With free-as-in-beer services, you usually get what you pay for. I have been seriously annoyed when free web hosting firms suddenly "went away," but I still think you make an excellent point by reminding us that "common courtesy" goes both ways.
And peoples' failure to back up their own data... well, that's no one else's fault.
At least they let you delete info. When Amazon changed their policy (considerably) they refused to delete the account information I'd given them prior to the change. "Seeya - no more orders for you."
(I never thought of going in and poisoning it, though. Rats.)
Yep, "consider the source" is particularly relevant here. Perhaps some big advertiser of theirs will be flogging the word "convergence" next week, or next month - and being a good little reliable, objective, alpha-dog information source that they are...
When the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars...
I'm not even sure about the caning... (maybe if it was televised)...but it's really amazing how much one can get away with stealing from others these days - and if the judges don't yet realize the cost of spam, to business, perhaps they should all be put out to pasture and replaced with others who do.
Jeez, I'm still trying to find confirmation online that this filth spent any time in jail for his first offense...
Almost a year ago Poulson told us, "Backed by a legion of lawyers and empowered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, former FBI agents in the company's Office of Signal Integrity have staged raids against businesses that deal in piracy equipment, seizing customer lists and inventory with armed law enforcement officers as backup." He was not the only one to report that some of the lawsuits were filed against people who didn't even own a satellite dish. (I think Wired News also had an article about this, but I can't dig up the hyperlink at the moment. This boneheaded move predates Murdoch's takeover, by the way.)
I've been making friends and family aware of this fiasco ever since I first heard of it, hoping that none of them will reward with their business what could be described as "extortion". I wish the names of those who made this decision could be posted somewhere, and archived, before they move on to other employers and continue spreading the contempt.
Of course, a company has every right to resist "criminal" acts. But there is good reason to believe, here, that this firm knew they'd cast the net too widely. It smells like a money-grab - the easy way out (compared to seeking relief in criminal courts, where there are laws on the books to protect them from the real baddies). By the same logic they could've been suing anyone who made anything that could have been used to facilitate the "theft". Charming.
From Real.com (a web page which doesn't load in Mozilla, because it checks my connection rate (without asking)! Rrrrrrr...)
Access over 100 movies for one low monthly fee -- 25 new titles added weekly Download movies on up to three computers -- take them on the go with your laptop
That's about all the info Real has made available, other than movie titles.
I'm intrigued - now if only it weren't for the "possibility" of DRM sys-crap coming down the pipe, along with the movie . ..
It has turned out to be simpler to block the people most likely from voting a certain way so they can't vote at all.
The legislators will really do anything for... a campaign contribution.
Unfortunately, most people can be counted upon to vote for the incumbent, or the slate from the same political party with which their parents identified themselves. And patent reform is too esoteric of a subject to capture the interest of most folks.
I'm in no mood to defend or praise M$, but... okay.
Any quote which contains...in the process they got an entire generation of users hooked on getting stuff for free. - as if that attitude was somehow new (cf. the difficulty in launching a successful micropayment or online-currency biz, '95 - present) must've been written by a twentysomething. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that"...)
You're right, of course - but self-discipline won't save the day if the talent doesn't know which words are currently verboten. Some examples are certainly obvious, but a lot of the talent is complaining that they don't know where the line is being drawn. Disingenuous, in some cases, sure. But not all.
In addition, those accused of violating the Commission's rules will be suspended and if ultimately found to violate our rules, will be terminated. ! ... and Ernest Miller made a great catch, there:
"That's great. Accusations lead to suspension. And, one foul-up and you're fired. How many people could handle a situation where one accidental word that is commonly used could get you suspended and/or fired? That's something to be proud of."
Further down, same page, he also came up with the pithy "Apparently, self-censorship forced upon us by government is better than direct censorship."
Now, if only we could find out exactly what CC admitted to doing wrong, why, we'd all have a better chance of not committing the same horrible acts ourselves.
<grrr>
Re:"The path of least resistance" - mod parent UP
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 1
Very well put. Until the pain of verifying the accuracy of the infrigement claim is less than the pain of 'CYA'...
I never get mod points anymore, but you'd get one if I did.
Right you are (and yet your post is rated lower than the parent, go figure).
It's like something a shill would say. JavaScript is no more of a "requirement" for a medium which had its roots in a pre-EMCAScript markup language than... ActiveX, iPix, RealNames, CueCat, RealPlayer...
Depending on JavaScript - as in, a "requirement" - also makes accessibility a much more difficult thing to attain.
Not sure where "we" are living, poster, but here in the USA we're also living in an unprecedented time of increasing surveillance, elections without verifiable audit trails, "reinterpretation" of the Bill of Rights without comparable precedent, consolidation of the fourth estate, the profound effect of hired lobbyists...
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks - your post is a very pragmatic summary.
With free-as-in-beer services, you usually get what you pay for. I have been seriously annoyed when free web hosting firms suddenly "went away," but I still think you make an excellent point by reminding us that "common courtesy" goes both ways.
And peoples' failure to back up their own data... well, that's no one else's fault.
<grrr>
With cookies and HTTP Referer, they get not only the information you willingly give them.
... or done anything else sinister with the information that I'm aware of.
That you're aware of. Yes.
Surely there were American and JetBlue customers who would've said the same thing.
<grrr>
Agreed - a clear, succinct reply.
(Plenty of other threads about cookies - and yet the OP is +5, Interesting.)
(sigh)
<grrr>
At least they let you delete info.
When Amazon changed their policy (considerably) they refused to delete the account information I'd given them prior to the change.
"Seeya - no more orders for you."
(I never thought of going in and poisoning it, though. Rats.)
<grrr>
Yep, "consider the source" is particularly relevant here. Perhaps some big advertiser of theirs will be flogging the word "convergence" next week, or next month - and being a good little reliable, objective, alpha-dog information source that they are...
When the moon is in the seventh house
and Jupiter aligns with Mars...
"The age of con-verg-i-ance!"
Hmmm...
<grrr>
I'm not even sure about the caning... ...but it's really amazing how much one can get away with stealing from others these days - and if the judges don't yet realize the cost of spam, to business, perhaps they should all be put out to pasture and replaced with others who do.
(maybe if it was televised)
Jeez, I'm still trying to find confirmation online that this filth spent any time in jail for his first offense...
<grrr>
Another problem is how they "investigate".
Almost a year ago Poulson told us, "Backed by a legion of lawyers and empowered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, former FBI agents in the company's Office of Signal Integrity have staged raids against businesses that deal in piracy equipment, seizing customer lists and inventory with armed law enforcement officers as backup."
He was not the only one to report that some of the lawsuits were filed against people who didn't even own a satellite dish. (I think Wired News also had an article about this, but I can't dig up the hyperlink at the moment. This boneheaded move predates Murdoch's takeover, by the way.)
I've been making friends and family aware of this fiasco ever since I first heard of it, hoping that none of them will reward with their business what could be described as "extortion".
I wish the names of those who made this decision could be posted somewhere, and archived, before they move on to other employers and continue spreading the contempt.
Of course, a company has every right to resist "criminal" acts. But there is good reason to believe, here, that this firm knew they'd cast the net too widely.
It smells like a money-grab - the easy way out (compared to seeking relief in criminal courts, where there are laws on the books to protect them from the real baddies).
By the same logic they could've been suing anyone who made anything that could have been used to facilitate the "theft". Charming.
<grrr>
You'll be away from your internet connection?
Away...
uh...
I just don't get it.
<grrr>
Hey, never underestimate the power of B movies. There's quite a large and diverse cult following out there... :)
<grrr>
From Real.com (a web page which doesn't load in Mozilla, because it checks my connection rate (without asking)! Rrrrrrr...)
.
Access over 100 movies for one low monthly fee -- 25 new titles added weekly
Download movies on up to three computers -- take them on the go with your laptop
That's about all the info Real has made available, other than movie titles.
I'm intrigued - now if only it weren't for the "possibility" of DRM sys-crap coming down the pipe, along with the movie . .
<grrr>
No government organization will willingly give up saved data.
Having worked for law enforcement, I couldn't agree more.
Databases never (provably) die.
<grrr>
Ooooo yeah, I like it.
/.'ty as it gets... the other respondent, Goo, was on the same wavelength, and you refined the idea (as a result?) just so.
Also, it's just about as
Of course, Goo, corporations are "persons", here... and how can we deny them "fair representation" ?!?
<grrr>
Your politicians will do anything for a vote.
Ah, if only.
It has turned out to be simpler to block the people most likely from voting a certain way so they can't vote at all.
The legislators will really do anything for... a campaign contribution.
Unfortunately, most people can be counted upon to vote for the incumbent, or the slate from the same political party with which their parents identified themselves. And patent reform is too esoteric of a subject to capture the interest of most folks.
Democracy was great, in theory...
<grrr>
Big 10-4 to that. It is a wonderful, terrific, brilliant concept/album...
<grrr>
Naw, rats would've been more discriminating all along. They're smarter than some people (and AC's) I know.
<grrr>
Why do we never see this sentiment when discussing... oh, I don't know... coders?
<grrr>
(just another musician who would like to at least break even on the costs of guerilla distribution)
...does everything have to be a Homeland Security issue and tied to 9-11?
Only so long as it works...
Remember It's for the children! ?
<grrr>
I'm in no mood to defend or praise M$, but... okay.
...in the process they got an entire generation of users hooked on getting stuff for free. - as if that attitude was somehow new (cf. the difficulty in launching a successful micropayment or online-currency biz, '95 - present) must've been written by a twentysomething.
Any quote which contains
("Not that there's anything wrong with that"...)
<grrr>
If the entire industry has abysmal customer service, "churn" is reduced
<grrr>
You're right, of course - but self-discipline won't save the day if the talent doesn't know which words are currently verboten. Some examples are certainly obvious, but a lot of the talent is complaining that they don't know where the line is being drawn. Disingenuous, in some cases, sure. But not all.
<grrr>
From Powell's statement...
... and Ernest Miller made a great catch, there:
In addition, those accused of violating the Commission's rules will be suspended and if ultimately found to violate our rules, will be terminated.
!
"That's great. Accusations lead to suspension. And, one foul-up and you're fired. How many people could handle a situation where one accidental word that is commonly used could get you suspended and/or fired? That's something to be proud of."
Further down, same page, he also came up with the pithy "Apparently, self-censorship forced upon us by government is better than direct censorship."
Now, if only we could find out exactly what CC admitted to doing wrong, why, we'd all have a better chance of not committing the same horrible acts ourselves.
<grrr>
Very well put.
Until the pain of verifying the accuracy of the infrigement claim is less than the pain of 'CYA'...
I never get mod points anymore, but you'd get one if I did.
<grrr>
Neat idea !
You gotta define "implode", with great specificity, for this crowd.
Even so... hmmmm...
September 30, 2005
<grrr>
Right you are (and yet your post is rated lower than the parent, go figure).
It's like something a shill would say. JavaScript is no more of a "requirement" for a medium which had its roots in a pre-EMCAScript markup language than... ActiveX, iPix, RealNames, CueCat, RealPlayer...
Depending on JavaScript - as in, a "requirement" - also makes accessibility a much more difficult thing to attain.
<grrr>
"Some" perspective... such as, perhaps, yours?
Not sure where "we" are living, poster, but here in the USA we're also living in an unprecedented time of increasing surveillance, elections without verifiable audit trails, "reinterpretation" of the Bill of Rights without comparable precedent, consolidation of the fourth estate, the profound effect of hired lobbyists...
<grrr>