have to save as many of these lives as we can and deal with whatever comes.
There seems to be no heating system for passenger comfort. That's probably not a problem in most of India, but the US (where we have thousands upon thousands of cars) weather is slightly less cooperative. Furthermore, the electrical system does not seem robust enough to drive a cruise-control system, a CD player, or any of the usual amenities.
The expense of an electrical system will raise the cost back to a battery-driven car or a hybrid system.
El Al, the Israeli airline, uses sturdy bulletproof cockpit doors that the flight crew lock from the inside when the passengers board. The door is not opened for any reason until the last passenger is off the plane at the destination. Even if a terrorist holds the plane hostage, starts killing innocents, and demands entry to the cabin, the flight crew is trained to keep that door closed. Seems simple enough -- it would have prevented the September 11 attacks.
The defendant's attorneys have no idea what they're doing. Citing case law in a freaking pleading? Clearly, the attorneys do not expect to win the case, and they're just trying to make a point. I mean, do you even know what statutory damages are-- they're supposed to be in excess of actual damages.
Give the attorneys credit for effort (and racking up a huge legal bill) but this is really just a stupid, defective pleading. I mean, they cited to the kids of a Warner exec who were stealing music as waiver of a right to pursue financial remuneration from the defendants. But if my son steals my TV, I can choose not to prosecute him without prejudice to my ability to sue a stranger who steals my TV, right?
It could be that only 22% of Windows XP systems fail WGA, but that doesn't mean only 22% of Windows installs are illegal. There are programs that let you pass WGA with an illegal system. The software generates valid Windows XP Corporate keys, lets you change the one for your system, and then fixes WGA (using a Microsoft-provided tool). A system so treated will pass WGA.
Furthermore, users of illegal systems may simply fail to visit Windows Update.
Laugh if you want, but this was what happened to Iraq on the eve of the Gulf War. A modified printer was put onto their defense computer network by an Allied operative. Right when the air war started, the bug fired up and brought down the network. Just because a threat sounds outlandish does not mean it isn't a real threat.
The article probably made a typo, but all the OEM machines are already loaded with their operating systems. It seems certain that at least 90% of Dells, Gateways, HPs, and similar desktops are being preloaded with Windows Vista.
The Microsoft software team probably used internal hooks or direct calls to memory that other programmers did not know about. I think he means other teams were encouraged to use documented Windows APIs instead of software hacks. There was a good reason Microsoft should have been broken up into an application and an OS group.
To answer your questions, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your backyard, regardless of how high your fence is. You do not have an expectation of privacy from aerial photography of your house. You do have an expectation of privacy from government imaging devices that are not within the mainstream of consumerism.
Briefly, if any guy can legally get see you somewhere, then you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there.
Don't forget that the patent system demands that an inventor publish a written description of his invention and enable others to practice it without undue experimentation. Without patents, there would be no incentive for private labs to publish any of their research. All work would be kept as trade secrets, and all research sponsored by drug companies would be kept under wraps. Only the hopelessly idealistic would believe that a world without patents would be a nirvana where intellectualism flowed freely.
In fact, query whether there would be anything to work around in this case if there were no patents filed to cover the drug.
How much privacy are you giving up? The law has never protected privacy in public, nor should it. No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy once they are outdoors. If these cameras are being installed in homes, then there would be legitimate complaints. But if the cameras are in the street, or the shopping mall, then how much privacy are we giving up?
I agree one hundred percent with you -- who do you think works for the SEC and Justice Department if not lawyers? When a hundred government lawyers come after you, well, that's a great time to hire your own attorney.
Who do you think Rule 11 is going to help: the high-powered RIAA attorneys paid $600/hr or the podunk attorney (no offense) that the average mom can afford?
Don't forget the document retention policies that delete all mail after a certain period of time, such as sixty days. How many people are racking up 2 gigs of email in sixty days? And of those who do, should they be?
Large financial institutions are heavily-regulated industries. They deal in data on a scale you cannot believe. The smallest tidbit of information can move the market -- a fellow trader is about to sell 1 million shares of Gizmo stock, for instance. Of course, this information goes stale very quickly. Furthermore, regulators want to make sure there are no back avenues for internal communication, so they can capture any smoking-gun memos after the fact. For instance, regulators don't want employees to foist a stock on the public as a must-buy when they are internally calling it a dog. For non-traders like tech advisers, the secrecy makes no sense, but in the grand scale of things, there are great reasons for not having access to Gmail at an institutional bank.
My Blackberry recharger plugs into an outlet on one end and the other end plugs into the USB-receptacle on the Blackberry. I think that's what they meant. By the way, I can also use the same recharger on my iPod, because the part that plugs in has a female USB connect that I can plug my iPod cord into.
Slashdot Mirror
Google for "clients of reputation defender" and witness the utter uselessness of that company's services.
- defender-continued.html
t f-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&c lient=firefox-a
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/03/reputation
Apparently, they just piss off the slanderers even more, and this just causes more and more of the postings Reputation Defenders is supposed to deal with. Look what happens when you Google the name of one of Reputation Defender's first clients:
http://www.google.com/search?q=heide+iravani&ie=u
That's not helping, is it? I think companies and people should try their hardest to not post things on the Internet they don't want publicized. Hiring some startup does not seem to be working too well.
You make a good point about unintended consequences. However, we have to balance the unquantifiable future harms caused by this technique with the future benefits it promises. More than a million people a year die from malaria, ninety percent of them in Africa, and seventy percent of them children under five. Seven hundred thousand children are dying every year from this disease. That is the equivalent of seven Boeing 747s crashing into mountains every day of the year. At some point, we simply have to save as many of these lives as we can and deal with whatever comes.
6 12_030612_malaria.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0
There seems to be no heating system for passenger comfort. That's probably not a problem in most of India, but the US (where we have thousands upon thousands of cars) weather is slightly less cooperative. Furthermore, the electrical system does not seem robust enough to drive a cruise-control system, a CD player, or any of the usual amenities.
The expense of an electrical system will raise the cost back to a battery-driven car or a hybrid system.
El Al, the Israeli airline, uses sturdy bulletproof cockpit doors that the flight crew lock from the inside when the passengers board. The door is not opened for any reason until the last passenger is off the plane at the destination. Even if a terrorist holds the plane hostage, starts killing innocents, and demands entry to the cabin, the flight crew is trained to keep that door closed. Seems simple enough -- it would have prevented the September 11 attacks.
a l-usat.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/10/01/el
Yes. Dell, Sony, & Toshiba are going to be ecstatic over this.
The defendant's attorneys have no idea what they're doing. Citing case law in a freaking pleading? Clearly, the attorneys do not expect to win the case, and they're just trying to make a point. I mean, do you even know what statutory damages are-- they're supposed to be in excess of actual damages.
Give the attorneys credit for effort (and racking up a huge legal bill) but this is really just a stupid, defective pleading. I mean, they cited to the kids of a Warner exec who were stealing music as waiver of a right to pursue financial remuneration from the defendants. But if my son steals my TV, I can choose not to prosecute him without prejudice to my ability to sue a stranger who steals my TV, right?
This is my first First Post! And i've been here forever. And if I miss, don't mock me. The stupid lameness filter!!
Or maybe the store has to give you a nickel in change because the price is rounded down.
"There's no way it's that low."
It could be that only 22% of Windows XP systems fail WGA, but that doesn't mean only 22% of Windows installs are illegal. There are programs that let you pass WGA with an illegal system. The software generates valid Windows XP Corporate keys, lets you change the one for your system, and then fixes WGA (using a Microsoft-provided tool). A system so treated will pass WGA.
Furthermore, users of illegal systems may simply fail to visit Windows Update.
Passengers can opt out of backscatter scans in favor of pat downs. http://www.tsa.gov/research/privacy/backscatter.sh tm
Laugh if you want, but this was what happened to Iraq on the eve of the Gulf War. A modified printer was put onto their defense computer network by an Allied operative. Right when the air war started, the bug fired up and brought down the network. Just because a threat sounds outlandish does not mean it isn't a real threat.
(The story was recounted in The Generals' War.)
"One little problem...
The country where you put your embassy has to recognize you as a nation"
"You find a friendly third world country (ie they will accept you bribe) to set up an embasy."
"You are trying to confuse the issue, making it sound like receptionists and janitors are getting almost half-a-million at Christmastime. "
Receptionists and janitors are backbones who would stop working unless paid a big bonus? Ha!
The article probably made a typo, but all the OEM machines are already loaded with their operating systems. It seems certain that at least 90% of Dells, Gateways, HPs, and similar desktops are being preloaded with Windows Vista.
The Microsoft software team probably used internal hooks or direct calls to memory that other programmers did not know about. I think he means other teams were encouraged to use documented Windows APIs instead of software hacks. There was a good reason Microsoft should have been broken up into an application and an OS group.
To answer your questions, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your backyard, regardless of how high your fence is. You do not have an expectation of privacy from aerial photography of your house. You do have an expectation of privacy from government imaging devices that are not within the mainstream of consumerism.
Briefly, if any guy can legally get see you somewhere, then you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there.
In 2005, there were 16,692 murders in the United States. (link)
In 2005, there were 43,200 deaths due to car accidents. (link)
It has been shown that cameras increase car accident rates by between 7 and 24 percent. (link).
So, you tell me. With results like these, is there really a good basis for argument FOR these cameras?
Cameras can also help solve assaults, rapes, and hit-and-runs, as well as many other crimes.
Don't forget that the patent system demands that an inventor publish a written description of his invention and enable others to practice it without undue experimentation. Without patents, there would be no incentive for private labs to publish any of their research. All work would be kept as trade secrets, and all research sponsored by drug companies would be kept under wraps. Only the hopelessly idealistic would believe that a world without patents would be a nirvana where intellectualism flowed freely.
In fact, query whether there would be anything to work around in this case if there were no patents filed to cover the drug.
How much privacy are you giving up? The law has never protected privacy in public, nor should it. No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy once they are outdoors. If these cameras are being installed in homes, then there would be legitimate complaints. But if the cameras are in the street, or the shopping mall, then how much privacy are we giving up?
I agree one hundred percent with you -- who do you think works for the SEC and Justice Department if not lawyers? When a hundred government lawyers come after you, well, that's a great time to hire your own attorney.
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict: when the jury makes a decision that no reasonable men could agree was correct. Very high standard, actually.
Who do you think Rule 11 is going to help: the high-powered RIAA attorneys paid $600/hr or the podunk attorney (no offense) that the average mom can afford?
Don't forget the document retention policies that delete all mail after a certain period of time, such as sixty days. How many people are racking up 2 gigs of email in sixty days? And of those who do, should they be?
Document retention policies do not.
Large financial institutions are heavily-regulated industries. They deal in data on a scale you cannot believe. The smallest tidbit of information can move the market -- a fellow trader is about to sell 1 million shares of Gizmo stock, for instance. Of course, this information goes stale very quickly. Furthermore, regulators want to make sure there are no back avenues for internal communication, so they can capture any smoking-gun memos after the fact. For instance, regulators don't want employees to foist a stock on the public as a must-buy when they are internally calling it a dog. For non-traders like tech advisers, the secrecy makes no sense, but in the grand scale of things, there are great reasons for not having access to Gmail at an institutional bank.
My Blackberry recharger plugs into an outlet on one end and the other end plugs into the USB-receptacle on the Blackberry. I think that's what they meant. By the way, I can also use the same recharger on my iPod, because the part that plugs in has a female USB connect that I can plug my iPod cord into.