Personally, I think it's a neat trick. These people deserve each other. Besides, it's mostly dramatics, which should be expected for the money the lawyers get paid. Google could have just demanded that Oracle show the evidence of what they claimed without having to release anything of their own.
That is merely your opinion. Facts are facts. If you can't accept responsibility for what you do, it means you have no self control or discipline and should be declared incompetent to 'stand trial' or even drive a car and locked safely away for your own protection, and ours.
What in the world are you "locked in" to? And aren't you using an ad blocker? And "privacy"? Please, you all have to get over that. There is no privacy on the internet. *The whole world's watching*. Don't use your real name anywhere then. Use prepaid cards for purchases and throwaway email accounts to avoid spam in your personal or real business email. Use a proxy server. That's the beauty, you can create a whole person out of thin air and nobody's the wiser, least of all Google. Let them think you're in outer Mongolia (are you?), and ship the packages to a "cousin" in New York.
Others prefer to buy products and services for specified sums of money, rather than for unspecified quantities of personal data.
? I do not understand
I like to know how much I'm paying, in what currency, and how long the payments will last, before I 'purchase' something.
Okay, so what's stopping you? I don't know what you're getting at there.
You seem to dwell on things that will only give you an ulcer. You now have the whole world at your fingertips like you never did before. Sit back and enjoy.
Kids issues are the parent's problem, not the state's. And they usually only have their parent's money. So, the parents will have to double as accountants. If a kid gets in trouble with the law, hold the parents responsible along with the kid. That's what should have happened with that rich kid.
Censoring the internet is and always will be unacceptable. Since the majority of people disagree and wants to put the state in charge, I'm counting on a technical solution to make the issue moot. The subject is quite tiresome, and there is only one way to get it off the plate.
Well, I maintain that without physical force, "predatory practices" is just a buzzword. You will have to prove that the people are incompetent to make their own decisions before talking about "predators" in this vein. Yes, I know the law differs, but it is written as a matter of expediency and crowd and thought control. Can't give people "ideas". The verbal and the physical must be treated as two entirely different things, and that all consensual action is entirely self motivated, if we are to believe in free will, the mob influence be damned The verbal is entirely ethereal, with no intrinsic force whatsoever.
And be careful with that "common sense" thing. Given some time, with the right charismatic, and it can be used to justify killing off 6 billion people to save humanity and the planet.
Well, for a second there, it almost sounded like you were saying the "casino" was skimming the credit cards surreptitiously without the player knowing it, but it appears to still be the player's choice to gamble or not. I am not complaining about Steam's warning. The "casino" could probably be malware, in which case it obviously should avoided. And they don't want to be accused of anything that will have the FBI raiding their offices, so of course they will take a stand. What I don't like at all is people trying to blame anyone besides the gambler themselves for the choice to... gamble. In their minds personal responsibility is a trigger.
No, in this case people, including you evidently, are just passing blame to evade responsibility for their personal choices. If you are coming out against the concept of free will, spit it out... I'm not interested in charades.
If you don't get hit by a hail storm. The panels should last until you see your first grandchild at least. But you may have to hose them down occasionally if you are downwind from an active volcano. Aside from that, they will probably never have to be touched by human hands ever again. They'll probably last longer than the house.
By your reasoning I should be able to use a gun and take your money
Whoa! You lost me on that one! Blew all the logic off into space. You hardly showed any rationality there. We were, as least I was talking about the internet. You're right, you best leave it alone if that is the kind of absurdity you are going to offer.
So what? If you gamble online it is also your own responsibility. And no, contrary to your opinion, the casino, Visa, Valve, Steam, YouTube, etc do NOT deserve to be punished (you disappoint me with that attitude). The prohibitionist who wrote the law should be punished. They have no right to dictate what can be served on the internet, nobody does, especially when served from outside your borders. Their sovereignty is outside your jurisdiction. You are free to attempt to block the signal, and I have the right to circumvent it. It is a cat and mouse game, like so many others, that I can only hope the authorities will lose. Above all else it is paramount for the internet to be open, and forced open whenever anyone tries to shut it down. An open freely accessible internet is all that matters to me. So, let's agree to disagree on the matter.
In this case though, are we even talking about evidence, or merely something Oracle used to to sway the jury's emotions?
Was "commerciality" really supposed to make a difference?
And another thing. The transcript was indeed legally made public, even if for a brief time. Are we seeing something similar to the government's attempts to reclassify information sent over a certain email server?:-)
Google doesn't want to show the contract, but if they want to call somebody a liar (if that is what they are doing), they have to back it up, and they seem unwilling at this point. Claiming it isn't public knowledge to make it inadmissible instead is a nice attempted end run around it. It has potential. We shall wait and see.
Put the BIOS on ROM, on a sim card so it can be replaced dammit! And while we're on the subject, why isn't the OS on a read only chip also? Mine is. It's "live"
I know the law is on your side but it is wrong. The *devil made me do it* defense just doesn't fly with me. We are throwing the whole personal responsibility thing out the window with that kind of thinking. The choice to gamble is strictly personal. To nail the casino you should have to prove they held a gun to the client's head or otherwise used physical force. The internet is not the proverbial "crowded theater" so commonly used to rationalize censorship.
Yes, in Google's case that might be so. I was responding to his hypothetical. He has to prove his accusation of pedophilia is true. Unless he does he should be considered a simple liar and of course charged with perjury if under oath. In the meantime we need a recourse to penalize people who act in bad faith on such info unless it is verified. I want people to be held responsible for what they do, not what they say. The word has no intrinsic power or force. All responses to words are learned. The meaning is in the inflection, or tone of voice.
This whole thing reminds me why politicians can't accuse each other of anything, because the accuser will rightfully face the same scrutiny, and they cannot afford that. The entire institution would crumble.
Yeah, but then we would have to admit all evidence, whether or not it was legally acquired. What I didn't check was to see if that particular evidence was used in deciding the verdict, because I can kind of understand Oracle's POV if it was. On the other hand, if they didn't object during the trail, then I guess it would be a bit late to complain now. The big discrepancy to me is what is legal and what is real. I am of the opinion that if a fact is true, it should be admissible no matter what. I say that because the law might have to be broken to find evidence that acquits a person also. The person breaking the law getting the evidence should get his own trial.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe she needs to be broken up into a number of smaller Hillaries
You never saw Fantasia where Mickey chops up the broomstick into little bitty pieces.
Or maybe they just made some shit up.
Personally, I think it's a neat trick. These people deserve each other. Besides, it's mostly dramatics, which should be expected for the money the lawyers get paid. Google could have just demanded that Oracle show the evidence of what they claimed without having to release anything of their own.
Personal responsibility is not an opinion.
That is merely your opinion. Facts are facts. If you can't accept responsibility for what you do, it means you have no self control or discipline and should be declared incompetent to 'stand trial' or even drive a car and locked safely away for your own protection, and ours.
What in the world are you "locked in" to? And aren't you using an ad blocker? And "privacy"? Please, you all have to get over that. There is no privacy on the internet. *The whole world's watching*. Don't use your real name anywhere then. Use prepaid cards for purchases and throwaway email accounts to avoid spam in your personal or real business email. Use a proxy server. That's the beauty, you can create a whole person out of thin air and nobody's the wiser, least of all Google. Let them think you're in outer Mongolia (are you?), and ship the packages to a "cousin" in New York.
Others prefer to buy products and services for specified sums of money, rather than for unspecified quantities of personal data.
? I do not understand
I like to know how much I'm paying, in what currency, and how long the payments will last, before I 'purchase' something.
Okay, so what's stopping you? I don't know what you're getting at there.
You seem to dwell on things that will only give you an ulcer. You now have the whole world at your fingertips like you never did before. Sit back and enjoy.
Kids issues are the parent's problem, not the state's. And they usually only have their parent's money. So, the parents will have to double as accountants. If a kid gets in trouble with the law, hold the parents responsible along with the kid. That's what should have happened with that rich kid.
Censoring the internet is and always will be unacceptable. Since the majority of people disagree and wants to put the state in charge, I'm counting on a technical solution to make the issue moot. The subject is quite tiresome, and there is only one way to get it off the plate.
Why? They provide a good service at the right price.
Well, I maintain that without physical force, "predatory practices" is just a buzzword. You will have to prove that the people are incompetent to make their own decisions before talking about "predators" in this vein. Yes, I know the law differs, but it is written as a matter of expediency and crowd and thought control. Can't give people "ideas". The verbal and the physical must be treated as two entirely different things, and that all consensual action is entirely self motivated, if we are to believe in free will, the mob influence be damned The verbal is entirely ethereal, with no intrinsic force whatsoever.
And be careful with that "common sense" thing. Given some time, with the right charismatic, and it can be used to justify killing off 6 billion people to save humanity and the planet.
Well, for a second there, it almost sounded like you were saying the "casino" was skimming the credit cards surreptitiously without the player knowing it, but it appears to still be the player's choice to gamble or not. I am not complaining about Steam's warning. The "casino" could probably be malware, in which case it obviously should avoided. And they don't want to be accused of anything that will have the FBI raiding their offices, so of course they will take a stand. What I don't like at all is people trying to blame anyone besides the gambler themselves for the choice to... gamble. In their minds personal responsibility is a trigger.
No, in this case people, including you evidently, are just passing blame to evade responsibility for their personal choices. If you are coming out against the concept of free will, spit it out... I'm not interested in charades.
Opting in won't matter if the service is down.
If you don't get hit by a hail storm. The panels should last until you see your first grandchild at least. But you may have to hose them down occasionally if you are downwind from an active volcano. Aside from that, they will probably never have to be touched by human hands ever again. They'll probably last longer than the house.
Whoops! Better watch out for that one...
By your reasoning I should be able to use a gun and take your money
Whoa! You lost me on that one! Blew all the logic off into space. You hardly showed any rationality there. We were, as least I was talking about the internet. You're right, you best leave it alone if that is the kind of absurdity you are going to offer.
"Unless something corrodes the electrical contacts, it will still keep working."
Probably not a bad idea for the factory to be a little modest with the specs to begin with.
The article does read more like a SolarCity ad than anything else. They certainly don't bring anything new to the table.
How about 40 years?
But in this case online gambling is illegal.
So what? If you gamble online it is also your own responsibility. And no, contrary to your opinion, the casino, Visa, Valve, Steam, YouTube, etc do NOT deserve to be punished (you disappoint me with that attitude). The prohibitionist who wrote the law should be punished. They have no right to dictate what can be served on the internet, nobody does, especially when served from outside your borders. Their sovereignty is outside your jurisdiction. You are free to attempt to block the signal, and I have the right to circumvent it. It is a cat and mouse game, like so many others, that I can only hope the authorities will lose. Above all else it is paramount for the internet to be open, and forced open whenever anyone tries to shut it down. An open freely accessible internet is all that matters to me. So, let's agree to disagree on the matter.
RTFM!
Got it...
In this case though, are we even talking about evidence, or merely something Oracle used to to sway the jury's emotions?
Was "commerciality" really supposed to make a difference?
And another thing. The transcript was indeed legally made public, even if for a brief time. Are we seeing something similar to the government's attempts to reclassify information sent over a certain email server? :-)
Yeah, and he's wrong too.
Google doesn't want to show the contract, but if they want to call somebody a liar (if that is what they are doing), they have to back it up, and they seem unwilling at this point. Claiming it isn't public knowledge to make it inadmissible instead is a nice attempted end run around it. It has potential. We shall wait and see.
Put the BIOS on ROM, on a sim card so it can be replaced dammit! And while we're on the subject, why isn't the OS on a read only chip also? Mine is. It's "live"
I know the law is on your side but it is wrong. The *devil made me do it* defense just doesn't fly with me. We are throwing the whole personal responsibility thing out the window with that kind of thinking. The choice to gamble is strictly personal. To nail the casino you should have to prove they held a gun to the client's head or otherwise used physical force. The internet is not the proverbial "crowded theater" so commonly used to rationalize censorship.
Yes, in Google's case that might be so. I was responding to his hypothetical. He has to prove his accusation of pedophilia is true. Unless he does he should be considered a simple liar and of course charged with perjury if under oath. In the meantime we need a recourse to penalize people who act in bad faith on such info unless it is verified. I want people to be held responsible for what they do, not what they say. The word has no intrinsic power or force. All responses to words are learned. The meaning is in the inflection, or tone of voice.
This whole thing reminds me why politicians can't accuse each other of anything, because the accuser will rightfully face the same scrutiny, and they cannot afford that. The entire institution would crumble.
Yeah, but then we would have to admit all evidence, whether or not it was legally acquired. What I didn't check was to see if that particular evidence was used in deciding the verdict, because I can kind of understand Oracle's POV if it was. On the other hand, if they didn't object during the trail, then I guess it would be a bit late to complain now. The big discrepancy to me is what is legal and what is real. I am of the opinion that if a fact is true, it should be admissible no matter what. I say that because the law might have to be broken to find evidence that acquits a person also. The person breaking the law getting the evidence should get his own trial.