To be correct there is no ban on perpetual motion devices being patented. There is simply a requirement that any patent on a perpetual motion device have a working prototype available. No other type of invention has this requirement.
They could easily have done this without going into this guys house if they had not been so gungho to start. The article clearly states that once they realized they screwed up they went back to the file sharing app they had found the alleged guy on in the first place. Originally they took the most recent IP and ran with it. However, when they went back (after the first snafu) they used that app to find the other IP addresses that the same username had connected from. They used the new IP address information to determine that a student at a university had connected and they found that the student lived across the street. Now, seems they could have done all that the first time around and saved themselves and this poor guy from having to go through all of this.
Nothing in this article stated that Google took some kind of stance AGAINST software patents. What was stated was that they believe that patent trolls are a problem. But that's okay, don't let your own (anonymous) feelings get in the way of a providing a summary that is actual based in reality.
I'm pretty sure that we will have a different view on "fairness" if you truly believe what you wrote. Part of that is because you left so much out of your analysis. I'll give you one example and I'll leave it "as an exercise" for you to ponder the other opportunities that you mom has to impact the bottom line of a company without using more than 1GB per month. This is why all the "data is free" and "bandwidth is virtually unlimited" crap is so beside the point... however I do discuss it (again) after I show WHY your mom has to pay every month.
Here's a really simple example of what you left out. Your Mom is probably not a big tech user. She's not the saviest when it comes to computers. She probably surfs the news and deals with emails. I only say this because you said 1GB a month. That sign points to "not a heavy user" of the interwebs. That being the case she's probably not very knowledgeable about computers. When something goes wrong she calls you or a sibling or... who else? Oh, the cable company. So she's more likely to need support from the company she subscribes from than the average slashdot poster. She's more likely to require someone to come out to her home as trouble shooting over the phone will likely not be an option. She more expensive as a customer. One trip to her house because the box was unplugged cost more than her whole months subscription. And if she were paying by the GB then it would take 2 years to recover that.
Now, back to billing for USAGE, even though we've discovered that the usage is NOT the biggest cost to the carrier for supporting you as customer. You see, the amount of USAGE literally makes no difference to them. In your example all of your users could use the same amount as the 1 'hog' and your infrastructure would still hold up to the load. If that's the case, then yes, x/y should be the minimum cost per customer (taking any profit, and dealing with moms out of the equation - I have one too so I know they can be hard to deal with). That should be all of users minimum costs even if they did not actually use it! They are paying for the ability to use it and the support. That is what I was saying regarding my water bill and the convenience of opening a tap and there it is. If it's not there I call a plumber. If the plumber says it is on the utilities side, then the utility pays the bill and fixes it.
If no user is putting an undue load on the system then I see no problem with them paying the same amount even if they use it more. What I do see a problem with is you volunteering that because your mom uses less bandwidth than I do (assuming I use the same amount as you) then I should have to pay more than her. Neither of us is impacting the system in any discernable way and I don't think you have the right to volunteer that I be billed more even if you are willing (because you haven't really thought it through using your obviously capable brain) to pay more too.
You should pay more when you use excessively, but not just because you use more than someone else. And yes, excessivity is relative and can be redefined over time. Today it may be excessive to be using 100GB because there are hundreds of users sharing the same channel. When there are 10s of thousands of users sharing that channel then the limit might change to 10GB. Users will have to adjust, but even then I don't need someone saying their grandma only uses 1MB per month and others use 9GB - how come the 9GB don't have to pay more than grandma. Grandma can use more if she wants, but don't bring everyone down to her level or insinuate that they pay more. On the other hand, when everyone has fiber and new super compression algorithms are utilized (or hell, even the current ones being used would be progress) and there are no limits on the bandwidth then we're back to having excessive be essentially non-existent and therefore not showing up on bills.
You must have owned a bank or another business that extends lines of credit to speak with such authority about what it costs a company when a customer goes over their credit limit. You have probably looked deeply into the risk involved with loaning money to people. We've all loaned money to friends, sure, but what about loaning money to people that don't know you - or you them for that matter? That is a risky business.
In your research (or past experience) you probably found that those that go over their limit are far more likely to default and that they are therefore riskier customers. They are maxed out and that already gives you a clue into the level of risk that comes with them. An insurance company would charge more for those who live riskier lives (yes, as defined by he/she who writes the policy) and a credit card company or any loan provider should be expected to do the same. After all, if you can go over your limit with no penalty at all then what is the point of the limit? I'll let you in on a secret. The real point of the limit is not to protect YOU. It is to protect the company lending you the money. It is to protect them from you. If you do things that flag you as being risky or choose to ignore the rules, then I think it would be in their business' best interest to adjust for that risk (ie. fine you for breaking the rules which caused uncertainty and introduced risk into what would be an otherwise easy business model).
Also, how do you know they aren't getting the money from someone else to loan to you. They move the money around - even your local mom and pop shop has to get the money (and debts) into the right accounts to meet payroll, pay their own creditors, buy their inventory, etc - and they have to pay employees to do all this money finagling. If people would stay within their limits then the whole business of loaning / collecting would be predictable and require less resources, but since people are ALLOWED to go over their limits (as a convenience) that introduces a new variable that must be accounted for... and rather than increase everyone's interest rate the companies have chosen to ding those that can't follow the rules.
There are new legal requirements on these companies that requires their users to "opt in" to these conveniences. I like that change and I think it will drastically reduce how much it happens. So, I again go back to "please tell me you're only talking about a case where a credit limit was decreased and THAT caused them to be overdrafted". If it is for any other reason then the bank SHOULD be compensated for having to clean up after the account holder. If, as a customer you don't like getting dinged for breaking the rules, then go verify you are "opt out", go somewhere else with your banking, or start paying with cash and quit worrying about overdrafting / overextending your credit lines.
I was with you mostly until "It's equivalent to credit card overages". How is it equivalent? I mean, other than it involves money? User has a card with a limit, they went over it, they get fined for doing so. What is the problem there? Don't get me wrong I think most CC companies are not at all interested in the people that use their products, but wtf did they do "wrong" when they made the decisioni to penalize someone for overages?
Please tell me you're talking about some case where a credit limit was decreased and a person went over the limit AFTER that - and that they were never notified about the decrease to start with.
Just because you use more than someone else doesn't mean either one of you is being excessive.
If the provider thinks they can provide 1GB of data just as easily and with just as much expense to them as they can provide 100GB of data then who are you to decide otherwise. Obviously that is the case or they would have set the caps sooner. They're here to make money... rest assured of that. Go ahead and make them a gift donation if you want, but do it with your dime, don't volunteer mine with your arbitrary limits and assumptions. Why should you pay more for 100GB vs 1 GB if it literally makes no difference to them?
Where I live our water bill has a minimum amount. That is basically a connection fee and comes with some certain number of gallons included. My family basically never uses enough water to exceed that amount. If we were to exceed it then we pay for the additional amount we use (per 100 gallons or something like that). We're paying for the connection and are subscribing to the service. If we want water, we turn on the tap and there it is. Your internet is the same way. You want data, then have at it. But the fact that you can have it whenever you want it is what you're paying for most of the time... not the actual data being moved. If you exceed the free amount then you will have to pay up, but be damn sure that you are actually putting an EXCESSIVE LOAD on the system before you offer to pay up.
You know... I didn't remember ever hearing anything like this happening with them. But, since you asked:
A quick google search and a few minutes turned up the following situation involving Google Checkout. I do remember a string of other things (not related to checkout) that google has recently gotten into that doesn't exactly show that they are perfect including privacy issues, bowing to polital pressures in faraway lands, etc.
As for authorize.net, I'd never even heard of them. I'm not interested in hunting down their complaints as I'm confident they're out there too... everyone has screwed up or been put into an unwinnable situation before.
And I'm not by any means saying Paypal is right for what they did. I'm just saying that immediately jumping ship to one of these other companies that have the exact same capabilities is probably very close to jumping out of the hot frying pan and into the fireplace (whether the logs are on fire or not).
I'm not trying to down play the importance of algorithms in Compsci, but I think perhaps you only remember the fun stuff (the algorithms) and have forgotten the other crap that went in before it. I suppose a mechanic could be trained to just fix cars, but they're certainly not going to make them "all they can be" without understanding the limitations / adeventages and disadvantages of different parts.
So, there were 36 hours of compsci specific classes if I recall for BS in compsci. All the others were electives and a butt load of maths, geometry, physics, etc.
I don't remember them all, but I've listested several of the core compsci classes below - and most undergrad offer something similar. It's pretty apparent that most of these were not focused on algorithm development. They were focused on helping the student understand what the machine was capable of doing and all the parts that have to work together to make it happen... What its limitations were, how to work around those, how to eliminate those, etc. Was there some "algorithm development" as part of some of those courses? Sure. A true computer scientist should understand how a stack is implemented and not just use them. However the algorithms were not the focus in datastructures nor were they in many other areas such as security, databases, discrete, linear algebra...
Intro to programming (*) (4 hrs)
Computer Architecture (4 hrs)
Discrete Math (3 hrs)
Data structures (3 hrs)
Probability / Queueing (3 hrs)
Algorithms (*) (3 hrs)
Compiler Design and Implementation (3 hrs)
Computer Security (3 hrs)
Databases (3 hrs)
OS - Minix inside and out (3 hrs)
Assembly (3 hrs)
I'm missing quite a few, but this should be enough to show that close to 50% if not more were not "algorithm specific". They were things you needed to understand to create good algorithms, but they were not all algorithms.
I suppose that whether that matters or not would depends on who "the people" are that have claimed this IP theif and cheat as their hero. There have been and always will be plenty of "the people" that I have no interest in being a heroic person to. Nazis (don't want to be their hero), almost any extremist of any kind (don't want to be their hero), liars, hypocrites, thieves, etc. I'm guessing there are plenty of groups of "the people" that you would also not care to be their hero. And if I was the hero of any of those groups or some other group - it wouldn't necessarily make me right. Not being the hero also doesn't necessarily make me wrong.
You be a hero to your people - I'll keep doing and defending what I think is right and fair.
Most entrepreneurs do not get paid. Musicians, artists, authors are just more instances of the class of people who get no base salary for trying to make a living doing something they love to do (or believe themselves to be exceptionally good at).
These guys work and don't get paid - and they do so more than they work while getting paid. Some of them get really "lucky" eventually. They actually get paid for their work. They do so by royalties (for artists) that eliminate the risk for those that promote / publish them or by profits (for entrepreneurs) that prove someone found their service valuable.
"I don't get paid for work I did two decades ago. Why should you?"
A possible response: "Because work that I did two decades ago is still valued and in demand, while nobody cares what you did yesterday."
Many people care if they can get to the websites they want. Yesterday I fixed a problem that if left unchecked, today would be preventing people from getting the data that they "demand".
Perhaps my employer owes me royalties for each 'user' of the newly installed hardware.
Since you are a person who chooses to describe what they do as "fighting fires" then I am fairly confident that there are probably long stretches of time, perhaps full days, in which you sit around and do nothing, but spend the entire day on slashdot. You can do this because things are working well where you are... perhaps even through some fault of your own. Maybe you just shouldn't get paid for that easy time. You really aren't producting anything of value today. The fact that you don't get canned everytime there is nothing to do should clue you in to the fact that your royalties are built in to your salary / wage.
The author gets paid only if they produce something of value and only for however long it maintains value... and only during the time period it is viewed as valuable. You, on the other hand, get paid only as long as you continue to convince your employer that you bring something of value (or will do so in a short enough time in the future for them to pay you during the "downtime"). Again, your royalties are built into your wage.
What about tech books? I wouldn't call that art, and I'm confident many are not written out of a love for writing language specifications and / or writing tutorials. I can choose to write a book about use of genetic algorithms in logistics management and put in years to perfect the work. Imagine the effort that would take without necessarily doing it for love. I know it's valuable conceptually and I want to get paid for it once everyone else figures it out. That's not likely to happen if the someone comes along once I'm done and starts distributing copies of it for free, or worse, distributes it under their name.
Most of the time the US government wants to tell us how to do things and in doing so they prefer to limit our options. "We'll do it for you... and you'll like it or else" tends to be their mantra.
I wonder why in this the case the head of the FTC would rather the private sector (the browser makers) be the ones to add functionality to thwart the tracking... could it be they would only gain power over the advertisers (which is WAY smaller than the general population - so why bother?)
If they actually cared, then why not set up a simple list like the "do not call" list and require anyone that wants to track to go there and get approved. Then allow opt-outs through some channel. Then, anyone caught still tracking after that point is in federal trouble - as opposed to browser makers have to code around the tracking violators.
IANAL either, but I do have some experience with trademark registration and the processes involved.
Here's the thing to keep in mind: a trademark is about use in commerce - not about use in casual conversation.
If I go around saying "it's on like donkey kong" all day I am not in any sort of violation of trademark law even if Nintendo has registered it. However, I can't roll out a new brand of video game systems and use the same phrase to market my product. Being a competitor (or someone in the same general area) and using someone elses trademark can be harmful to the holder. But, being joe nobody and saying a trademarked phrase is not harmful. Nintendo doesn't need to stop everyone from saying it. They don't have to defend it from being used in casual conversation... hell they want other people to say it... and they want anyone within earshot to think "Nintendo" when they hear it.
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/tmlaw.pdf
The above link has information regarding applying for and the "opposition process" wherein one can oppose someone's trademark registration attempt. Trademarks are weak in that the same phrase can be registered to many different classes of commerce...
To apply for a trademark they do not have to have used the phrase... yet.
When applying for a trademark you are really only asking for "dibs". Once granted you must prove you're actually using it in commerce. You don't have to prove that no one else is using it... you just have to prove you are. You have 6 months to provide this proof. During that same time it is put out there for the world to see and for anyone else to challenge your right to its exclusive (?) use. If there are no challenges, then after all that, it is yours.
All that being the case, I'm guessing Nintendo plans to use the phrase to promote their next big offering or in a "tag line" type of function.
If they were hiding in the darness that sounds like they were already depressed. They took an AD and it is working so it only seems reasonable that they might want to go play in the sun a little.
Ummm... or they could pay their investors the money.
Or make better games (or more often release new games) because they have more money to hire talented staff and thereby are also productive.
The end user getting something for less money isn't always the best way for a company to make good use of savings due to good decisions.
Maybe the wrong assumption is being made. Perhaps it is not a "fear" by the viewer of the sick person in the photograph possibly making the viewer sick. Instead, it might be "mirror neurons" doing their thing. The viewer sees someone ill and their own brains "experience" it therby mirroring (on a lower level) the processes going on in the individual they are viewing.
Not true. Most car accidents occur within 5 miles of one's home. Now, I don't know if most accidents that result in a DEATH follow the same pattern, but I'm not sure based on the 5 miles rule that your statement "the more time you spend in a car the more likely you are to die in a car accident" holds water.
Also, one does not have to be in a car in order to be struck by one and be killed.
I'm not saying this behavior is good or acceptable. Nor am I saying they shouldn't go to jail, but it might not be as "damaging" as you're making it out to be in a purely economic standpoint. To be fair, they're also perpetuating / creating a lot of employment.
Think of all the sysadmins who will be able to point out that either (1) they need more resources to prevent these things or (2) look how great a job they are doing since none of their own systems were infected. In either case, money is going to be spent and vendors / employees will be the beneficiary.
What about all the credit companies that employ people to do nothing but handle fraud and identity theft.
Then there are the credit protection companies meant to handle the fallout of these types of issues and keep the data from being used even though it has been attained.
Add to that all of the government agents dedicated specifically to this task and those related. You don't have to like them; just accept that they do exist and their livelihood depends on these types of folks acting out.
There is a whole economy (industry) based entirely on spammers and data thieves.
Again, I'm not saying this behavior is good or acceptable. Nor am I saying they shouldn't go to jail. I am saying ONLY that it might not be as "damaging" as you're making it out to be in a purely economic standpoint.
Amazon Buys books at $14 from the publisher. Then sells them for $10. Murdoch doesn't like this arrangement, so Murdoch will be responsible for the venture capital and will help to fund a business called LossLeaderWhacker (first name go round... sorry, I know it stinks as a name). LossLeaderWhacker's purpose is to buy up lossleaders on behalf of the wholesaler who sold them in the first place. In this case, LLW would buy up ebooks from Amazon.
Then, LossLeaderWhacker could turn around and sell the books for $9. So Murdoch makes atleast $4 a book, but as much as $13. I say "as much as" b/c Amazon could always contract out LLW to strike back and buy those $9 books and sell them for $8. And so on until $0 (or until they pay us to take them!).
By only buying the loss leading products (that Murdoch doesn't want sold at a loss anyway) he can make his point WITHOUT having to quit selling the product to Amazon. Done at enough volume it could certainly make a point. And while this would not work nearly as well with tangible goods for various reasons (shipping, warehouseing, etc), it could certainly work some something that is simply transmitted down a wire.
Amazon can choose to (1) quit carrying the product or (2) raise the price to something they won't lose money on every time (3) keep doing the same thing and bleed to death $4 at a time.
No doubt about Analytics causing slow pageloads. Adsense also has this issue occasionally.
The company I own runs several websites and I finally had to remove the Adsense code from the homepage and most of the higher traffic pages. For example, some users were trying to get to the login screen and were taking a path through the home page. The home page was occasionally "freezing up". Users with ads disabled / blocked had no problems. Well, if you can't login, you can't do what you came to do.
It's very frustrating. There are 5 or 6 pages that are the most heavily viewed. The user is REQUIRED to view those pages in order to accomplish what they came to the site to do. Those 5 or 6 pages would theoretically be the best place to display ads, but I can't display ads there because adsense goes haywire and slows down / prevents the render. I am actually in the process of removing all but the best paying ad blocks from our fantasy sports site because of this very reason. It costs us more to lose a customer due to slow page loads than we might make from the possibility that there may be an ad clicked when it is actually working. Google needs to check their facts and clean up their own house before they blame slow loads on "other, less technologically advanced ad brokers". Don't get me wrong, when it works, it works great. But when it doesn't work, neither can the visitors.
Slashdot Mirror
To be correct there is no ban on perpetual motion devices being patented. There is simply a requirement that any patent on a perpetual motion device have a working prototype available. No other type of invention has this requirement.
They could easily have done this without going into this guys house if they had not been so gungho to start. The article clearly states that once they realized they screwed up they went back to the file sharing app they had found the alleged guy on in the first place. Originally they took the most recent IP and ran with it. However, when they went back (after the first snafu) they used that app to find the other IP addresses that the same username had connected from. They used the new IP address information to determine that a student at a university had connected and they found that the student lived across the street. Now, seems they could have done all that the first time around and saved themselves and this poor guy from having to go through all of this.
Nothing in this article stated that Google took some kind of stance AGAINST software patents. What was stated was that they believe that patent trolls are a problem. But that's okay, don't let your own (anonymous) feelings get in the way of a providing a summary that is actual based in reality.
I'm pretty sure that we will have a different view on "fairness" if you truly believe what you wrote. Part of that is because you left so much out of your analysis. I'll give you one example and I'll leave it "as an exercise" for you to ponder the other opportunities that you mom has to impact the bottom line of a company without using more than 1GB per month. This is why all the "data is free" and "bandwidth is virtually unlimited" crap is so beside the point... however I do discuss it (again) after I show WHY your mom has to pay every month.
Here's a really simple example of what you left out. Your Mom is probably not a big tech user. She's not the saviest when it comes to computers. She probably surfs the news and deals with emails. I only say this because you said 1GB a month. That sign points to "not a heavy user" of the interwebs. That being the case she's probably not very knowledgeable about computers. When something goes wrong she calls you or a sibling or... who else? Oh, the cable company. So she's more likely to need support from the company she subscribes from than the average slashdot poster. She's more likely to require someone to come out to her home as trouble shooting over the phone will likely not be an option. She more expensive as a customer. One trip to her house because the box was unplugged cost more than her whole months subscription. And if she were paying by the GB then it would take 2 years to recover that.
Now, back to billing for USAGE, even though we've discovered that the usage is NOT the biggest cost to the carrier for supporting you as customer. You see, the amount of USAGE literally makes no difference to them. In your example all of your users could use the same amount as the 1 'hog' and your infrastructure would still hold up to the load. If that's the case, then yes, x/y should be the minimum cost per customer (taking any profit, and dealing with moms out of the equation - I have one too so I know they can be hard to deal with). That should be all of users minimum costs even if they did not actually use it! They are paying for the ability to use it and the support. That is what I was saying regarding my water bill and the convenience of opening a tap and there it is. If it's not there I call a plumber. If the plumber says it is on the utilities side, then the utility pays the bill and fixes it.
If no user is putting an undue load on the system then I see no problem with them paying the same amount even if they use it more. What I do see a problem with is you volunteering that because your mom uses less bandwidth than I do (assuming I use the same amount as you) then I should have to pay more than her. Neither of us is impacting the system in any discernable way and I don't think you have the right to volunteer that I be billed more even if you are willing (because you haven't really thought it through using your obviously capable brain) to pay more too.
You should pay more when you use excessively, but not just because you use more than someone else. And yes, excessivity is relative and can be redefined over time. Today it may be excessive to be using 100GB because there are hundreds of users sharing the same channel. When there are 10s of thousands of users sharing that channel then the limit might change to 10GB. Users will have to adjust, but even then I don't need someone saying their grandma only uses 1MB per month and others use 9GB - how come the 9GB don't have to pay more than grandma. Grandma can use more if she wants, but don't bring everyone down to her level or insinuate that they pay more. On the other hand, when everyone has fiber and new super compression algorithms are utilized (or hell, even the current ones being used would be progress) and there are no limits on the bandwidth then we're back to having excessive be essentially non-existent and therefore not showing up on bills.
You must have owned a bank or another business that extends lines of credit to speak with such authority about what it costs a company when a customer goes over their credit limit. You have probably looked deeply into the risk involved with loaning money to people. We've all loaned money to friends, sure, but what about loaning money to people that don't know you - or you them for that matter? That is a risky business.
In your research (or past experience) you probably found that those that go over their limit are far more likely to default and that they are therefore riskier customers. They are maxed out and that already gives you a clue into the level of risk that comes with them. An insurance company would charge more for those who live riskier lives (yes, as defined by he/she who writes the policy) and a credit card company or any loan provider should be expected to do the same. After all, if you can go over your limit with no penalty at all then what is the point of the limit? I'll let you in on a secret. The real point of the limit is not to protect YOU. It is to protect the company lending you the money. It is to protect them from you. If you do things that flag you as being risky or choose to ignore the rules, then I think it would be in their business' best interest to adjust for that risk (ie. fine you for breaking the rules which caused uncertainty and introduced risk into what would be an otherwise easy business model).
Also, how do you know they aren't getting the money from someone else to loan to you. They move the money around - even your local mom and pop shop has to get the money (and debts) into the right accounts to meet payroll, pay their own creditors, buy their inventory, etc - and they have to pay employees to do all this money finagling. If people would stay within their limits then the whole business of loaning / collecting would be predictable and require less resources, but since people are ALLOWED to go over their limits (as a convenience) that introduces a new variable that must be accounted for... and rather than increase everyone's interest rate the companies have chosen to ding those that can't follow the rules.
There are new legal requirements on these companies that requires their users to "opt in" to these conveniences. I like that change and I think it will drastically reduce how much it happens. So, I again go back to "please tell me you're only talking about a case where a credit limit was decreased and THAT caused them to be overdrafted". If it is for any other reason then the bank SHOULD be compensated for having to clean up after the account holder. If, as a customer you don't like getting dinged for breaking the rules, then go verify you are "opt out", go somewhere else with your banking, or start paying with cash and quit worrying about overdrafting / overextending your credit lines.
I was with you mostly until "It's equivalent to credit card overages". How is it equivalent? I mean, other than it involves money? User has a card with a limit, they went over it, they get fined for doing so. What is the problem there? Don't get me wrong I think most CC companies are not at all interested in the people that use their products, but wtf did they do "wrong" when they made the decisioni to penalize someone for overages?
Please tell me you're talking about some case where a credit limit was decreased and a person went over the limit AFTER that - and that they were never notified about the decrease to start with.
Just because you use more than someone else doesn't mean either one of you is being excessive.
If the provider thinks they can provide 1GB of data just as easily and with just as much expense to them as they can provide 100GB of data then who are you to decide otherwise. Obviously that is the case or they would have set the caps sooner. They're here to make money... rest assured of that. Go ahead and make them a gift donation if you want, but do it with your dime, don't volunteer mine with your arbitrary limits and assumptions. Why should you pay more for 100GB vs 1 GB if it literally makes no difference to them?
Where I live our water bill has a minimum amount. That is basically a connection fee and comes with some certain number of gallons included. My family basically never uses enough water to exceed that amount. If we were to exceed it then we pay for the additional amount we use (per 100 gallons or something like that). We're paying for the connection and are subscribing to the service. If we want water, we turn on the tap and there it is. Your internet is the same way. You want data, then have at it. But the fact that you can have it whenever you want it is what you're paying for most of the time... not the actual data being moved. If you exceed the free amount then you will have to pay up, but be damn sure that you are actually putting an EXCESSIVE LOAD on the system before you offer to pay up.
You know... I didn't remember ever hearing anything like this happening with them. But, since you asked:
A quick google search and a few minutes turned up the following situation involving Google Checkout. I do remember a string of other things (not related to checkout) that google has recently gotten into that doesn't exactly show that they are perfect including privacy issues, bowing to polital pressures in faraway lands, etc.
As for authorize.net, I'd never even heard of them. I'm not interested in hunting down their complaints as I'm confident they're out there too... everyone has screwed up or been put into an unwinnable situation before.
And I'm not by any means saying Paypal is right for what they did. I'm just saying that immediately jumping ship to one of these other companies that have the exact same capabilities is probably very close to jumping out of the hot frying pan and into the fireplace (whether the logs are on fire or not).
And why is google checkout any better; and the same goes for authorize.net? Seems like they have the exact same power do they not?
I got no mod points right now... but that was funny - no doubt.
I'm not trying to down play the importance of algorithms in Compsci, but I think perhaps you only remember the fun stuff (the algorithms) and have forgotten the other crap that went in before it. I suppose a mechanic could be trained to just fix cars, but they're certainly not going to make them "all they can be" without understanding the limitations / adeventages and disadvantages of different parts.
So, there were 36 hours of compsci specific classes if I recall for BS in compsci. All the others were electives and a butt load of maths, geometry, physics, etc.
I don't remember them all, but I've listested several of the core compsci classes below - and most undergrad offer something similar. It's pretty apparent that most of these were not focused on algorithm development. They were focused on helping the student understand what the machine was capable of doing and all the parts that have to work together to make it happen... What its limitations were, how to work around those, how to eliminate those, etc. Was there some "algorithm development" as part of some of those courses? Sure. A true computer scientist should understand how a stack is implemented and not just use them. However the algorithms were not the focus in datastructures nor were they in many other areas such as security, databases, discrete, linear algebra...
Intro to programming (*) (4 hrs)
Computer Architecture (4 hrs)
Discrete Math (3 hrs)
Data structures (3 hrs)
Probability / Queueing (3 hrs)
Algorithms (*) (3 hrs)
Compiler Design and Implementation (3 hrs)
Computer Security (3 hrs)
Databases (3 hrs)
OS - Minix inside and out (3 hrs)
Assembly (3 hrs)
I'm missing quite a few, but this should be enough to show that close to 50% if not more were not "algorithm specific". They were things you needed to understand to create good algorithms, but they were not all algorithms.
Wow. You've now taken claim of "the people"!
I suppose that whether that matters or not would depends on who "the people" are that have claimed this IP theif and cheat as their hero. There have been and always will be plenty of "the people" that I have no interest in being a heroic person to. Nazis (don't want to be their hero), almost any extremist of any kind (don't want to be their hero), liars, hypocrites, thieves, etc. I'm guessing there are plenty of groups of "the people" that you would also not care to be their hero. And if I was the hero of any of those groups or some other group - it wouldn't necessarily make me right. Not being the hero also doesn't necessarily make me wrong.
You be a hero to your people - I'll keep doing and defending what I think is right and fair.
Most entrepreneurs do not get paid. Musicians, artists, authors are just more instances of the class of people who get no base salary for trying to make a living doing something they love to do (or believe themselves to be exceptionally good at).
These guys work and don't get paid - and they do so more than they work while getting paid. Some of them get really "lucky" eventually. They actually get paid for their work. They do so by royalties (for artists) that eliminate the risk for those that promote / publish them or by profits (for entrepreneurs) that prove someone found their service valuable.
A possible response: "Because work that I did two decades ago is still valued and in demand, while nobody cares what you did yesterday."
Many people care if they can get to the websites they want. Yesterday I fixed a problem that if left unchecked, today would be preventing people from getting the data that they "demand".
Perhaps my employer owes me royalties for each 'user' of the newly installed hardware.
Since you are a person who chooses to describe what they do as "fighting fires" then I am fairly confident that there are probably long stretches of time, perhaps full days, in which you sit around and do nothing, but spend the entire day on slashdot. You can do this because things are working well where you are... perhaps even through some fault of your own. Maybe you just shouldn't get paid for that easy time. You really aren't producting anything of value today. The fact that you don't get canned everytime there is nothing to do should clue you in to the fact that your royalties are built in to your salary / wage. The author gets paid only if they produce something of value and only for however long it maintains value... and only during the time period it is viewed as valuable. You, on the other hand, get paid only as long as you continue to convince your employer that you bring something of value (or will do so in a short enough time in the future for them to pay you during the "downtime"). Again, your royalties are built into your wage.
What about tech books? I wouldn't call that art, and I'm confident many are not written out of a love for writing language specifications and / or writing tutorials. I can choose to write a book about use of genetic algorithms in logistics management and put in years to perfect the work. Imagine the effort that would take without necessarily doing it for love. I know it's valuable conceptually and I want to get paid for it once everyone else figures it out. That's not likely to happen if the someone comes along once I'm done and starts distributing copies of it for free, or worse, distributes it under their name.
Most of the time the US government wants to tell us how to do things and in doing so they prefer to limit our options. "We'll do it for you... and you'll like it or else" tends to be their mantra.
I wonder why in this the case the head of the FTC would rather the private sector (the browser makers) be the ones to add functionality to thwart the tracking... could it be they would only gain power over the advertisers (which is WAY smaller than the general population - so why bother?)
If they actually cared, then why not set up a simple list like the "do not call" list and require anyone that wants to track to go there and get approved. Then allow opt-outs through some channel. Then, anyone caught still tracking after that point is in federal trouble - as opposed to browser makers have to code around the tracking violators.
IANAL either, but I do have some experience with trademark registration and the processes involved. Here's the thing to keep in mind: a trademark is about use in commerce - not about use in casual conversation. If I go around saying "it's on like donkey kong" all day I am not in any sort of violation of trademark law even if Nintendo has registered it. However, I can't roll out a new brand of video game systems and use the same phrase to market my product. Being a competitor (or someone in the same general area) and using someone elses trademark can be harmful to the holder. But, being joe nobody and saying a trademarked phrase is not harmful. Nintendo doesn't need to stop everyone from saying it. They don't have to defend it from being used in casual conversation... hell they want other people to say it... and they want anyone within earshot to think "Nintendo" when they hear it. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/tmlaw.pdf The above link has information regarding applying for and the "opposition process" wherein one can oppose someone's trademark registration attempt. Trademarks are weak in that the same phrase can be registered to many different classes of commerce...
To apply for a trademark they do not have to have used the phrase... yet. When applying for a trademark you are really only asking for "dibs". Once granted you must prove you're actually using it in commerce. You don't have to prove that no one else is using it... you just have to prove you are. You have 6 months to provide this proof. During that same time it is put out there for the world to see and for anyone else to challenge your right to its exclusive (?) use. If there are no challenges, then after all that, it is yours. All that being the case, I'm guessing Nintendo plans to use the phrase to promote their next big offering or in a "tag line" type of function.
If they were hiding in the darness that sounds like they were already depressed. They took an AD and it is working so it only seems reasonable that they might want to go play in the sun a little.
Ummm... or they could pay their investors the money. Or make better games (or more often release new games) because they have more money to hire talented staff and thereby are also productive. The end user getting something for less money isn't always the best way for a company to make good use of savings due to good decisions.
Maybe the wrong assumption is being made. Perhaps it is not a "fear" by the viewer of the sick person in the photograph possibly making the viewer sick. Instead, it might be "mirror neurons" doing their thing. The viewer sees someone ill and their own brains "experience" it therby mirroring (on a lower level) the processes going on in the individual they are viewing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
Not true. Most car accidents occur within 5 miles of one's home. Now, I don't know if most accidents that result in a DEATH follow the same pattern, but I'm not sure based on the 5 miles rule that your statement "the more time you spend in a car the more likely you are to die in a car accident" holds water.
Also, one does not have to be in a car in order to be struck by one and be killed.
I'm not saying this behavior is good or acceptable. Nor am I saying they shouldn't go to jail, but it might not be as "damaging" as you're making it out to be in a purely economic standpoint. To be fair, they're also perpetuating / creating a lot of employment.
Think of all the sysadmins who will be able to point out that either (1) they need more resources to prevent these things or (2) look how great a job they are doing since none of their own systems were infected. In either case, money is going to be spent and vendors / employees will be the beneficiary.
What about all the credit companies that employ people to do nothing but handle fraud and identity theft.
Then there are the credit protection companies meant to handle the fallout of these types of issues and keep the data from being used even though it has been attained.
Add to that all of the government agents dedicated specifically to this task and those related. You don't have to like them; just accept that they do exist and their livelihood depends on these types of folks acting out.
There is a whole economy (industry) based entirely on spammers and data thieves.
Again, I'm not saying this behavior is good or acceptable. Nor am I saying they shouldn't go to jail. I am saying ONLY that it might not be as "damaging" as you're making it out to be in a purely economic standpoint.
Here's the business:
Amazon Buys books at $14 from the publisher. Then sells them for $10. Murdoch doesn't like this arrangement, so Murdoch will be responsible for the venture capital and will help to fund a business called LossLeaderWhacker (first name go round... sorry, I know it stinks as a name). LossLeaderWhacker's purpose is to buy up lossleaders on behalf of the wholesaler who sold them in the first place. In this case, LLW would buy up ebooks from Amazon. Then, LossLeaderWhacker could turn around and sell the books for $9. So Murdoch makes atleast $4 a book, but as much as $13. I say "as much as" b/c Amazon could always contract out LLW to strike back and buy those $9 books and sell them for $8. And so on until $0 (or until they pay us to take them!).
By only buying the loss leading products (that Murdoch doesn't want sold at a loss anyway) he can make his point WITHOUT having to quit selling the product to Amazon. Done at enough volume it could certainly make a point. And while this would not work nearly as well with tangible goods for various reasons (shipping, warehouseing, etc), it could certainly work some something that is simply transmitted down a wire.
Amazon can choose to (1) quit carrying the product or (2) raise the price to something they won't lose money on every time (3) keep doing the same thing and bleed to death $4 at a time.
No doubt about Analytics causing slow pageloads. Adsense also has this issue occasionally.
The company I own runs several websites and I finally had to remove the Adsense code from the homepage and most of the higher traffic pages. For example, some users were trying to get to the login screen and were taking a path through the home page. The home page was occasionally "freezing up". Users with ads disabled / blocked had no problems. Well, if you can't login, you can't do what you came to do.
It's very frustrating. There are 5 or 6 pages that are the most heavily viewed. The user is REQUIRED to view those pages in order to accomplish what they came to the site to do. Those 5 or 6 pages would theoretically be the best place to display ads, but I can't display ads there because adsense goes haywire and slows down / prevents the render. I am actually in the process of removing all but the best paying ad blocks from our fantasy sports site because of this very reason. It costs us more to lose a customer due to slow page loads than we might make from the possibility that there may be an ad clicked when it is actually working. Google needs to check their facts and clean up their own house before they blame slow loads on "other, less technologically advanced ad brokers". Don't get me wrong, when it works, it works great. But when it doesn't work, neither can the visitors.