Do we need more confirmation you are a Microsoft shill? Microsoft did not receive a cent from any of the Android manufacturers (prove me wrong by providing a link to an article that is not speculating about the amount exchanged.) No terms have been made public. Microsoft is paying everyone to actually generate such positive press.
The device manufacturers probably laughed in their face when Microsoft went to them pan in hand.
Microsoft doesn't want Android to fail. They are profiting half a billion every year from it, without doing anything.
Let me know when you're going gambling at the track - I'm going to bet on all the horses you don't. I'll make a killing 'cause you are wrong so often. Not everyone confuses figures plucked out of a journalists arse and multiplied by theoretical numbers. Clearly you don't understand how patent pools work either.
Ironically the Linux based Smartphones are less free than the Win Mobile7 environment.
What metrics are you using?
Anyway, the times of Microsoft world domination are over
Are there unicorns and elves in your country?
and they embrace open standards now.
Wicked sarcasm - or did Steve Balmer die and I not hear the used car and aluminium siding salesmen weeping and wailing?
Competition is great and drives innovation.
Now there's an irony - Microsoft and competition driving innovation. In the same sentence. (and yes I know what you mean - good things come from making bad things not suck)
Yep - can't root my Moko FreeRunner.
I tried rubbing it gently, buying it champagne and chocolate - even told it looked good in plaid.
Then you supplied the wrong link - try linking to a site with a stock level of more than 2 digits. Actual figures (not plucked out of your arse) might be a little hard to come by - but if you checked you facts you'd know that. Hint: which major outlets don't have it available until next month? If you said "all of them" you'd be right!
Perhaps your confusing it with the N9 which sold a few thousand (because it's PenTile is crap) but it doesn't run WP7 - the only person I've heard of that owns one got it given to him by his employer (MS) and it's not something he boasts about (nice phone Damian - got that javascript to render yet?)
I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads.
I'm yet to see any evidence of that - despite the amazing coincidence of an inquiry taking place in the US at the same time as in Australia.
All I heard so far is people saying it happens - but failing to supply a shred of proof. So I call bullshit.
First the claim was that Google was giving paid advertising (like I buy) an unfair advantage over "organic search results"... In Australia, despite refusing to "prosecute" because they were unable to find an evidence to support the claim ACMA was still dragged to an Inquiry instigated by a company called Sensei (maybe you should do a little research and find out what happened there). Result - dismissed, as the "unfair" advantage is bullshit. The claim that by putting clearly marked, different coloured, ads at the top of search results - it was "unfair".
You'll see media stories run by companies owned by ex-Australian Rupert Murdock that "Google got off" - do yourself a failure and look at the actual finding. No one got off - fines were levied - just not against the company being accused.
Now the story (like yours throughout this thread) has changed - and the distortion is hidden within the search results. Funny that the same people complaining that people game the search results and that Google benefits from it - now claim that when Google relegates the gamers off the front page (Rusty Compass and their 10s of thousands of spammy link farms backlinks) it's proof that Google is taking an "unfair advantage".
It used to be a fact that search engines distorted search results for money - no one complained to the courts then did they? Instead it created the market opportunity that created Google - relevant search results.
Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive.
How? When? You make a lot of claims and keep lugging those goal posts round the field but so far you haven't pointed at a single fact. Having failed to demonstrate an abuse of the position in the market (third) you now want to build another case on it? There's a term for that - grasping.
That's not an unusual statement to make.
Relevance?
You may not see it that way, but to use the word "bullshit" in response just highlights your inability to have an intelligent debate in a respectful manner.
Oh it's a debate now is it? Grow up - you want "respect" then present some facts instead of opinions. To call a lot of baseless fan boi FUD the basis for an "intelligent" debate is to abuse the word "intelligent" and distort the purpose of a debate. Either a company broke the law, or the didn't. It's not a matter for debate.
But let's mince words shall we? I'd call you a liar and you say I'm offensive (though you're still a liar). You'll say I need to prove what your saying is not true, and that everyone knows what you're saying is right. I'll point out that you don't have any proof and you'll argue that's proof of the conspiracy - and that we just have a difference of opinion.
I think you may need to take a look at your own standards.You may not agree with me, but that was totally unnecessary.
Obviously I don't agree with you - I consider it good manners to present facts before flinging shit - if you cannot present any facts to support your claims you're hardly in a position to pat yourself on the back for taking the moral high ground. There's a term for that sort of behaviour too - you're a bullshit artist and guilding the truth with manners doesn't change that fact.
If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive
Stop right there!
I'm a bit thick - please explain how Google is anti-competitive? Are they stopping other player in the advertising game? Are they threatening companies that buy advertising by adjusting prices on the basis of exclusive contracts?
I spend a lot of money on paid advertising with a five of the major search engines (Google is number 3, despite the alleged monopoly) - and only one of those companies has ever asked if I used another company (Bing). And they didn't offer me any incentive to drop Google.
I guess if you climbed into the ring with Tyson you'd be claiming he was anti-competitive too.
and therefore illegal. It's all about context. The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines. Google are the dominant player in the search engine market. Clearly, using their market position as the
gate keeper of all things internet
Reaching much?
to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial.
Try applying that bullshit "logic" to icecream. Vanilla is the dominant flavour - lets get those kangaroo courts of shillsters going.. or is this just a misinformed tall poppy thing?
Don't see you calling for any pitchfork and flaming torch rallies against the two biggest by far search engines? I'm sure you've got a rational reason for that.
Stallman's general utter lunacy isn't a legitimate test of the validity of any specific argument he makes.
But it is a legitimate test of the validity of his philosophy as a whole. If you know a crazy person, and he has one of his predictions validated, are you supposed to suddenly embrace all of his ideas? Because that's what the article is about, that Stallman was right all along about everything and that all of his detractors should be ignored because Obama signed this piece of legislation.
Focus, try and focus. Instead of going to ridiculous extremes and inventing stuff. People might thing you're not the full quid.
No one is saying Stallman was right about everything, or that those that don't agree with Stallman are wrong about everything.
While it's true the GGP can't properly format hyperlinks, that doesn't make his conclusions wrong; it just makes him either stupid, ignorant or lazy.
You left out an option. Perhaps he thought he had it right, checked over it twice to be sure, but simply made a mistake anyhow. Happens all the time. This is why two personnel are required to double check tasks in some environments.
There's another option:-
I have made a deep emotional investment in a value based belief - therefore I will distort reality by focussing on irrelevant issues in order to avoid re-examining my core beliefs. eg. It's all about free software (not the reasons for wanting free software)
Gold is where you find it - it's value is not decreased just because it's found in yucky dirt.
Sigh - more unnecessary proof that evolution is a fact, and that it's not horizontal
yet rare or non-existent in the rest of the animal kingdom
First, this has to have been written by someone who has either never lived with dogs and/or cats and/or parrots and/dolphins, or else is emotionally retarded; second, humor is much simpler: as far as I can tell, it is predatory -- there is always a loser in an expression of humor. Making someone, or something, the butt of a joke engenders social ordering, or status. To put it another way, at a certain basic level, humor seems to me to range from mildly to extreme dominating behavior. Try to find a joke that doesn't have a victim, or a "butt"; that's the source of even calling someone the "butt of a joke."
I'll agree about animals (sometimes) appearing to have a sense of humour. But you're wrong about jokes.
There are only three jokes - what you describe is one, or maybe two, of the jokes. You don't find it funny (and it's probably not that funny for the audience either) - but slapstick "works" not because someone is being made fun of, but because the audience either identifies with the victim and gets a shock, then relief, when they recognise the victim is not them - or they find the wordplay amusing. The first is the "phew, glad that's not me" (man slips on banana peel), the second is "wow, that took me somewhere unexpected" (witty, clever).
Humour is not something every human "gets" - some are too literal/fundamentalist (take themselves too seriously).
Everything in life can be viewed as winners and losers - sounds like you analyse too much. That's why humour is healthy.
I suppose it depends on whether one considers an Internet forum which people casually browse and comment on articles.
Firstly - for what it's worth, you have my respect. Secondly, particulary in respect to what I've quoted here, Slashdot wasn't always a "casual comment" forum - it was somewhere I went for informed and interesting insights into current events and subjects. The predominance of "me too" posts from people who can't quote and won't even fully read the original summary, bad jokes, ignorant repetition of narrow minded dogmatic "opinions", and commercial shills has meant many of the posters I know, no longer post here. So thanks for giving me a reason to keep reading (I really don't post much).
My "style" is meant to offend - but it's not the primary purpose. Better to be thought an abbrasive oaf than the point be lost in diplomacy. This story is a classic example of political manipulation of the media (read the referenced story and spot the extreme spin). If I point that out I'm dismissed as tin foil hat - hence my variation of the Ita Buttrose technique (she doesn't really have a lisp). That's my excuse for slapping people. Good to hear you stand for something it restores my faith in young(er) people (it wasn't hard to work out who you are - you lack practise in subterfuge). Minor point - I'm not slavishly devoted to law and order - just think it's better to make the system work than to dismiss it out of hand.
Whoa, what the hell? Why are you so defensive/argumentative?!
Your uninformed opinions offend me - and I've offended you? Try not to get distracted - I'm just a person and of no consquence to the issues. Which are:- why "guess" when you could research and at least make an "informed guess"? At the very least you could read the referenced article in the original story. It's not like you lack the abilities or education.
I honestly cannot see this happening. I live in Canberra and I can tell you that there's no way in hell they're gonna spend the money on expensive crap like drones in this city.
but honestly the number of these situations in a given year in a city like Canberra with only ~400,000 people is not enough to justify the expense. We'd be lucky to have more than about 5 actual police chases a year here.
Consider prefacing your posts with a warning eg. "I have no idea and I've done absolutely no research - but a thought popped into my head that supports my preconceptions". Or would that offend you too? Would it hurt to add facts to a story already short on them? Are you arguing that disinformation is harmless - or that feeling "validated" is more important? Do you ever wonder if maybe the world could be a better place?
And save your snide little comments for your social worker - there's enough idiots spouting their "thoughts" as if stupidity and "having an opinion" are some sort of rights. Why lower the standards and do yourself an injustice? It's not more important to have an opinion than to be relevant, or right - if I offend you I suggest you take a look at the world around you and shut the fuck up. Seriously.
You want your own opinions, to be spoon-fed the truth (don't trust me), and you want everyone to be nice to you? Pick one. Your choice.
You live in Canberra - wake up, smell the burning PCBs and exhaust fumes, and remind yourself you live in a nation at war in the same places that the local heroin comes from. Now give yourself a hug, consider your opinions (about me) validated, and move on.
Well duh! There's a bloody big ocean between here (where the article is referring to) and your story - geography is another one of your failings.
and there's no way in hell 65mph is the maximum safe speed on a road where there's no people around for 100 miles in either direction, and it sure as hell isn't possible to "lose control" when the road is straight as an arrow.
And yet more teenagers die in Arizona from car accidents than from any other cause - so even your strawman scenarios are bullshit. Nice emotional investment you've got their - how's them dividends?
Obviously you've never lived or traveled through someplace truly rural.
Apart from living in a country where the national average population density is 2.6 people/km2 and having been on cattle stations up to 24,000km2 (Anna Creek).... Apart from all the facts you're absolutely correct.
Come to Arizona or New Mexico.
Been there, done that and ridden a motorbike across much of it. If you pulled your head out of your arse you'd realise that you ain't the centre of the world (and Arizona and New Mexico have plenty of farms - with stock). They're not even the least populated areas of the States (that'd be Wyoming, parts of Texas and Nebraska - by a long shot). Perhaps you're one of those iniellektuls who don't count native Americans as people.
As you can't even follow a story about another part of the world without wanking on about how good a driver you are, how big your gun is, and how big your tiny state is - what're the chances you can keep a car on the road? Stop embarassing the rest of North America and either get a brain or refrain from posting rubbish.
That's the bullshit collector, anything smaller would melt.
No, I think you've confuse Lake Burley Griffin with the symbol erected to honour the only city in Australia where more smackies drive nice cars than catch buses. It's certainly the only city I know of where the public service toilets have needle collection bins (and they're not there for diabetics who tend to carry their own disposal kits).
Yes, it's always best living through a revolution. Such fun!
Yep - as long as you're on the right end of the pitchfork that's as good as it ever gets for the majority of people, throughout the majority of history. Unless you believe all of history has (and will be) the same as that short period between the Black Death and now.
We'd be lucky to have more than about 5 actual police chases a year here.
How do you get internet under that rock? 76 in the year ending in June last, 48 called off because of dangers to the public (12 in pursuit of the douchebag that crashed at Fyshwick earlier this year). Any more "facts" you want to pluck out of your arse".
Perhaps you got confused with the number of deaths by hit and run? Or was it did you mean - killed by a single, serial car thief in that crash at Narrabundah last year (four dead) when he refused to pull over (subsequently requiring the police to call off more than half their pursuits of stolen vehicles - another victimless crime?) (sigh). But hey, don't let facts stand in the way of your delusions.
And if we get a (singular) drone, it won't be for 5 to 10 years.
How many metres of four lane road do you think a UAV is worth? Let's see how many factors your next prediction is out (I know the cost, and the likely, local vendor) Hint - the expensive ones in Afghanistan are already flown out of Bungendore (not just Los Vegas)
How does one go from The capital of Australia wants to use drones for traffic to USA must be using drones because hackers can make drones and because the FBI is tracking cell phones without warrants? I don't see the connection!
Thanks for the back story since the article obviously didn't mention any of that.
Because (shock horror) the story is complete bullshit.
Using speed camera pictures in court seems like a perfectly reasonable idea but was never mentioned
It's vaguely alluded to "A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the Bill before the Assembly only permitted the devices to be used for transport law enforcement, or for a purpose allowed under another law. "
Thanks for calling me a moron
Don't mention it
even though you didn't address a single point I raised.
Because they're not relevant to the actual story - which is what I said it is - not the "oh nose it's another revenue raising scam" beatup press release by the Opposition "a senior police officer said the cameras could be used for other purposes"
Again, Canberran roads are the safest in the world
I don't know about that (especially as you've just returned from Germany which does) I'd certainly like to keep it that way. I just had another car in my paddocks yesterday - 90kmph limit - accident investigation squad says they had to have been doing 140+ when they left the road, through two barbed wired fences and nearly 200 metres into a paddock full of sheep and horses (arial patrolling not allowed here) - and yes I'm in (inner) Canberra. Almost every car going up this road does well over 90kmph and it's one of the busiest roads in Canberra and police are not allowed to pursue speeders here as it's deemed unsafe (their allowed to park their speed van here - but not to pull people over). And again - in case you missed the point - what the police want to change in the legislation relating to the pictures from the speed cameras it to use them in the prosecution of drivers they are not allowed to pursue by car but which they want to pursue by UAV. The AFP do not want to raise revenue with speeding fines - they want to be able to stop joy riders and thieves who just put their foot down knowing the police cannot pursue.
and measures that have been discussed, as mentioned in the article, are an over-reaction to a non-existent problem.
Because the article is false. Note - the police attended the meeting last year, they didn't call it - they simply pointed out their might be privacy concerns and that they wouldn't back it unless they were able to use the images from the cameras for police prosecutions (not to raise government revenue throught speeding fines). Welcome back to Canberra - where truth is the last thing you'll read in the local rag - and Peter Jean is the worst offender. But hey, it brings in readers to a dying newspaper and publicity for the Opposition (I voted Sex Party, so I don't have a dog in this fight)
If I got to set the political agenda - we'd have autobahn between the dormitory suburbs, police would be able to pursue speeding cars/bikes, courts wouldn't give slaps on the wrists to car thieves - and we wouldn't be having UAVs either.
The actual incident that triggered the request for UAVs was the death in Fyshwick earlier this year - where a serial car thief who delighted in baiting police (because the courts kept letting him off) hit and killed some of his friends after calling them to help escape the police pursuit.
Really? Because the article is a report on minutes from a meeting held in June 2010.
The referenced article is dated 22 Sep, 2011.
Where is this meeting minutes you refer to and what bearing does that have on your bullshit claim this story about seeking to change the law so that speed camera pictures can be used to prosecute people for criminal offences has something to do with your little rant about point to point cameras Mr Troll?
The fact that Google is the most successful Interweb company on the planet and it achieved that by being a targeted ad broker allows us to conclude that, yes, we are really that stupid.
In a world full of distractions increasingly hard to block out, Google's job is to effectively deliver distractions. If you can't see anything wrong with regulating that, well, welcome to society - people like to make their life less hellish and that sometimes means cooperation.
Wow - to me Google is just (one of many) a search engine I use to find things on the web. I must of missed the meeting about distractions - which church was that held at?
I'm impressed by the outcome - but saddened it even occurred. You might want to have a read of the complaints, and have a chat to some of the ACCC staff who did not believe there was a case to begin with, and don't like Americans "advising" them on how to do their jobs. Telstra own Sensis - Sensis (like Telstra and Optus) continually break the law - and did again. This time using ads in Trading Post (Fairfax) to trick consumers - then tried to blame Google. Seems a few business monopolies are feeling threatened by Google, and by coincidence, an inquiry that was meant to happen a month ago was delayed till this week for some unknown reason (*cough* US Senate *cough*)
One peppercorn does not compensate for the money that farce cost. If there's a problem with Google there's a problem with Google - no need to make shit up. That was just pathetic.
The whole thing was pretty embarassing - the ACCC wanted to demonstrate the colour differentiated search results clearly marked Google ads, were anti-competitive. Sensis (search and ad company) is a branch of Telstra (major telecommunications carrier) who have previously been up before the ACCC - I'm sure this is just a good use of our taxdollars, not some globally orchestrated campaign against Google. Just as Microsoft really had a legitimate gripe against Google in the US (goddammit - ad prices should be set by government - unless they're Bing ads).
The ACCC does some good - but mostly it is kicked around by scumbags looking to further their own business agenda *cough* Harvey Norman *cough*.
I suppose a sensible middle ground is completely out of the question?
Why are you asking me? I think that the government's ability to shut down domains used by criminals is perfectly reasonable, and fits precisely in that middle ground. The paranoids are the ones you need to scold.
It's the phrasing... (and there's no point scolding nutters or people intent on criminality)
I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc.
I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the "we shut you down until you demonstrate we shouldn't have". It might not be what you meant - but it's how I read it. Your normally rational, reasonable response sounds fascist.
Yes - if the government fails to meet the standards or evidence or due process, and or affects the activities of people who aren't in the wrong - then "fruit of the poison tree". That's what I call a middle ground.
The government should be able to shut down crime - but not without applying the same standards that apply in the phsyical domain (eg - one shop sells stolen merchandise - don't lock down the mall). The problem is that it doesn't seem many people are saying that - it's either "the government is doing the right thing" or "it's an injustice to interfere in anyway with the tubes". So far the government side has been anything but the middle ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Do we need more confirmation you are a Microsoft shill? Microsoft did not receive a cent from any of the Android manufacturers (prove me wrong by providing a link to an article that is not speculating about the amount exchanged.) No terms have been made public. Microsoft is paying everyone to actually generate such positive press.
The device manufacturers probably laughed in their face when Microsoft went to them pan in hand.
Mod up - someone has done there homework.
Microsoft doesn't want Android to fail. They are profiting half a billion every year from it, without doing anything.
Let me know when you're going gambling at the track - I'm going to bet on all the horses you don't. I'll make a killing 'cause you are wrong so often. Not everyone confuses figures plucked out of a journalists arse and multiplied by theoretical numbers. Clearly you don't understand how patent pools work either.
Ironically the Linux based Smartphones are less free than the Win Mobile7 environment.
What metrics are you using?
Anyway, the times of Microsoft world domination are over
Are there unicorns and elves in your country?
and they embrace open standards now.
Wicked sarcasm - or did Steve Balmer die and I not hear the used car and aluminium siding salesmen weeping and wailing?
Competition is great and drives innovation.
Now there's an irony - Microsoft and competition driving innovation. In the same sentence. (and yes I know what you mean - good things come from making bad things not suck)
Yep - can't root my Moko FreeRunner.
I tried rubbing it gently, buying it champagne and chocolate - even told it looked good in plaid.
Doesn't pay to making sweeping statements.
Actually, Lumia is performing really well in Europe and Australia. In November it was on top of sales charts of Sweden and Australia
Then you supplied the wrong link - try linking to a site with a stock level of more than 2 digits. Actual figures (not plucked out of your arse) might be a little hard to come by - but if you checked you facts you'd know that. Hint: which major outlets don't have it available until next month? If you said "all of them" you'd be right!
Perhaps your confusing it with the N9 which sold a few thousand (because it's PenTile is crap) but it doesn't run WP7 - the only person I've heard of that owns one got it given to him by his employer (MS) and it's not something he boasts about (nice phone Damian - got that javascript to render yet?)
I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads.
I'm yet to see any evidence of that - despite the amazing coincidence of an inquiry taking place in the US at the same time as in Australia.
All I heard so far is people saying it happens - but failing to supply a shred of proof. So I call bullshit.
First the claim was that Google was giving paid advertising (like I buy) an unfair advantage over "organic search results"... In Australia, despite refusing to "prosecute" because they were unable to find an evidence to support the claim ACMA was still dragged to an Inquiry instigated by a company called Sensei (maybe you should do a little research and find out what happened there). Result - dismissed, as the "unfair" advantage is bullshit. The claim that by putting clearly marked, different coloured, ads at the top of search results - it was "unfair".
You'll see media stories run by companies owned by ex-Australian Rupert Murdock that "Google got off" - do yourself a failure and look at the actual finding. No one got off - fines were levied - just not against the company being accused.
Now the story (like yours throughout this thread) has changed - and the distortion is hidden within the search results. Funny that the same people complaining that people game the search results and that Google benefits from it - now claim that when Google relegates the gamers off the front page (Rusty Compass and their 10s of thousands of spammy link farms backlinks) it's proof that Google is taking an "unfair advantage".
It used to be a fact that search engines distorted search results for money - no one complained to the courts then did they? Instead it created the market opportunity that created Google - relevant search results.
Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive.
How? When? You make a lot of claims and keep lugging those goal posts round the field but so far you haven't pointed at a single fact. Having failed to demonstrate an abuse of the position in the market (third) you now want to build another case on it? There's a term for that - grasping.
That's not an unusual statement to make.
Relevance?
You may not see it that way, but to use the word "bullshit" in response just highlights your inability to have an intelligent debate in a respectful manner.
Oh it's a debate now is it? Grow up - you want "respect" then present some facts instead of opinions. To call a lot of baseless fan boi FUD the basis for an "intelligent" debate is to abuse the word "intelligent" and distort the purpose of a debate. Either a company broke the law, or the didn't. It's not a matter for debate.
But let's mince words shall we? I'd call you a liar and you say I'm offensive (though you're still a liar). You'll say I need to prove what your saying is not true, and that everyone knows what you're saying is right. I'll point out that you don't have any proof and you'll argue that's proof of the conspiracy - and that we just have a difference of opinion.
I think you may need to take a look at your own standards.You may not agree with me, but that was totally unnecessary.
Obviously I don't agree with you - I consider it good manners to present facts before flinging shit - if you cannot present any facts to support your claims you're hardly in a position to pat yourself on the back for taking the moral high ground. There's a term for that sort of behaviour too - you're a bullshit artist and guilding the truth with manners doesn't change that fact.
You fail to back your slime and slander - then avoid the issue like a weasel by having the audacity to take the moral high gro
If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive
Stop right there!
I'm a bit thick - please explain how Google is anti-competitive? Are they stopping other player in the advertising game? Are they threatening companies that buy advertising by adjusting prices on the basis of exclusive contracts?
I spend a lot of money on paid advertising with a five of the major search engines (Google is number 3, despite the alleged monopoly) - and only one of those companies has ever asked if I used another company (Bing). And they didn't offer me any incentive to drop Google.
I guess if you climbed into the ring with Tyson you'd be claiming he was anti-competitive too.
and therefore illegal. It's all about context. The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines. Google are the dominant player in the search engine market. Clearly, using their market position as the
gate keeper of all things internet
Reaching much?
to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial.
Try applying that bullshit "logic" to icecream. Vanilla is the dominant flavour - lets get those kangaroo courts of shillsters going.. or is this just a misinformed tall poppy thing?
Don't see you calling for any pitchfork and flaming torch rallies against the two biggest by far search engines? I'm sure you've got a rational reason for that.
Thanks for keeping the standards high.
But it is a legitimate test of the validity of his philosophy as a whole. If you know a crazy person, and he has one of his predictions validated, are you supposed to suddenly embrace all of his ideas? Because that's what the article is about, that Stallman was right all along about everything and that all of his detractors should be ignored because Obama signed this piece of legislation.
Focus, try and focus. Instead of going to ridiculous extremes and inventing stuff. People might thing you're not the full quid.
No one is saying Stallman was right about everything, or that those that don't agree with Stallman are wrong about everything.
While it's true the GGP can't properly format hyperlinks, that doesn't make his conclusions wrong; it just makes him either stupid, ignorant or lazy.
You left out an option. Perhaps he thought he had it right, checked over it twice to be sure, but simply made a mistake anyhow. Happens all the time. This is why two personnel are required to double check tasks in some environments.
There's another option:-
I have made a deep emotional investment in a value based belief - therefore I will distort reality by focussing on irrelevant issues in order to avoid re-examining my core beliefs. eg. It's all about free software (not the reasons for wanting free software)
Gold is where you find it - it's value is not decreased just because it's found in yucky dirt.
Sigh - more unnecessary proof that evolution is a fact, and that it's not horizontal
First, this has to have been written by someone who has either never lived with dogs and/or cats and/or parrots and/dolphins, or else is emotionally retarded; second, humor is much simpler: as far as I can tell, it is predatory -- there is always a loser in an expression of humor. Making someone, or something, the butt of a joke engenders social ordering, or status. To put it another way, at a certain basic level, humor seems to me to range from mildly to extreme dominating behavior. Try to find a joke that doesn't have a victim, or a "butt"; that's the source of even calling someone the "butt of a joke."
I'll agree about animals (sometimes) appearing to have a sense of humour. But you're wrong about jokes.
There are only three jokes - what you describe is one, or maybe two, of the jokes. You don't find it funny (and it's probably not that funny for the audience either) - but slapstick "works" not because someone is being made fun of, but because the audience either identifies with the victim and gets a shock, then relief, when they recognise the victim is not them - or they find the wordplay amusing. The first is the "phew, glad that's not me" (man slips on banana peel), the second is "wow, that took me somewhere unexpected" (witty, clever).
Humour is not something every human "gets" - some are too literal/fundamentalist (take themselves too seriously).
Everything in life can be viewed as winners and losers - sounds like you analyse too much. That's why humour is healthy.
I use boxes to manage my disk collection. But bags or shelves will work equally well.
First rip the contents to hard drives then put the disks in boxes.
Is "a slow day on Slashdot" oxymoronic?
Does that mean their study is authoritative?
And if there is no conflict between a system of beliefs that have no proof, and a system of proofs.... why even bother with an education system?
I suppose it depends on whether one considers an Internet forum which people casually browse and comment on articles.
Firstly - for what it's worth, you have my respect. Secondly, particulary in respect to what I've quoted here, Slashdot wasn't always a "casual comment" forum - it was somewhere I went for informed and interesting insights into current events and subjects. The predominance of "me too" posts from people who can't quote and won't even fully read the original summary, bad jokes, ignorant repetition of narrow minded dogmatic "opinions", and commercial shills has meant many of the posters I know, no longer post here. So thanks for giving me a reason to keep reading (I really don't post much).
My "style" is meant to offend - but it's not the primary purpose. Better to be thought an abbrasive oaf than the point be lost in diplomacy. This story is a classic example of political manipulation of the media (read the referenced story and spot the extreme spin). If I point that out I'm dismissed as tin foil hat - hence my variation of the Ita Buttrose technique (she doesn't really have a lisp). That's my excuse for slapping people. Good to hear you stand for something it restores my faith in young(er) people (it wasn't hard to work out who you are - you lack practise in subterfuge). Minor point - I'm not slavishly devoted to law and order - just think it's better to make the system work than to dismiss it out of hand.
Whoa, what the hell? Why are you so defensive/argumentative?!
Your uninformed opinions offend me - and I've offended you? Try not to get distracted - I'm just a person and of no consquence to the issues. Which are:- why "guess" when you could research and at least make an "informed guess"? At the very least you could read the referenced article in the original story. It's not like you lack the abilities or education.
I honestly cannot see this happening. I live in Canberra and I can tell you that there's no way in hell they're gonna spend the money on expensive crap like drones in this city.
but honestly the number of these situations in a given year in a city like Canberra with only ~400,000 people is not enough to justify the expense. We'd be lucky to have more than about 5 actual police chases a year here.
Consider prefacing your posts with a warning eg. "I have no idea and I've done absolutely no research - but a thought popped into my head that supports my preconceptions". Or would that offend you too? Would it hurt to add facts to a story already short on them? Are you arguing that disinformation is harmless - or that feeling "validated" is more important? Do you ever wonder if maybe the world could be a better place?
And save your snide little comments for your social worker - there's enough idiots spouting their "thoughts" as if stupidity and "having an opinion" are some sort of rights. Why lower the standards and do yourself an injustice? It's not more important to have an opinion than to be relevant, or right - if I offend you I suggest you take a look at the world around you and shut the fuck up. Seriously.
You want your own opinions, to be spoon-fed the truth (don't trust me), and you want everyone to be nice to you? Pick one. Your choice.
You live in Canberra - wake up, smell the burning PCBs and exhaust fumes, and remind yourself you live in a nation at war in the same places that the local heroin comes from. Now give yourself a hug, consider your opinions (about me) validated, and move on.
Your animals are not wandering around on those,
Well duh! There's a bloody big ocean between here (where the article is referring to) and your story - geography is another one of your failings.
and there's no way in hell 65mph is the maximum safe speed on a road where there's no people around for 100 miles in either direction, and it sure as hell isn't possible to "lose control" when the road is straight as an arrow.
And yet more teenagers die in Arizona from car accidents than from any other cause - so even your strawman scenarios are bullshit. Nice emotional investment you've got their - how's them dividends?
Obviously you've never lived or traveled through someplace truly rural.
Apart from living in a country where the national average population density is 2.6 people/km2 and having been on cattle stations up to 24,000km2 (Anna Creek).... Apart from all the facts you're absolutely correct.
Come to Arizona or New Mexico.
Been there, done that and ridden a motorbike across much of it. If you pulled your head out of your arse you'd realise that you ain't the centre of the world (and Arizona and New Mexico have plenty of farms - with stock). They're not even the least populated areas of the States (that'd be Wyoming, parts of Texas and Nebraska - by a long shot). Perhaps you're one of those iniellektuls who don't count native Americans as people.
As you can't even follow a story about another part of the world without wanking on about how good a driver you are, how big your gun is, and how big your tiny state is - what're the chances you can keep a car on the road? Stop embarassing the rest of North America and either get a brain or refrain from posting rubbish.
That's the bullshit collector, anything smaller would melt.
No, I think you've confuse Lake Burley Griffin with the symbol erected to honour the only city in Australia where more smackies drive nice cars than catch buses. It's certainly the only city I know of where the public service toilets have needle collection bins (and they're not there for diabetics who tend to carry their own disposal kits).
Yes, it's always best living through a revolution. Such fun!
Yep - as long as you're on the right end of the pitchfork that's as good as it ever gets for the majority of people, throughout the majority of history. Unless you believe all of history has (and will be) the same as that short period between the Black Death and now.
We'd be lucky to have more than about 5 actual police chases a year here.
How do you get internet under that rock? 76 in the year ending in June last, 48 called off because of dangers to the public (12 in pursuit of the douchebag that crashed at Fyshwick earlier this year). Any more "facts" you want to pluck out of your arse".
Perhaps you got confused with the number of deaths by hit and run? Or was it did you mean - killed by a single, serial car thief in that crash at Narrabundah last year (four dead) when he refused to pull over (subsequently requiring the police to call off more than half their pursuits of stolen vehicles - another victimless crime?) (sigh). But hey, don't let facts stand in the way of your delusions.
And if we get a (singular) drone, it won't be for 5 to 10 years.
How many metres of four lane road do you think a UAV is worth? Let's see how many factors your next prediction is out (I know the cost, and the likely, local vendor) Hint - the expensive ones in Afghanistan are already flown out of Bungendore (not just Los Vegas)
How does one go from The capital of Australia wants to use drones for traffic to USA must be using drones because hackers can make drones and because the FBI is tracking cell phones without warrants? I don't see the connection!
Got us to look (and post) didn't it?
FFS, just climb up the top of the parliament house flagpole and you can see the whole state
Yes, the parliament house flagpole is a mighty erection.
But kind of small compared to the Big Needle (Telstra tower) from which you can see almost all of the Territory.
Thanks for the back story since the article obviously didn't mention any of that.
Because (shock horror) the story is complete bullshit.
Using speed camera pictures in court seems like a perfectly reasonable idea but was never mentioned
It's vaguely alluded to "A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the Bill before the Assembly only permitted the devices to be used for transport law enforcement, or for a purpose allowed under another law. "
Thanks for calling me a moron
Don't mention it
even though you didn't address a single point I raised.
Because they're not relevant to the actual story - which is what I said it is - not the "oh nose it's another revenue raising scam" beatup press release by the Opposition "a senior police officer said the cameras could be used for other purposes"
Again, Canberran roads are the safest in the world
I don't know about that (especially as you've just returned from Germany which does) I'd certainly like to keep it that way. I just had another car in my paddocks yesterday - 90kmph limit - accident investigation squad says they had to have been doing 140+ when they left the road, through two barbed wired fences and nearly 200 metres into a paddock full of sheep and horses (arial patrolling not allowed here) - and yes I'm in (inner) Canberra. Almost every car going up this road does well over 90kmph and it's one of the busiest roads in Canberra and police are not allowed to pursue speeders here as it's deemed unsafe (their allowed to park their speed van here - but not to pull people over). And again - in case you missed the point - what the police want to change in the legislation relating to the pictures from the speed cameras it to use them in the prosecution of drivers they are not allowed to pursue by car but which they want to pursue by UAV. The AFP do not want to raise revenue with speeding fines - they want to be able to stop joy riders and thieves who just put their foot down knowing the police cannot pursue.
and measures that have been discussed, as mentioned in the article, are an over-reaction to a non-existent problem.
Because the article is false. Note - the police attended the meeting last year, they didn't call it - they simply pointed out their might be privacy concerns and that they wouldn't back it unless they were able to use the images from the cameras for police prosecutions (not to raise government revenue throught speeding fines). Welcome back to Canberra - where truth is the last thing you'll read in the local rag - and Peter Jean is the worst offender. But hey, it brings in readers to a dying newspaper and publicity for the Opposition (I voted Sex Party, so I don't have a dog in this fight)
If I got to set the political agenda - we'd have autobahn between the dormitory suburbs, police would be able to pursue speeding cars/bikes, courts wouldn't give slaps on the wrists to car thieves - and we wouldn't be having UAVs either.
The actual incident that triggered the request for UAVs was the death in Fyshwick earlier this year - where a serial car thief who delighted in baiting police (because the courts kept letting him off) hit and killed some of his friends after calling them to help escape the police pursuit.
Really? Because the article is a report on minutes from a meeting held in June 2010.
The referenced article is dated 22 Sep, 2011.
Where is this meeting minutes you refer to and what bearing does that have on your bullshit claim this story about seeking to change the law so that speed camera pictures can be used to prosecute people for criminal offences has something to do with your little rant about point to point cameras Mr Troll?
The fact that Google is the most successful Interweb company on the planet and it achieved that by being a targeted ad broker allows us to conclude that, yes, we are really that stupid.
In a world full of distractions increasingly hard to block out, Google's job is to effectively deliver distractions. If you can't see anything wrong with regulating that, well, welcome to society - people like to make their life less hellish and that sometimes means cooperation.
Wow - to me Google is just (one of many) a search engine I use to find things on the web. I must of missed the meeting about distractions - which church was that held at?
What is this? A case of the system.
I'm impressed by the outcome - but saddened it even occurred. You might want to have a read of the complaints, and have a chat to some of the ACCC staff who did not believe there was a case to begin with, and don't like Americans "advising" them on how to do their jobs. Telstra own Sensis - Sensis (like Telstra and Optus) continually break the law - and did again. This time using ads in Trading Post (Fairfax) to trick consumers - then tried to blame Google. Seems a few business monopolies are feeling threatened by Google, and by coincidence, an inquiry that was meant to happen a month ago was delayed till this week for some unknown reason (*cough* US Senate *cough*)
One peppercorn does not compensate for the money that farce cost. If there's a problem with Google there's a problem with Google - no need to make shit up. That was just pathetic.
slashdot = stagnated
Here
The whole thing was pretty embarassing - the ACCC wanted to demonstrate the colour differentiated search results clearly marked Google ads, were anti-competitive. Sensis (search and ad company) is a branch of Telstra (major telecommunications carrier) who have previously been up before the ACCC - I'm sure this is just a good use of our taxdollars, not some globally orchestrated campaign against Google. Just as Microsoft really had a legitimate gripe against Google in the US (goddammit - ad prices should be set by government - unless they're Bing ads).
The ACCC does some good - but mostly it is kicked around by scumbags looking to further their own business agenda *cough* Harvey Norman *cough*.
I suppose a sensible middle ground is completely out of the question?
Why are you asking me? I think that the government's ability to shut down domains used by criminals is perfectly reasonable, and fits precisely in that middle ground. The paranoids are the ones you need to scold.
It's the phrasing... (and there's no point scolding nutters or people intent on criminality)
I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc.
I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the "we shut you down until you demonstrate we shouldn't have". It might not be what you meant - but it's how I read it. Your normally rational, reasonable response sounds fascist.
Yes - if the government fails to meet the standards or evidence or due process, and or affects the activities of people who aren't in the wrong - then "fruit of the poison tree". That's what I call a middle ground.
The government should be able to shut down crime - but not without applying the same standards that apply in the phsyical domain (eg - one shop sells stolen merchandise - don't lock down the mall). The problem is that it doesn't seem many people are saying that - it's either "the government is doing the right thing" or "it's an injustice to interfere in anyway with the tubes". So far the government side has been anything but the middle ground.