Actually, the case law says that the "I agree" button constitutes a form of consent not because of the verbage of the EULA, but because it shows a clear intent to enter the contract. Just like a signature on a traditional paper contract. The button is labelled, so you know what you are doing when you click it-- agreeing to the EULA. That's the legal standard. It is actually immaterial whether the company knows who they are in contract with. Actually, legally, you form a contract with a company everytime you leave a store with purchased goods. Even if you pay cash and they have no idea who you are.
I have read all the memos that are publically availible, and while there were some memos that didn't support the hypothesis, they didn't lean the other way either. In other words, the memos seem to alternate between pretty neutral and far right. Which doesn't make them unbias overall, does it? In response to your other complaints: several of the FoxNews former employees did list why they were 'asked to leave.' In fact, one consultant told a very specific story about when he stopped appearing on the network. It is clear that after the appearance in question he hasn't appeared again-- this is well documented. 'Any journalist' would not tell you that anonymous sources are a no-no. Several important news stories have been broken based on anonymous information. Remember the watergate informer who told reporters that it went 'all the way to the top'?
One of the points addressed in Outfoxed is that editorialists _don't_ just editorialize on Foxnews, and news anchors don't just present the news. In fact, sometimes the same on air personality will be doing news one day, and editorial work the next _in the same time slot_. The change into the editorial portion of the show often doesn't come with any notice at all. One second you are watching news, the next you are watching an opinion section, without even a word of disclaimer. I didn't bring up 'some people say' because I agree with you on that particular issue-- I don't think that is particularly a no no under the current standards of journalism.
As far as not knowing the right wing representatives unless you read the news: that's not very compelling. Why? Because even well read people who have followed politics for a long time can't recognize most of the left wing guests. This issue has been brought up numerous times in various media watchdog groups and even within the management of Foxnews, but as of yet, there has been no appreciable shift. As far as the numbers of guests, I see no problem with FAIR's method of survey. Other groups have confirmed the results. The people classified as right or left classified themselves that way for the most part. Are the people behind Outfoxed biased? Yes. Is foxnews? Yes.
I suggest you watch Outfoxed. To call Fox's systematic bias 'slant' is an understatement. Daily memos are circulated, telling the network producers and writers which way to lean on issues. There is a four to one ratio between right leaning 'one on one' guests and left leaning ones. A few former producers have noted that Fox's 'approved' Democrats (for use as 'special guests' experts contains almost no 'big names' (i.e. most people, even those following politics would not recognize the names on the list), while all the recognizible, well known republicans are included. The list goes on.
Of course, in order for the government to store grain (a la the oil reserve) they would have to buy it, which would have essentially identical effects on government spending. To then release the reserves at times of undersupply would further undercut farming, not help it.
Well, you see, there are people who don't happen to agree with you. Sometimes, when you have a big party/lovefest they show up. Sometimes they show up with signs explaining why they don't like you. Or maybe they could just protest the fact that protests were being confined to a 'protest cage.'
Part of the reason google is so sucessful is because they DON'T use the model you are talking about. It isn't as simple as 'more ads == more money.' If the quality of the service is hurt by attempts to make a profit, it will drive away the users, which will drive away customers (advertisers won't pay for all those ads unless somebody actually _looks_ at them). It is pretty hard to make a profit with no customers.
The term random walk only applies to commodity markets on the short term. Long term (even day to day is often long enough to be considered 'long term') behavior tends to follow trends.
You don't even have the right kind of intellectual property for this case. It isn't copyright we're talking about-- it is a _trademark_. Depending on what scope the trademark is for (I haven't looked it up), this might or might not be the right decision . If he was granted a trademark over media in general (I'm assuming the trademark was granted with regards to his television programming, because I don't think you can trademark a cult as a brand), then it is the right decision for the trademark as it stands. However, if the scope didn't include the web, then tough luck. And, by the way, registering slashdo.org would be legal, especially a) if/. didn't have an appropriate trademark b) your site wasn't similar enough to/. to cause brand confusion. That's regardless of whether it is an anti-/. site or not.
It also is obviously not random, but instead based on group psychology. If a company exceeds expectations for a quarter, prices will go up. If a company doesn't meet expectations, prices go down. The more good press they get, the more prices go up. The more bad press they get (in general), prices go down (though if it falls enough that the stock is considered a 'bargin' people will jump on it again, driving the price up [similarly if it becomes obvious that the company will still turn a profit after the 'bad news' is over]). There are a lot of factors, but all in all it comes down to a simple principle: have something someone else wants, when they want it and you stand to make money.
This is a very precise process. We are talking exposures MUCH less than a second. By the time a human operator can respond to the malfunction it is already too late. If the exposures were long enough that a human could administer them, then they would. No point in paying for a computer _and_ a tech, right?
First of all, a strong hashing algorithm makes any password harder to brute force (because it takes more cpu cycles [and use one actually intended for hiding things... not one used for checking against corruption. That might seem obvious, but it apparently wasn't to the designers of WEP]). Secondly, keep in mind that your user will not be able to remember anything much long than 8 characters (though informing them of neat memory tricks helps). Also, before making that new password policy _think_ about probability and keyspace. One good example is a certain department of a certain university I attended. They required 6 character password length composed of numbers and letters. However, the policy also did not allow letters next to letters or numbers next to numbers (the actual policy was that they forbid more than two letter substrings of any word in a rather large dictionary... try find a two letter combination not used in english, french, romanized japanese and half a dozen other languages). As a result, all passwords in the department were between 6 and 8 letters long and either #l or l#. Add that to the common user's phobia of the shift key and you have quite a security problem.
If you actually read the filing (which apparently even Doctorow didn't do) their proposal covers digital radio only. Not that that isn't ridiculous anyway...
Because despite what he says in his blog FM radio is _not_ covered by what Disney asking for. Is it still too much? IMHO. XM Radio and Sirius both already have DRM, if I recall correctly, though you can still make an analog recording (and always will be able to). I could be wrong though, because I only have XM in my car, so it doesn't have any kind of tape outputs or anything. As far as internet radio, they should give up hope of regulating it all. As always, there is the fact that the internet is international. Also, there's nothing stopping you from setting up your own internet radio station, without DRM (other than maybe a couple of FCC regulations if Disney gets their way). Not that they would be able to find you without expending a tremendous amount of resources anyway.
ssh. It is easier to believe that a tremendous software company is going to release a patch for automatic propagation that renders all metal it touches into goo. Wouldn't want to put on our critical thinking hats, would we? (posted from XP pro SP2)
This will do as much good in ending file sharing as DARE did for ending drug use. Truth is, just saying something to a kid in a classroom doesn't mean he or she is going to believe it. In fact, if you teach it, once the kid gets to the 'rebelious' stage, he/she is probably going to start downloading like crazy just to piss off the figures of authority.
Slashdot Mirror
"Actually, legally"
So, you were saying?
Actually, the case law says that the "I agree" button constitutes a form of consent not because of the verbage of the EULA, but because it shows a clear intent to enter the contract. Just like a signature on a traditional paper contract. The button is labelled, so you know what you are doing when you click it-- agreeing to the EULA. That's the legal standard. It is actually immaterial whether the company knows who they are in contract with. Actually, legally, you form a contract with a company everytime you leave a store with purchased goods. Even if you pay cash and they have no idea who you are.
Um... more populous states have, by definition, more people in them. Shouldn't the priority be to help the most people possible?
I have read all the memos that are publically availible, and while there were some memos that didn't support the hypothesis, they didn't lean the other way either. In other words, the memos seem to alternate between pretty neutral and far right. Which doesn't make them unbias overall, does it? In response to your other complaints: several of the FoxNews former employees did list why they were 'asked to leave.' In fact, one consultant told a very specific story about when he stopped appearing on the network. It is clear that after the appearance in question he hasn't appeared again-- this is well documented. 'Any journalist' would not tell you that anonymous sources are a no-no. Several important news stories have been broken based on anonymous information. Remember the watergate informer who told reporters that it went 'all the way to the top'?
One of the points addressed in Outfoxed is that editorialists _don't_ just editorialize on Foxnews, and news anchors don't just present the news. In fact, sometimes the same on air personality will be doing news one day, and editorial work the next _in the same time slot_. The change into the editorial portion of the show often doesn't come with any notice at all. One second you are watching news, the next you are watching an opinion section, without even a word of disclaimer. I didn't bring up 'some people say' because I agree with you on that particular issue-- I don't think that is particularly a no no under the current standards of journalism.
As far as not knowing the right wing representatives unless you read the news: that's not very compelling. Why? Because even well read people who have followed politics for a long time can't recognize most of the left wing guests. This issue has been brought up numerous times in various media watchdog groups and even within the management of Foxnews, but as of yet, there has been no appreciable shift. As far as the numbers of guests, I see no problem with FAIR's method of survey. Other groups have confirmed the results. The people classified as right or left classified themselves that way for the most part. Are the people behind Outfoxed biased? Yes. Is foxnews? Yes.
I suggest you watch Outfoxed. To call Fox's systematic bias 'slant' is an understatement. Daily memos are circulated, telling the network producers and writers which way to lean on issues. There is a four to one ratio between right leaning 'one on one' guests and left leaning ones. A few former producers have noted that Fox's 'approved' Democrats (for use as 'special guests' experts contains almost no 'big names' (i.e. most people, even those following politics would not recognize the names on the list), while all the recognizible, well known republicans are included. The list goes on.
PRETTY BUTTONS!!lololol
No, seriously.
Of course, in order for the government to store grain (a la the oil reserve) they would have to buy it, which would have essentially identical effects on government spending. To then release the reserves at times of undersupply would further undercut farming, not help it.
Stop spending $100s of billions on counterproductive wars, farm subsidies, ineffective weapons systems, etc.
All of those thing provide jobs. So what is your point again?
*whoosh*
Well, you see, there are people who don't happen to agree with you. Sometimes, when you have a big party/lovefest they show up. Sometimes they show up with signs explaining why they don't like you. Or maybe they could just protest the fact that protests were being confined to a 'protest cage.'
Part of the reason google is so sucessful is because they DON'T use the model you are talking about. It isn't as simple as 'more ads == more money.' If the quality of the service is hurt by attempts to make a profit, it will drive away the users, which will drive away customers (advertisers won't pay for all those ads unless somebody actually _looks_ at them). It is pretty hard to make a profit with no customers.
That would be a great theory if the majority of the company wasn't still held by actual google staffers...
And when I'm done, I need to start installing my virus collection.
The term random walk only applies to commodity markets on the short term. Long term (even day to day is often long enough to be considered 'long term') behavior tends to follow trends.
You don't even have the right kind of intellectual property for this case. It isn't copyright we're talking about-- it is a _trademark_. Depending on what scope the trademark is for (I haven't looked it up), this might or might not be the right decision . If he was granted a trademark over media in general (I'm assuming the trademark was granted with regards to his television programming, because I don't think you can trademark a cult as a brand), then it is the right decision for the trademark as it stands. However, if the scope didn't include the web, then tough luck. And, by the way, registering slashdo.org would be legal, especially a) if /. didn't have an appropriate trademark b) your site wasn't similar enough to /. to cause brand confusion. That's regardless of whether it is an anti-/. site or not.
It also is obviously not random, but instead based on group psychology. If a company exceeds expectations for a quarter, prices will go up. If a company doesn't meet expectations, prices go down. The more good press they get, the more prices go up. The more bad press they get (in general), prices go down (though if it falls enough that the stock is considered a 'bargin' people will jump on it again, driving the price up [similarly if it becomes obvious that the company will still turn a profit after the 'bad news' is over]). There are a lot of factors, but all in all it comes down to a simple principle: have something someone else wants, when they want it and you stand to make money.
Unless he signed a noncompete and that is legal in the relevant jurisdiction. In that case, he can't work for Western legally.
This is a very precise process. We are talking exposures MUCH less than a second. By the time a human operator can respond to the malfunction it is already too late. If the exposures were long enough that a human could administer them, then they would. No point in paying for a computer _and_ a tech, right?
First of all, a strong hashing algorithm makes any password harder to brute force (because it takes more cpu cycles [and use one actually intended for hiding things... not one used for checking against corruption. That might seem obvious, but it apparently wasn't to the designers of WEP]). Secondly, keep in mind that your user will not be able to remember anything much long than 8 characters (though informing them of neat memory tricks helps). Also, before making that new password policy _think_ about probability and keyspace. One good example is a certain department of a certain university I attended. They required 6 character password length composed of numbers and letters. However, the policy also did not allow letters next to letters or numbers next to numbers (the actual policy was that they forbid more than two letter substrings of any word in a rather large dictionary... try find a two letter combination not used in english, french, romanized japanese and half a dozen other languages). As a result, all passwords in the department were between 6 and 8 letters long and either #l or l#. Add that to the common user's phobia of the shift key and you have quite a security problem.
Not entirely true-- md5 is more computationally costly than crypt. So, in order to brute force the md5, each check takes a longer time.
"Distribution platform" in FCC lingo means a broadcast. Tapes, etc, are considered "storage".
If you actually read the filing (which apparently even Doctorow didn't do) their proposal covers digital radio only. Not that that isn't ridiculous anyway...
Because despite what he says in his blog FM radio is _not_ covered by what Disney asking for. Is it still too much? IMHO. XM Radio and Sirius both already have DRM, if I recall correctly, though you can still make an analog recording (and always will be able to). I could be wrong though, because I only have XM in my car, so it doesn't have any kind of tape outputs or anything. As far as internet radio, they should give up hope of regulating it all. As always, there is the fact that the internet is international. Also, there's nothing stopping you from setting up your own internet radio station, without DRM (other than maybe a couple of FCC regulations if Disney gets their way). Not that they would be able to find you without expending a tremendous amount of resources anyway.
ssh. It is easier to believe that a tremendous software company is going to release a patch for automatic propagation that renders all metal it touches into goo. Wouldn't want to put on our critical thinking hats, would we? (posted from XP pro SP2)
This will do as much good in ending file sharing as DARE did for ending drug use. Truth is, just saying something to a kid in a classroom doesn't mean he or she is going to believe it. In fact, if you teach it, once the kid gets to the 'rebelious' stage, he/she is probably going to start downloading like crazy just to piss off the figures of authority.