I don't understand the purpose of something like this. The state is telling the counties and cities, "Hey, you're just not allowed to spend your share of tax revenues on X." I'd love to see the campaign donor list for this dude.
If the private sector is doing so well, why tell them that they have one less idea to compete against? If anything, that *discourages* private companies from making services better. Sounds like a perfect case of trying to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken.
If you tell the executive branch, "Hey a whole bunch of D-bags in Congress are being bought and paid for," I'd bet they'd be willing to at least take a look.
I'll take an admittedly poor attempt to distinguish. Republicans want little or no regulation in the economy. They believe that government regulation stifles business, slows the economy, and discourages creativity.
Democrats favor more regulation in the economy. They believe this helps set a fair playing field, fosters creativity and competition, and discourages abuse.
It's overly simplified, and the taxation question is just an absolute mess from my perspective. Lately, I've seen less of the religious tilt to the parties. Pretty much they seem to mold their message to appeal to their respective bases as best as possible. I think the honest ones on each side really do mean well... But there are plenty who are more interested in keeping their seat than doing what needs to be done (I'm not saying that those are incompatible, I'm talking priorities here).
1 - It was when Microsoft used my example in #3. Their attempts to ensure non-compatibility with any non-Microsoft product just furthered the case. 2 - The fact that you defend IE6 and say it was the best browser around is suspicious. You say it as fact, which I just can't concede. IE6 was notorious for a lack of any semblance of security. Further integration with the OS just made that situation worse. 3 - According to details I've read, Motorola thought it was more important to call the OS on their phones "Android" than to not. They could have continued with Skyhook, made their phones and everything, but then they just wouldn't be able to call it Android. I think Google handled it in a backhanded manner, and I don't like it. But that's not undercutting core business by jacking up prices across the board... and essentially costing a company its next quarter, half, or fiscal year.
Since it may affect employment, I'd be fine with just knowing which PC maker it was, or have some specifics so that the claim can be moderately verifiable.
1) It took a long time for Microsoft to run through its goodwill and become the monster it is today. We all hated IBM back in the day... Perception changes slowly. 2) Now that Google has a "monopoly," they're still trying to add products to the marketplace. They're still trying to make their existing products, services, and everything they do better. Compare that to Microsoft and IE6, which set us back at least 4 years in the web space. Name me 1 (as in a single) feature Microsoft introduced to comply with standards or make our lives any better between Netscape dying and Firefox showing up. 3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. Microsoft leveraged their market position in search to hold PC makers hostage, and kill products that competed with Office. Show me a case where Google did any of that, and I'll eat my words.
True enough... A lot of them think they can drive just like there's no snow, and others don't know how to drive in snow anyway.
I live in one of those "not so friendly" areas. I also drive a car, front-wheel, with a diesel engine sitting right on top of the drive train. I handle snow very well, and better than some trucks and SUVs that I see... That or the drivers don't know how to handle what they've got.
You have a big family, and you have cash for one car. Assuming you have 3 kids or fewer, you have some options out there that get fantastic mileage. It took me all of 30 seconds to find this.
You can't stand living in a city? But you need to work in one? Hopefully there's public transit (depending on the city). But that's a choice you make.
I'm not against higher gas taxes, as long as they go to supporting transit costs (helping public transit, fixing roads). I think we all could pay a little more per gallon. I'll pay more in taxes, and you'll pay more in taxes. You'll just end up paying more than me because you choose to burn more.
Yes... but in this case there should be some sort of punishment for stealing. It is very likely that no sale would have occurred, but that's not the point on an infringement case.
I've long complained on these forums about the judgements against people who share music. But the point was that the damages were often grossly out of line with any reasonable punishment. This... Well... It may actually be less than what it should be assuming the illegal download was for what should be a fully licensed copy that wasn't paid for. I'm sparse on the details for this case, but if the software did cost $4,200 per copy, then maybe the judgement should have stated that they now need to pay for three licenses. I'd say that would be perfectly fair to make sure people play by the rules.
I'm very glad to see that (for once) the downloader of the material is the one being punished though.
Twitter will probably not do anything until pushed -- and why do anything? If the organizations don't advocate terrorism on twitter but use it for other communication it could be a good thing -- getting some insight and so on.
Although I doubt that their message (even if innocent) would fall under "good." I'll certainly agree with your point. If the posters violate the TOS, or if their posts somehow do violate laws, then Twitter is already perfectly aware of how to handle that. It just sounds to me that this particular "legal outfit" is feeling pretty smug about their little Twitter notice here.
We can all see the content of these posts. I can't read it since I'm a stereotype American... But there are plenty of people who can. I seriously doubt that these groups would put any sensitive info out there like, "OK everyone! Firebomb this store at 5:30!" They may use it to find like-minded individuals, but I'm rather amused by the idea of letting that feed go and using the followers list as a feed to add to the watch list.
Seriously Shurat HaDin, just chill out and use social media like the rest of us who think... It's a data-mine for stupidity and personal info.
You say that as if there is only one person who is responsible for this. I can think of a whole bunch of puppets in a building by the national mall doing exactly that. Even more so when you think of the defense appropriations bill that just went through the senate.
But who's counting at this point?
Even with that, the GP is right. As long as a SLAPP is enough to accomplish what you're trying to do (delay the message until it won't be relevant), that's all they really care about. I would imagine it would be pretty hard to legally define "ass-hattedness," but if we could, I can think of all sorts of excellent ways to punish people for it.
I can think of one way without changing the OS configuration, setup the DNS for those systems to only return the addresses you want, and remove the root hints during the exam.
Unfortunately, since poster did try to do the right thing, now this person could be accused if there is a compromise at the target. By making themselves known, they may have to go even farther.
Seriously, I'd take the advice of other posters and bring it up with the credit card vendors. They will certainly be interested parties since they'd be directly affected by a breach. If the card companies aren't interested, maybe the Better Business Bureau would be?
The clinical trials have to adhere to extremely strict regulations by the FDA.
Also, there is insane liability with drugs too. If you (by your suggestion) think that drug companies are at all interested in cutting some corners during testing and trials, you're clearly not considering the amount of money said company stands to lose if something bad were to happen. If you want to see a sample: http://drugclassactionlawsuit.com/
So, yea, there's huge risk in bringing something to market. I don't know what a good solution is yet, or if maybe moving the research/testing to the public sector is a good idea... But don't discount that the drug companies (the few that are still around) have plenty riding on making sure those trials.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand the purpose of something like this. The state is telling the counties and cities, "Hey, you're just not allowed to spend your share of tax revenues on X." I'd love to see the campaign donor list for this dude.
If the private sector is doing so well, why tell them that they have one less idea to compete against? If anything, that *discourages* private companies from making services better. Sounds like a perfect case of trying to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken.
If you tell the executive branch, "Hey a whole bunch of D-bags in Congress are being bought and paid for," I'd bet they'd be willing to at least take a look.
Did we just discover quantum voting?
I say we just give everyone palm flower crystals and work it out from there.
OR:
http://xkcd.com/936/
He probably didn't have a straight face either.
I'll take an admittedly poor attempt to distinguish.
Republicans want little or no regulation in the economy. They believe that government regulation stifles business, slows the economy, and discourages creativity.
Democrats favor more regulation in the economy. They believe this helps set a fair playing field, fosters creativity and competition, and discourages abuse.
It's overly simplified, and the taxation question is just an absolute mess from my perspective. Lately, I've seen less of the religious tilt to the parties. Pretty much they seem to mold their message to appeal to their respective bases as best as possible. I think the honest ones on each side really do mean well... But there are plenty who are more interested in keeping their seat than doing what needs to be done (I'm not saying that those are incompatible, I'm talking priorities here).
1 - It was when Microsoft used my example in #3. Their attempts to ensure non-compatibility with any non-Microsoft product just furthered the case.
2 - The fact that you defend IE6 and say it was the best browser around is suspicious. You say it as fact, which I just can't concede. IE6 was notorious for a lack of any semblance of security. Further integration with the OS just made that situation worse.
3 - According to details I've read, Motorola thought it was more important to call the OS on their phones "Android" than to not. They could have continued with Skyhook, made their phones and everything, but then they just wouldn't be able to call it Android. I think Google handled it in a backhanded manner, and I don't like it. But that's not undercutting core business by jacking up prices across the board... and essentially costing a company its next quarter, half, or fiscal year.
Since it may affect employment, I'd be fine with just knowing which PC maker it was, or have some specifics so that the claim can be moderately verifiable.
What about TechLA: http://slashdot.org/~TechLA
^This
I picked my word "history" for a reason.
1) It took a long time for Microsoft to run through its goodwill and become the monster it is today. We all hated IBM back in the day... Perception changes slowly.
2) Now that Google has a "monopoly," they're still trying to add products to the marketplace. They're still trying to make their existing products, services, and everything they do better. Compare that to Microsoft and IE6, which set us back at least 4 years in the web space. Name me 1 (as in a single) feature Microsoft introduced to comply with standards or make our lives any better between Netscape dying and Firefox showing up.
3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. Microsoft leveraged their market position in search to hold PC makers hostage, and kill products that competed with Office. Show me a case where Google did any of that, and I'll eat my words.
And I'm an American and drive my manual just fine too.
Or is that redundant? Wait, what?
True enough... A lot of them think they can drive just like there's no snow, and others don't know how to drive in snow anyway.
I live in one of those "not so friendly" areas. I also drive a car, front-wheel, with a diesel engine sitting right on top of the drive train. I handle snow very well, and better than some trucks and SUVs that I see... That or the drivers don't know how to handle what they've got.
Fine - Those are your choices.
You have a big family, and you have cash for one car. Assuming you have 3 kids or fewer, you have some options out there that get fantastic mileage. It took me all of 30 seconds to find this.
You can't stand living in a city? But you need to work in one? Hopefully there's public transit (depending on the city). But that's a choice you make.
I'm not against higher gas taxes, as long as they go to supporting transit costs (helping public transit, fixing roads). I think we all could pay a little more per gallon. I'll pay more in taxes, and you'll pay more in taxes. You'll just end up paying more than me because you choose to burn more.
Can you show me a case where Google attempted patent trolling?
Yes... but in this case there should be some sort of punishment for stealing. It is very likely that no sale would have occurred, but that's not the point on an infringement case.
I've long complained on these forums about the judgements against people who share music. But the point was that the damages were often grossly out of line with any reasonable punishment. This... Well... It may actually be less than what it should be assuming the illegal download was for what should be a fully licensed copy that wasn't paid for. I'm sparse on the details for this case, but if the software did cost $4,200 per copy, then maybe the judgement should have stated that they now need to pay for three licenses. I'd say that would be perfectly fair to make sure people play by the rules.
I'm very glad to see that (for once) the downloader of the material is the one being punished though.
:
Twitter will probably not do anything until pushed -- and why do anything? If the organizations don't advocate terrorism on twitter but use it for other communication it could be a good thing -- getting some insight and so on.
Although I doubt that their message (even if innocent) would fall under "good." I'll certainly agree with your point. If the posters violate the TOS, or if their posts somehow do violate laws, then Twitter is already perfectly aware of how to handle that. It just sounds to me that this particular "legal outfit" is feeling pretty smug about their little Twitter notice here.
We can all see the content of these posts. I can't read it since I'm a stereotype American... But there are plenty of people who can. I seriously doubt that these groups would put any sensitive info out there like, "OK everyone! Firebomb this store at 5:30!" They may use it to find like-minded individuals, but I'm rather amused by the idea of letting that feed go and using the followers list as a feed to add to the watch list.
Seriously Shurat HaDin, just chill out and use social media like the rest of us who think... It's a data-mine for stupidity and personal info.
You say that as if there is only one person who is responsible for this. I can think of a whole bunch of puppets in a building by the national mall doing exactly that. Even more so when you think of the defense appropriations bill that just went through the senate.
But who's counting at this point?
Even with that, the GP is right. As long as a SLAPP is enough to accomplish what you're trying to do (delay the message until it won't be relevant), that's all they really care about. I would imagine it would be pretty hard to legally define "ass-hattedness," but if we could, I can think of all sorts of excellent ways to punish people for it.
That site doesn't care...
I can think of one way without changing the OS configuration, setup the DNS for those systems to only return the addresses you want, and remove the root hints during the exam.
Those humans and night elves aren't going to go kill themselves....
Unfortunately, since poster did try to do the right thing, now this person could be accused if there is a compromise at the target. By making themselves known, they may have to go even farther.
Seriously, I'd take the advice of other posters and bring it up with the credit card vendors. They will certainly be interested parties since they'd be directly affected by a breach. If the card companies aren't interested, maybe the Better Business Bureau would be?
The clinical trials have to adhere to extremely strict regulations by the FDA.
Also, there is insane liability with drugs too. If you (by your suggestion) think that drug companies are at all interested in cutting some corners during testing and trials, you're clearly not considering the amount of money said company stands to lose if something bad were to happen. If you want to see a sample: http://drugclassactionlawsuit.com/
So, yea, there's huge risk in bringing something to market. I don't know what a good solution is yet, or if maybe moving the research/testing to the public sector is a good idea... But don't discount that the drug companies (the few that are still around) have plenty riding on making sure those trials.
I'd say that most of us are pretty well protected here in our parents' basements. We can't catch it if we're not exposed!