Aww, so what you're saying is that you believe your invention is only marketable to a small number of people, and you're only planning on profiting a very small amount from each one?
Did I say that? You are the second person to respond with this. I said I have to sell 100 just to break even from the filing fees. These are fees that go to pay peoples salaries for not doing a damned thing. That's why it's jacked. That's $10K that could be better spent marketing, advertising, or any other expense.
I'm not trying to flame here, but even if you secure the patent you're after, it's meaningless unless you have a market. That usually indicates how "useful" the invention is anyway. And in very niche applications, usually your client base will be willing to pay a premium for a superior, innovative invention. So again, if your product is that good, you should be charging more.
Well, pricing still hasn't been established. I'm thinking that actually pushing the unit price to about $250 - $300, but I want to do some further market research. My point is that after paying $10K in filing fees, I'm out $10K for a few pieces of paper. That's $10K that could go into marketing.
Now all of this is ideaological. I am fully aware of how the corporatist politicians and corporations make it so that they can either a) stomp on your patent and make money on it, since you can't afford legal fees to fight them, or b) start you out in their pocket and assume your IP as their own.
B would actually make me happy. But I'm making a real device, not IP. Yes, there is software that goes into the device, but that isn't going to be patented. If a major company gets exclusive rights just on the patent, I would be extremely happy as I can have them do manufacturing and marketing and I just collect royalties.
The point of a patent is to help bring innovation to society. If you can only forecast making 100, what the hell is the point of protecting it with a patent?
Did I say that was what I was forcasting? No. I said I had to sell that much just to pay for the filing fees.
No one is stoping you from producing the product without a patent. If your so inclined, spend your money on the first 100, and let someone else build the next 1,000,000 that will actually benefit society. After you have sold your first one, no one will be able to get a patent and so no one else will be able to screw you.
Wrong, they can. I already invest all my starting capital into building the prototype and the first run, so unless those sell I can't make more. Without a patent, someone can take my designs, manufacture clones and sell them with better marketing and put me out of business.
I'm not talking about software here, these are patents for things you can touch.
Patents are meant to protect actual entrepeneurs, not just people that sit around in their parents' basement and "invent things". Once upon a time, the Patent Office required an actual working prototype instead of just Powerpoint slides.
I have an idea I'm working on, hoping to get to the filing point within the end of the year. After building the prototype, I'll be out close to a grand. After filing, I'm looking at investing almost $8K on this idea. With only the hope that it will work.
It is a major setback for inventors and entrepeneurs, as it gets rather difficult to do this without some decent backing. Luckily, I have a few people who like my idea and will be helping out after I show the prototype.
It still is difficult to do, more so than it should. What I would like to see is that your first patent sets (for a specific project, limit to) should be provided free, then additional patents for a seperate project should be very expensive. You get a good, easy one shot for a good idea, and if it sucks, it's hard to do it the second time.
And if you have a useful idea and can actually put it into production, you'll need to start a company. A few grand for a patent application is peanuts compared to the cost of actually making anything out of some idea. Very often, the idea itself isn't actually the important part; the execution is.
To bring any idea to fruitation, you should look towards spending upwards of $10K. The sad part is, most of this is filing fees and seldom goes into building the actual device. After the prototype I can contract to a firm to make the devices for probably $100 a piece, and marketing will bring it to $150 (Or less, if I sell over ebay...) and I can easily make $50 profit on each item, assuming they sell.
So, I have to sell approximately 100 before I even cover the filing fees. Great fucking deal.
He has every right to infer what another may think and post his inferences.
Sure, and I have every right to call him an idiot for claiming to know what another person thinks, or believes.
Are you saying he should have said "I think that think that..."?
Why not? All I criticized was his statement of knowing what the DoubleClick exec was thinking, and what the board was thinking.
If, yes then are you saying it takes no more than that to qualify as a non-idiot. Don't you think that's a bit silly?
As I stated in my initial post, the signs of the idiot is vast. He nailed two major points, right on the head, with no cause for debate. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Here's the real question-should the people be forced to pay the bill because they were too dumb to not understand the words, "change your default password immediately." I say that we have already made things in life enough idiot-proof and AT&T has every right to ask them for thousands of dollars. Call it a "Stupid Bill".
There is that bumper sticker, "Stupidity Should be Painful." Seems that finally is becoming the case.
I love how people fail to find themselves accountability for their own mistakes. "Yes, I was stupid." I just wish I could hear that in one of these types of articles...
You know I'm still mad at you for calling that guy an idiot when you couldn't even parse the use of the word think. That kinda sticks out like a sore thumb, don't you think?
Uhm, he was an idiot. I do parse the word think exactly as it should. He has no way of knowing what that person thinks, or believes, and claims he does know. He was a fucking idiot.
I was merely taking your logical construction and replacing the variables. Okay so I stretched it.
Did you even read what you wrote? It made no sense what so ever. It was like giving an autistic lemur some crack after getting it drunk and putting it in front of a chatterbox and recording the conversation.
See now you made decompress my earlier post into this boring rant. Bad poster, bad, bad poster.
Well, you really need to learn how to rant. That wasn't even a rant, it was a few disjointed sentences with no common thread that didn't convey any meaning clearly. Don't worry, practice more and someday you can become just like Dennis Miller.
I see Marvel has a point with the merchandising, that they are supposed to do most of it with the joint agreement. I'm not sure how Sony is violating Marvel's rights on the Spiderman franchise because as far as I can tell, they're making movies.
This is a really horrible report, so Google News comes to the rescue and I found a fanboy site with a lot more information.
Hope it helps, because the Drudge report was just confusing.
Those stories allege sexual assault, that the woman fought off and ended up locking herself in the bathroom. No rape there. Second, she files suit only after her family was in a lot of debt, and lost a battle for an $800K estate of their late-Aunt. Yeah... sounds like it's really substantiated.
Paul Allen didn't settle out of court, and has sued Phillips since. There is no mention of rape in either of the stories, and even Phillips doesn't say Allen raped her.
Don't worry, you may have an opportunity as a Microsoft Marketing Agent!
Ironically, the above two sentences are grammatically inaccurate.
That isn't ironic. I do not think that word means what you think it means. They also aren't grammatically inaccurate. Perhaps they are structured wrong with the incorrect usage of punctuation. Grammar refers to the words as they join together in a sentence. While read aloud, these are completely fine and adhere to the linguistic standards for English.
Change the punctuation and it is correct. I tend to butcher punctuation when I'm typing relatively fast, and don't proof-read.
I'm much happier as a person knowing I can think for myself, without writing with proper punctuation, than follow the crowd and be a fool.
If Saddam Hussein surrenders, does that make him an American, because only a true American would agree with the US' actions.
Uhm, what in the hell are you talking about? I think you are in the wrong thread. This is about a DoubleClick executive, that was in charge of Privacy policies, being appointed as the Privacy Czar(ina) of the United States.
Idiot, n. one who lives his life in a dictionary. Example: One who cannot parse a conversation for meaning.
So, your comment is an example of this.
"Think" can mean "believe" and we can infer what people believe or think regardless of superficial acts pretending to make amends.
This is the only part of your comment that even makes sense, congratulations. I was reading through this, struggling with all my might to contain some shred of rational and reasoning located within. One shimmering sentence, amidst 5, the rest bleak with remorse and idiocy.
Does it hurt to be you? I mean, when you think, does it hurt? I can't imagine it not, otherwise you probably would do it.
Excellent! After smashing someone for daring to guese the intentions of others, you state them yourself. Did you ever consider alternate ideas?
Obviously she cares about privacy, or it wouldn't be her job. You have to care in order to do a job, even if it's just to get the paycheck. I'm not guessing her intentions as to why she has the job, all I'm saying is that for her to do her job, she has to know privacy. Was that hard to understand?
How do you know that Doubleclick cares about privacy?
I don't. It's supported by a logical chain of events that they do, because of pressure from the FTC and hiring Kelly in the first place.
The indications are that they did not, you know 12 state investigations, a federal investigation and a private class action suit. They settled those suits, but we don't have any real indication they changed what they were doing do we?
Just because you haven't noticed they've changed, doesn't mean they haven't.
Now what would a company that does not care about privacy have to hire someone for? Perhaps to lie for them? We don't know that, all we know from the article is that she was a "consesus builder".
She was brought into DoubleClick to clean up their privacy policies and make sure everything was in order. There are other sources of information out there, and I'm assuming you are able to read.
Someone that convinces me that it's OK for double click to sell my credit history if they keep quiet about my dental records? Hmm. Yes indeed, I suspect someone who could work for a company like Double Click is dishonest. Dishonest or a 34 year old puppet.
I don't recall Kelly ever doing anything remotely close to that. It's a good thing you think that everybody who works for DoubleClick is dishonest. I mean, of course no one could see a good foundation that went astray, and could be cleaned up! Oh wait, Kelly did, and you still bash her without knowing anything about her. Good for you!
Now what do the Feds want her for? To advocate the Total Information Rape Act? CAPUT? No thanks, I've got better use for my money than another liar.
You know, I've heard this same type of talk from a lot of people about racism. Interesting how you assume that just because they work as a privacy officer for a company that needed one, you think they're liars. I'd hate to do anything that you don't agree with, because I'd obviously be some evil, wretched, monster. I bet your world is a scary place. Do you have to sleep with the light on?
Of course, you post this after I correct my own mistake.
Two minutes after, through posting delays and such, it wasn't there when I wrote it. I commend you on your ability to admit you were wrong.
I made the simple mistake of assuming the executive was the one involved with DoubleClick when they got in trouble with the FTC.
Because you didn't read the article, and responding trying to go along with the Slashdot typical knee-jerk reaction...
No, this former CEO, Kevin O'Connor didn't think anything they were doing was wrong.
Nobody is talking about him.
It's nice to know you're so good at correcting others' mistakes, but perhaps you should do a better job of it by being a bit more prompt. I'll make sure I do a better job of reading the articles before I post. As it stands, we've both wasted posts in this discussion.
Prompt is now a 2 minute window, good to know. You should read the articles, that's why they get posted. Now me, I just flame people who can't read. It's like playing violent video games and helps relieve the tension of work.
This DoubleClick exec doesn't think the things his company did were wrong. That's the difference.
Hi everybody, it's time to play, spot the idiot. The idiot has several characteristics, the most notable one is the inability to form a sentence without being absolutely wrong. For example, "...the things his company did..." is exceptionally wrong, because this DoubleClick exec happens to be a woman.
Proof that they don't know what they are talking about, nor that they know who this person is.
The second sign of an idiot is the ability to peer inside of others heads and illustrate what it is that they are thinking. For example, "This DoubleClick exec doesn't think..." Aside from their actual lack of ability in doing such things, this is nothing of the case. As she was brought in to clean up DoubleClicks act after the FTC started coming down. After she came on board, DoubleClick cleaned up their privacy violations. This would illustrate that DoubleClick does care about privacy, after enforced to do so, and this executive happens to care very much about it, as it is her career.
There are many other signs to point to an idiot, these are just the most prominent. Stay tuned for next weeks, "When Idiots Post"
It's as improper to use European numbering here as it is to post stories in Kanji. Not that what's improper stops anyone from doing it, but it does give rise to childish comments.
Actually, they block out Japanese text on here. It's really annoying. I've tried to post in Japanese a few times in my journal using different Japanese charsets (UTF, JP-EUC) and it will throw them out each time.
If it's my journal, why can't I write in Japanese, damnit! I guess there is always slashdot.jp... Oddly enough my uid is in close range there, as it is here:)
It's time for the ourage of Israel to STOP, aqnd the only way it's gonna stop is if America makes it stop, coz they're paying for the whole fucking show anyway.
Sure. I agree with you. Tell the Palestinians to stop bombing Israel and it'll stop. Israel retaliates, very harshly. But they said they would from the very beginning.
You are refering to the German physicist Werner Heisenberg who was leading the German nuclear program. Calling Heisenberg not a theoratical physicist is a major error given his contributions to the Quantum Mechanics and the Matreix calculation.
I actually got the name wrong, and what he did backwards. I'm rather sick, and my mind is off in never-never land.
I meant Heisenberg, and he was a theoretical physicist, not a practical one. Therefor his designs lacked physical solidarity.
The Germany heavy water factory was also located in Norway.
Maybe, but it wouldn't even take a group of people. All you'd need is one motivated person with a search engine and a Web manipulation module like Perl's LWP. You could easily write a script to flood a person with junk mail all by yourself. A little easier to trace maybe, but still damn hard to stop.
True, I know the methods for tracking one down online and take steps to protecting my actual address. You can get many addresses on me, but I doubt any of them are actually correct. That's my little safeguard. Although I would feel bad if it happened to one of the people living at the other addresses...
Sure, the Ralsky attack is funny and ironic and all, but imagine if it happened to you. This wouldn't be a pizza delivery or Playgirl subscription every now and then, we're talking *pounds* of mail every day from many, many sources (God! your mailman would *hate* you). Easy to initiate, not easy to trace and really hard to stop.
I doubt I would incur the amount of motivated anger for a group of people to spend this much time doing it. I piss a lot of people off. I get people that sign me up for shit all the time. All email though, because it's hard to actually get my real address off the net without spending a few bucks.
People get pissed when you spam them, and then you get a mob, and mobs do great things to bad people (sometimes.) It's not as if Mr. Ralsky is a decent person, he is getting what he deserves. Karma does work, it's just man-made.
When Einstein gave the US his aid in building an atomic weapon he did it on the principle that someone would discover it, and that it was MUCH better that it be us, than the Nazis. It's much better that we know, and can prepare, than it is for us to be caught flat footed by something so awful we didn't even let ourselves think about it.
It's wrong that Einstein worked on the bomb. His only involvment (as pointed out already) was writing a letter, that got dismissed, to Roosevelt. Einstein at the time was not liked, because of his roots. He was virtually exiled to the United States, because England didn't want him.
Also, that the reason why the Germans didn't have a nuclear bomb is because the allied forces destroyed (after a first failed mission) the heavy water factory in Switzerland (I think it was in Switzerland, not 100% sure) that was fundamental to the bomb design. Hindenberg was also much further along than the Allies, by years. The reason why Hindenberg was so slow in his development is because he was a practical physicist, and not theoretical, and thereby couldn't construct the most efficient shape for a sustained reaction.
Hindenbergs devices failed to reach critical mass, but they were very close, and had the Allied forces not resorted to sabotage, would have achieved it long before the Allies did.
The reason why Einstein wrote that letter is because he knew, logically, the Germans were developing the technology.
I think that the moral of the story is develop the technology first, as soon as you can, then create policy after realizing nobody should have that power. You can never know who is developing what, so it's better to develop everything.
The Arms Race is constantly ongoing, so is the Space Race, and all that jazz.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this boils down to, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." In regards to science, you always should, so you can protect yourself if someone else does.
The possible downsides of technological advances and possible ways of ameliorating them are always worth discussing, but Slashdot is obviously not a good place for that to happen. Anyone got any pointers to places where real discussions like this can happen?
Sure, you can discuss them on Slashdot. Just come up with some more innovative points to discuss, such as nanotechnology health concerns from a disinterested or non-biased source. If you want a discussion beating a dead horse, Slashdot is also a place for that, especially if it's about the evils of Microsoft and the wonderful jewel that is Open Source.
Only in the sense of "covered" that means "repeatedly hand-waved away with simplistic responses, usually without reading what the person actually has to say".
The reason why everyone discounts it with a mere handwave is because the discussions have long since taken place and have stagnated in the backs of the minds of researchers.
From what i read it is a wireless monitor, am i right?
Not exactly, it's a dumb terminal. It is basically a full-featured WinCE powered system with the sole purpose of mirroring what is on the servers display.
Think of it as doing a remote X display, if you are familiar with X11. Most of the gripes about it come with the first run of a new technology (from Microsofts point of view.) I would certainly love something like this that operates using X instead.
The word "English" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. That sentence is also incorrectly structured. What gets me is how many people on Slashdot nitpick spelling for no reason.
I'd like to challenge you on the sentence structure, as it is obviously written in an informal setting. Definitely is one of those words that is so incredibly easy, it is mind-boggling how someone can actually not spell it correctly. You don't spell it "finate" so where are you getting the 'a' from?
Slashdot Mirror
Aww, so what you're saying is that you believe your invention is only marketable to a small number of people, and you're only planning on profiting a very small amount from each one?
Did I say that? You are the second person to respond with this. I said I have to sell 100 just to break even from the filing fees. These are fees that go to pay peoples salaries for not doing a damned thing. That's why it's jacked. That's $10K that could be better spent marketing, advertising, or any other expense.
I'm not trying to flame here, but even if you secure the patent you're after, it's meaningless unless you have a market. That usually indicates how "useful" the invention is anyway. And in very niche applications, usually your client base will be willing to pay a premium for a superior, innovative invention. So again, if your product is that good, you should be charging more.
Well, pricing still hasn't been established. I'm thinking that actually pushing the unit price to about $250 - $300, but I want to do some further market research. My point is that after paying $10K in filing fees, I'm out $10K for a few pieces of paper. That's $10K that could go into marketing.
Now all of this is ideaological. I am fully aware of how the corporatist politicians and corporations make it so that they can either a) stomp on your patent and make money on it, since you can't afford legal fees to fight them, or b) start you out in their pocket and assume your IP as their own.
B would actually make me happy. But I'm making a real device, not IP. Yes, there is software that goes into the device, but that isn't going to be patented. If a major company gets exclusive rights just on the patent, I would be extremely happy as I can have them do manufacturing and marketing and I just collect royalties.
The point of a patent is to help bring innovation to society. If you can only forecast making 100, what the hell is the point of protecting it with a patent?
Did I say that was what I was forcasting? No. I said I had to sell that much just to pay for the filing fees.
No one is stoping you from producing the product without a patent.
If your so inclined, spend your money on the first 100, and let someone else build the next 1,000,000 that will actually benefit society. After you have sold your first one, no one will be able to get a patent and so no one else will be able to screw you.
Wrong, they can. I already invest all my starting capital into building the prototype and the first run, so unless those sell I can't make more. Without a patent, someone can take my designs, manufacture clones and sell them with better marketing and put me out of business.
I'm not talking about software here, these are patents for things you can touch.
Patents are meant to protect actual entrepeneurs, not just people that sit around in their parents' basement and "invent things". Once upon a time, the Patent Office required an actual working prototype instead of just Powerpoint slides.
I have an idea I'm working on, hoping to get to the filing point within the end of the year. After building the prototype, I'll be out close to a grand. After filing, I'm looking at investing almost $8K on this idea. With only the hope that it will work.
It is a major setback for inventors and entrepeneurs, as it gets rather difficult to do this without some decent backing. Luckily, I have a few people who like my idea and will be helping out after I show the prototype.
It still is difficult to do, more so than it should. What I would like to see is that your first patent sets (for a specific project, limit to) should be provided free, then additional patents for a seperate project should be very expensive. You get a good, easy one shot for a good idea, and if it sucks, it's hard to do it the second time.
And if you have a useful idea and can actually put it into production, you'll need to start a company. A few grand for a patent application is peanuts compared to the cost of actually making anything out of some idea. Very often, the idea itself isn't actually the important part; the execution is.
To bring any idea to fruitation, you should look towards spending upwards of $10K. The sad part is, most of this is filing fees and seldom goes into building the actual device. After the prototype I can contract to a firm to make the devices for probably $100 a piece, and marketing will bring it to $150 (Or less, if I sell over ebay...) and I can easily make $50 profit on each item, assuming they sell.
So, I have to sell approximately 100 before I even cover the filing fees. Great fucking deal.
He has every right to infer what another may think and post his inferences.
Sure, and I have every right to call him an idiot for claiming to know what another person thinks, or believes.
Are you saying he should have said "I think that think that..."?
Why not? All I criticized was his statement of knowing what the DoubleClick exec was thinking, and what the board was thinking.
If, yes then are you saying it takes no more than that to qualify as a non-idiot. Don't you think that's a bit silly?
As I stated in my initial post, the signs of the idiot is vast. He nailed two major points, right on the head, with no cause for debate. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Here's the real question-should the people be forced to pay the bill because they were too dumb to not understand the words, "change your default password immediately." I say that we have already made things in life enough idiot-proof and AT&T has every right to ask them for thousands of dollars. Call it a "Stupid Bill".
There is that bumper sticker, "Stupidity Should be Painful." Seems that finally is becoming the case.
I love how people fail to find themselves accountability for their own mistakes. "Yes, I was stupid." I just wish I could hear that in one of these types of articles...
You know I'm still mad at you for calling that guy an idiot when you couldn't even parse the use of the word think. That kinda sticks out like a sore thumb, don't you think?
Uhm, he was an idiot. I do parse the word think exactly as it should. He has no way of knowing what that person thinks, or believes, and claims he does know. He was a fucking idiot.
I was merely taking your logical construction and replacing the variables. Okay so I stretched it.
Did you even read what you wrote? It made no sense what so ever. It was like giving an autistic lemur some crack after getting it drunk and putting it in front of a chatterbox and recording the conversation.
See now you made decompress my earlier post into this boring rant. Bad poster, bad, bad poster.
Well, you really need to learn how to rant. That wasn't even a rant, it was a few disjointed sentences with no common thread that didn't convey any meaning clearly. Don't worry, practice more and someday you can become just like Dennis Miller.
I see Marvel has a point with the merchandising, that they are supposed to do most of it with the joint agreement. I'm not sure how Sony is violating Marvel's rights on the Spiderman franchise because as far as I can tell, they're making movies.
This is a really horrible report, so Google News comes to the rescue and I found a fanboy site with a lot more information.
Hope it helps, because the Drudge report was just confusing.
I'll have you know it's the eigthth most widely circulated paper.
</accent>
Those stories allege sexual assault, that the woman fought off and ended up locking herself in the bathroom. No rape there. Second, she files suit only after her family was in a lot of debt, and lost a battle for an $800K estate of their late-Aunt. Yeah... sounds like it's really substantiated.
Paul Allen didn't settle out of court, and has sued Phillips since. There is no mention of rape in either of the stories, and even Phillips doesn't say Allen raped her.
Don't worry, you may have an opportunity as a Microsoft Marketing Agent!
Ironically, the above two sentences are grammatically inaccurate.
That isn't ironic. I do not think that word means what you think it means. They also aren't grammatically inaccurate. Perhaps they are structured wrong with the incorrect usage of punctuation. Grammar refers to the words as they join together in a sentence. While read aloud, these are completely fine and adhere to the linguistic standards for English.
Change the punctuation and it is correct. I tend to butcher punctuation when I'm typing relatively fast, and don't proof-read.
I'm much happier as a person knowing I can think for myself, without writing with proper punctuation, than follow the crowd and be a fool.
If Saddam Hussein surrenders, does that make him an American, because only a true American would agree with the US' actions.
Uhm, what in the hell are you talking about? I think you are in the wrong thread. This is about a DoubleClick executive, that was in charge of Privacy policies, being appointed as the Privacy Czar(ina) of the United States.
Idiot, n. one who lives his life in a dictionary. Example: One who cannot parse a conversation for meaning.
So, your comment is an example of this.
"Think" can mean "believe" and we can infer what people believe or think regardless of superficial acts pretending to make amends.
This is the only part of your comment that even makes sense, congratulations. I was reading through this, struggling with all my might to contain some shred of rational and reasoning located within. One shimmering sentence, amidst 5, the rest bleak with remorse and idiocy.
Does it hurt to be you? I mean, when you think, does it hurt? I can't imagine it not, otherwise you probably would do it.
Excellent! After smashing someone for daring to guese the intentions of others, you state them yourself. Did you ever consider alternate ideas?
Obviously she cares about privacy, or it wouldn't be her job. You have to care in order to do a job, even if it's just to get the paycheck. I'm not guessing her intentions as to why she has the job, all I'm saying is that for her to do her job, she has to know privacy. Was that hard to understand?
How do you know that Doubleclick cares about privacy?
I don't. It's supported by a logical chain of events that they do, because of pressure from the FTC and hiring Kelly in the first place.
The indications are that they did not, you know 12 state investigations, a federal investigation and a private class action suit. They settled those suits, but we don't have any real indication they changed what they were doing do we?
Just because you haven't noticed they've changed, doesn't mean they haven't.
Now what would a company that does not care about privacy have to hire someone for? Perhaps to lie for them? We don't know that, all we know from the article is that she was a "consesus builder".
She was brought into DoubleClick to clean up their privacy policies and make sure everything was in order. There are other sources of information out there, and I'm assuming you are able to read.
Someone that convinces me that it's OK for double click to sell my credit history if they keep quiet about my dental records? Hmm. Yes indeed, I suspect someone who could work for a company like Double Click is dishonest. Dishonest or a 34 year old puppet.
I don't recall Kelly ever doing anything remotely close to that. It's a good thing you think that everybody who works for DoubleClick is dishonest. I mean, of course no one could see a good foundation that went astray, and could be cleaned up! Oh wait, Kelly did, and you still bash her without knowing anything about her. Good for you!
Now what do the Feds want her for? To advocate the Total Information Rape Act? CAPUT? No thanks, I've got better use for my money than another liar.
You know, I've heard this same type of talk from a lot of people about racism. Interesting how you assume that just because they work as a privacy officer for a company that needed one, you think they're liars. I'd hate to do anything that you don't agree with, because I'd obviously be some evil, wretched, monster. I bet your world is a scary place. Do you have to sleep with the light on?
Best.Troll.Ever!
Well, thank you, thank you very much.
Of course, you post this after I correct my own mistake.
Two minutes after, through posting delays and such, it wasn't there when I wrote it. I commend you on your ability to admit you were wrong.
I made the simple mistake of assuming the executive was the one involved with DoubleClick when they got in trouble with the FTC.
Because you didn't read the article, and responding trying to go along with the Slashdot typical knee-jerk reaction...
No, this former CEO, Kevin O'Connor didn't think anything they were doing was wrong.
Nobody is talking about him.
It's nice to know you're so good at correcting others' mistakes, but perhaps you should do a better job of it by being a bit more prompt. I'll make sure I do a better job of reading the articles before I post. As it stands, we've both wasted posts in this discussion.
Prompt is now a 2 minute window, good to know. You should read the articles, that's why they get posted. Now me, I just flame people who can't read. It's like playing violent video games and helps relieve the tension of work.
This DoubleClick exec doesn't think the things his company did were wrong. That's the difference.
..." Aside from their actual lack of ability in doing such things, this is nothing of the case. As she was brought in to clean up DoubleClicks act after the FTC started coming down. After she came on board, DoubleClick cleaned up their privacy violations. This would illustrate that DoubleClick does care about privacy, after enforced to do so, and this executive happens to care very much about it, as it is her career.
Hi everybody, it's time to play, spot the idiot. The idiot has several characteristics, the most notable one is the inability to form a sentence without being absolutely wrong. For example, "...the things his company did..." is exceptionally wrong, because this DoubleClick exec happens to be a woman.
Proof that they don't know what they are talking about, nor that they know who this person is.
The second sign of an idiot is the ability to peer inside of others heads and illustrate what it is that they are thinking. For example, "This DoubleClick exec doesn't think
There are many other signs to point to an idiot, these are just the most prominent. Stay tuned for next weeks, "When Idiots Post"
It's as improper to use European numbering here as it is to post stories in Kanji. Not that what's improper stops anyone from doing it, but it does give rise to childish comments.
:)
Actually, they block out Japanese text on here. It's really annoying. I've tried to post in Japanese a few times in my journal using different Japanese charsets (UTF, JP-EUC) and it will throw them out each time.
If it's my journal, why can't I write in Japanese, damnit! I guess there is always slashdot.jp... Oddly enough my uid is in close range there, as it is here
It's time for the ourage of Israel to STOP, aqnd the only way it's gonna stop is if America makes it stop, coz they're paying for the whole fucking show anyway.
Sure. I agree with you. Tell the Palestinians to stop bombing Israel and it'll stop. Israel retaliates, very harshly. But they said they would from the very beginning.
"Look bitch, you knew I was a snake."
You are refering to the German physicist Werner Heisenberg who was leading the German nuclear program. Calling Heisenberg not a theoratical physicist is a major error given his contributions to the Quantum Mechanics and the Matreix calculation.
I actually got the name wrong, and what he did backwards. I'm rather sick, and my mind is off in never-never land.
I meant Heisenberg, and he was a theoretical physicist, not a practical one. Therefor his designs lacked physical solidarity.
The Germany heavy water factory was also located in Norway.
I shouldn't post when I'm not feeling well.
Maybe, but it wouldn't even take a group of people. All you'd need is one motivated person with a search engine and a Web manipulation module like Perl's LWP. You could easily write a script to flood a person with junk mail all by yourself. A little easier to trace maybe, but still damn hard to stop.
True, I know the methods for tracking one down online and take steps to protecting my actual address. You can get many addresses on me, but I doubt any of them are actually correct. That's my little safeguard. Although I would feel bad if it happened to one of the people living at the other addresses...
Sure, the Ralsky attack is funny and ironic and all, but imagine if it happened to you. This wouldn't be a pizza delivery or Playgirl subscription every now and then, we're talking *pounds* of mail every day from many, many sources (God! your mailman would *hate* you). Easy to initiate, not easy to trace and really hard to stop.
I doubt I would incur the amount of motivated anger for a group of people to spend this much time doing it. I piss a lot of people off. I get people that sign me up for shit all the time. All email though, because it's hard to actually get my real address off the net without spending a few bucks.
People get pissed when you spam them, and then you get a mob, and mobs do great things to bad people (sometimes.) It's not as if Mr. Ralsky is a decent person, he is getting what he deserves. Karma does work, it's just man-made.
When Einstein gave the US his aid in building an atomic weapon he did it on the principle that someone would discover it, and that it was MUCH better that it be us, than the Nazis. It's much better that we know, and can prepare, than it is for us to be caught flat footed by something so awful we didn't even let ourselves think about it.
It's wrong that Einstein worked on the bomb. His only involvment (as pointed out already) was writing a letter, that got dismissed, to Roosevelt. Einstein at the time was not liked, because of his roots. He was virtually exiled to the United States, because England didn't want him.
Also, that the reason why the Germans didn't have a nuclear bomb is because the allied forces destroyed (after a first failed mission) the heavy water factory in Switzerland (I think it was in Switzerland, not 100% sure) that was fundamental to the bomb design. Hindenberg was also much further along than the Allies, by years. The reason why Hindenberg was so slow in his development is because he was a practical physicist, and not theoretical, and thereby couldn't construct the most efficient shape for a sustained reaction.
Hindenbergs devices failed to reach critical mass, but they were very close, and had the Allied forces not resorted to sabotage, would have achieved it long before the Allies did.
The reason why Einstein wrote that letter is because he knew, logically, the Germans were developing the technology.
I think that the moral of the story is develop the technology first, as soon as you can, then create policy after realizing nobody should have that power. You can never know who is developing what, so it's better to develop everything.
The Arms Race is constantly ongoing, so is the Space Race, and all that jazz.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this boils down to, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." In regards to science, you always should, so you can protect yourself if someone else does.
The possible downsides of technological advances and possible ways of ameliorating them are always worth discussing, but Slashdot is obviously not a good place for that to happen. Anyone got any pointers to places where real discussions like this can happen?
Sure, you can discuss them on Slashdot. Just come up with some more innovative points to discuss, such as nanotechnology health concerns from a disinterested or non-biased source. If you want a discussion beating a dead horse, Slashdot is also a place for that, especially if it's about the evils of Microsoft and the wonderful jewel that is Open Source.
Only in the sense of "covered" that means "repeatedly hand-waved away with simplistic responses, usually without reading what the person actually has to say".
The reason why everyone discounts it with a mere handwave is because the discussions have long since taken place and have stagnated in the backs of the minds of researchers.
just because you can, doesn't mean you should?
I thought we already covered all of this a long, long time ago.
From what i read it is a wireless monitor, am i right?
Not exactly, it's a dumb terminal. It is basically a full-featured WinCE powered system with the sole purpose of mirroring what is on the servers display.
Think of it as doing a remote X display, if you are familiar with X11. Most of the gripes about it come with the first run of a new technology (from Microsofts point of view.) I would certainly love something like this that operates using X instead.
The word "English" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. That sentence is also incorrectly structured. What gets me is how many people on Slashdot nitpick spelling for no reason.
I'd like to challenge you on the sentence structure, as it is obviously written in an informal setting. Definitely is one of those words that is so incredibly easy, it is mind-boggling how someone can actually not spell it correctly. You don't spell it "finate" so where are you getting the 'a' from?