I think people around here give those companies too much credit. From all the theories that arise after such stories, you would think that each company is controlled by a criminal mastermind (AKA Doctor Evil) that sits all day and tries to create plans to f^%$-up everyone just to gain "One Million Dollar!". Now, I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that those companies are the exact opposite (i.e. they want to spread little bits of happiness all around), but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle: These companies are trying to make money, usually in an honest way, but sometimes they screw-up, either through incompetence (which I think this is the case this time) or because of "nefarious" scams (e.g. Facebook's privacy issues*). Although problems such as the one described in TFA should be found, pointed out and fixed, we should be more selective in the "Evil Corporation" designation.
* Some would say those privacy issues are just very bad business decision, but to the lay person it's the same. If you prefer the interest of your ad partners to the gross disadvantage of your customer, then you have a problem.
But you see, this isn't the point. A news article is copyrighted work. You may not reproduce it in whole on your site without permission. It doesn't matter whether they lost money because of your act or not. It doesn't matter if the copyright laws are an outdated business model or not (BTW, since we are talking about news sites, I guess the whole extended copyright terms issue will not be brought up this time). The article is the writer's/site's own work and they decide what to do with it. I decide that this comment may be freely distributed by anyone because my ideals/business model/socioeconomical environment dictates such a decision. The author of that article decided otherwise. His choice. Now after that point is settled (I hope), we can discuss the owner's course of action upon finding out his article is being illegally reproduced: He can hire a lawyer and sue, he can outsource the lawsuit to a firm that specializes in those kind of suits, whatever. But the basic point is that whether money was lost or not, a law was broken.
No, the average/. reader can pick up in 5 minutes problems in projects that are researched for years. Why else do we read the summeries? Wait till people around here will start to RTFA, then you will really see issues popping up!
Let me tell you, that in the Windows world things weren't much better. One site wants Windows Media Player, another QuickTime and a third RealTime. In most sites I just gave up, wasn't worth the trouble. Flash made everything easier in all the different OSs. However, HTML5 video works just as flawlessly, so I don't see us returning to those darn-awful days.
Anyone with Windows could always use any Win32-compliant web browser. Are Google using their dominant position in search/advertising to dump Chrome, ChromeOS and Google Apps on the market?
In a word, No! If anything, they are using their non-dominant position in OS and web browsers to dump their search engine to the market... which is a pretty stupid suggestion, because I think Google Search does not need a boost from a 6-7% market share browser. So, no, they are not using monopoly/monopoly-like power.
Still, you have not debunked his main point. MS used its dominance (not monopoly) in the OS market to get users to use IE. They didn't force anyone to use IE, but by bundling it with Windows, they used their OS market share in order to increase their web browser market share. That is a monopolizing behavior.
If Google had used its search engine to get you to use Chrome or Chrome OS you would have had a point. AFAIK, anyone, with any web browser can use Google's search engine. If anything, they may be using Chrome to get people to use Google Search more - but since they have no dominance in the OS and web browser markets, this is a non-issue. I know, Sherman does not talk about Monopoly, but if a minor player in the web browser/OS market uses them to increase the number of people using their (already dominant) search engine, this is no violation of the Sherman act.
Just like if you suffer for many years from a chronic disease and then you are cured, you thank God for the cure. Where was he during all those years of suffering?
The point of Red Flags is that the theft has already happened and now some Mexican is in your office wanting a credit line and showing you some white scandinavian drivers license and claiming that he's really Mia Bjarnor. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO??!?
What do I do? I ask him: "You do not look like Mia Bjarnor, are you sure this is your real name?". If answer="Yes" then GiveCredit() else CallCops();
Why is it that when something bad happens to someone (e.g. bike accident) someone has to reply with the adjective "stupid"? I mean, when you ride 22 miles X2/day each workday, accidents can happen - because you were tired, inattentive, unlucky, there was rain, whatever. Yes, I know... this is/. and yes I am new here:)
I propose we start using a new prefix letter. How about 'x'? Nice, useful letter; not tedious like 'i'. xPad, xRobot, xSkynet, xScape (great runaway game). I think I am on to something...
If I open a new business, then everything there is my personal asset. Only when I make it an incorporated company (i.e. My Company Inc.) then there is a separation between my personal assets and the company's. If my personal (non Inc.) company goes under, the people I own money to can sue the money from my personal belongings, because my property and the company's are the same. Thus, a small ma & pa shop is exactly a business selling personal assets (albeit, assets with high turnover).
Having 50 transactions at a single garage sale is not that uncommon; having 4 garage sales a year (especially if someone is out of work and looking to raise money by selling assets) puts you into this new "you're a business even though you aren't" category.
So, you are unemployed. You set up a garage sale to raise money so you can feed your family, pay the rent, etc., etc. Sorry, but this sounds like a business to me. If you have a garage sale once in a while just to get rid of some junk and raise a bit of extra cash, that's one thing. But if the garage sale is your main cash flow...
Yep, I was also sure that anti-trust referred to anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly, but a quick Wikipedia search showed it to be incorrect. The rules (Sherman act and Clayton act) are used to prevent acts that reduce competition, such as price discrimination and more. For me it is a bit weird, because AFAIK it is part of usual business practice for to company A to make a deal to get a better price from company B, in order to compete with C, but I guess there is a distinction I missed.
Sorry, we meant the same thing, but where I work we some times, informally, call it "UV light". In reality it is not UV, but only blue. I was sure I heard sometimes during my studies that the wavelength is UV and the blue is just for the effect, guess my memory is starting to fade faster than expected...:)
The bigger problem is that no blood is actually passed "from mama to baby". The maternal and fetal circulations are (almost) completely separated. Except for few red blood cells that accidentally pass (esp. around birth and trauma), the placental barrier keeps the two circulations separate. Oxygen, nutritional material and waste are passed by diffusion, with no contact between the two blood pools. The reason for this is that the baby's blood type may be different than the mother's (because of paternal genes) and if the blood would have mixed, than there would have been an immune reaction against the baby's blood. Delayed vs. early clamping affects the distribution of blood between the newborn baby and the placenta. The major determinant for this is the relative hight of each other, due to the rule of communicating vessels.
It was not a joke on sudog's part, the treatment for Neonatal Jaundice isUV light. The UV light changes the insouble indirect Bilirubin into a water-soluble isomer that is excreted by the kidneys.
Actually, jaundice is a problem. Of course, it is caused by an immature liver that cannot process the porphyrin from the catabolism of dead RBC (porphyrin is part of the hemoglobin), but you treat Neonatal Jaundice because the excess bilirubin is toxic to the brain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilirubin#Toxicity ). I agree that in each jaundiced baby there is a search for a cause for the jaundice, because some may have an additional cause (sepsis, Rh incompatibility, and many more), but the majority have jaundice from an immature liver and it passes after a few days. In adults, OTOH, jaundice in itself is not harmful, but it is worrying because it is a sign of an underlying disease (hepatitis, cirrhosis, malignancy and more). So yes, in adults it is not a problem but a sign (not symptom) of another problem. In neonates, it is a problem in and of itself.
Yep, and when someone hacks into your rolled-up screen measuring-tape (iTape, anyone?) we are going to see some mighty pranks: "Johnny, did you change Daddy's tape from Inchs to cm? So that's why the new porch crushed with grandma on it!"
So, if you connect them to one another, you're actually talking about a Beowulf Cluster of cats? Nice, didn't take us to long to get there. Go Slashdot!
Slashdot Mirror
And for the uninformed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
I think people around here give those companies too much credit. From all the theories that arise after such stories, you would think that each company is controlled by a criminal mastermind (AKA Doctor Evil) that sits all day and tries to create plans to f^%$-up everyone just to gain "One Million Dollar!".
Now, I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that those companies are the exact opposite (i.e. they want to spread little bits of happiness all around), but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle: These companies are trying to make money, usually in an honest way, but sometimes they screw-up, either through incompetence (which I think this is the case this time) or because of "nefarious" scams (e.g. Facebook's privacy issues*).
Although problems such as the one described in TFA should be found, pointed out and fixed, we should be more selective in the "Evil Corporation" designation.
* Some would say those privacy issues are just very bad business decision, but to the lay person it's the same. If you prefer the interest of your ad partners to the gross disadvantage of your customer, then you have a problem.
But you see, this isn't the point. A news article is copyrighted work. You may not reproduce it in whole on your site without permission. It doesn't matter whether they lost money because of your act or not. It doesn't matter if the copyright laws are an outdated business model or not (BTW, since we are talking about news sites, I guess the whole extended copyright terms issue will not be brought up this time).
The article is the writer's/site's own work and they decide what to do with it. I decide that this comment may be freely distributed by anyone because my ideals/business model/socioeconomical environment dictates such a decision. The author of that article decided otherwise. His choice.
Now after that point is settled (I hope), we can discuss the owner's course of action upon finding out his article is being illegally reproduced: He can hire a lawyer and sue, he can outsource the lawsuit to a firm that specializes in those kind of suits, whatever. But the basic point is that whether money was lost or not, a law was broken.
No, the average /. reader can pick up in 5 minutes problems in projects that are researched for years. Why else do we read the summeries? Wait till people around here will start to RTFA, then you will really see issues popping up!
Let me tell you, that in the Windows world things weren't much better. One site wants Windows Media Player, another QuickTime and a third RealTime. In most sites I just gave up, wasn't worth the trouble. Flash made everything easier in all the different OSs. However, HTML5 video works just as flawlessly, so I don't see us returning to those darn-awful days.
Anyone with Windows could always use any Win32-compliant web browser. Are Google using their dominant position in search/advertising to dump Chrome, ChromeOS and Google Apps on the market?
In a word, No!
If anything, they are using their non-dominant position in OS and web browsers to dump their search engine to the market... which is a pretty stupid suggestion, because I think Google Search does not need a boost from a 6-7% market share browser. So, no, they are not using monopoly/monopoly-like power.
Still, you have not debunked his main point. MS used its dominance (not monopoly) in the OS market to get users to use IE. They didn't force anyone to use IE, but by bundling it with Windows, they used their OS market share in order to increase their web browser market share. That is a monopolizing behavior.
If Google had used its search engine to get you to use Chrome or Chrome OS you would have had a point. AFAIK, anyone, with any web browser can use Google's search engine. If anything, they may be using Chrome to get people to use Google Search more - but since they have no dominance in the OS and web browser markets, this is a non-issue. I know, Sherman does not talk about Monopoly, but if a minor player in the web browser/OS market uses them to increase the number of people using their (already dominant) search engine, this is no violation of the Sherman act.
P.S.
What does "applefan" have to do with this?
Yeah, bloodless games are for pussies! Try this game in Texas, who knows, maybe it will be incorporated in their new educational system.
Just like if you suffer for many years from a chronic disease and then you are cured, you thank God for the cure. Where was he during all those years of suffering?
Heck, if you are far enough you may hit them before they even hit the cyclist!
The point of Red Flags is that the theft has already happened and now some Mexican is in your office wanting a credit line and showing you some white scandinavian drivers license and claiming that he's really Mia Bjarnor. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO??!?
What do I do? I ask him: "You do not look like Mia Bjarnor, are you sure this is your real name?".
If answer="Yes" then GiveCredit() else CallCops();
Easy!
Why is it that when something bad happens to someone (e.g. bike accident) someone has to reply with the adjective "stupid"? I mean, when you ride 22 miles X2/day each workday, accidents can happen - because you were tired, inattentive, unlucky, there was rain, whatever. /. and yes I am new here :)
Yes, I know... this is
I propose we start using a new prefix letter. How about 'x'? Nice, useful letter; not tedious like 'i'.
xPad, xRobot, xSkynet, xScape (great runaway game). I think I am on to something...
If I open a new business, then everything there is my personal asset. Only when I make it an incorporated company (i.e. My Company Inc.) then there is a separation between my personal assets and the company's.
If my personal (non Inc.) company goes under, the people I own money to can sue the money from my personal belongings, because my property and the company's are the same. Thus, a small ma & pa shop is exactly a business selling personal assets (albeit, assets with high turnover).
Having 50 transactions at a single garage sale is not that uncommon; having 4 garage sales a year (especially if someone is out of work and looking to raise money by selling assets) puts you into this new "you're a business even though you aren't" category.
So, you are unemployed. You set up a garage sale to raise money so you can feed your family, pay the rent, etc., etc. Sorry, but this sounds like a business to me.
If you have a garage sale once in a while just to get rid of some junk and raise a bit of extra cash, that's one thing. But if the garage sale is your main cash flow...
Yep, the Vatican
I think that 5F% of the people don't grok hexadecimal math, but I agree that C.S. grads should be better informed.
Yep, I was also sure that anti-trust referred to anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly, but a quick Wikipedia search showed it to be incorrect. The rules (Sherman act and Clayton act) are used to prevent acts that reduce competition, such as price discrimination and more.
For me it is a bit weird, because AFAIK it is part of usual business practice for to company A to make a deal to get a better price from company B, in order to compete with C, but I guess there is a distinction I missed.
Sorry, we meant the same thing, but where I work we some times, informally, call it "UV light". In reality it is not UV, but only blue. :)
I was sure I heard sometimes during my studies that the wavelength is UV and the blue is just for the effect, guess my memory is starting to fade faster than expected...
The bigger problem is that no blood is actually passed "from mama to baby". The maternal and fetal circulations are (almost) completely separated. Except for few red blood cells that accidentally pass (esp. around birth and trauma), the placental barrier keeps the two circulations separate. Oxygen, nutritional material and waste are passed by diffusion, with no contact between the two blood pools. The reason for this is that the baby's blood type may be different than the mother's (because of paternal genes) and if the blood would have mixed, than there would have been an immune reaction against the baby's blood.
Delayed vs. early clamping affects the distribution of blood between the newborn baby and the placenta. The major determinant for this is the relative hight of each other, due to the rule of communicating vessels.
It was not a joke on sudog's part, the treatment for Neonatal Jaundice is UV light. The UV light changes the insouble indirect Bilirubin into a water-soluble isomer that is excreted by the kidneys.
Actually, jaundice is a problem. Of course, it is caused by an immature liver that cannot process the porphyrin from the catabolism of dead RBC (porphyrin is part of the hemoglobin), but you treat Neonatal Jaundice because the excess bilirubin is toxic to the brain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilirubin#Toxicity ). I agree that in each jaundiced baby there is a search for a cause for the jaundice, because some may have an additional cause (sepsis, Rh incompatibility, and many more), but the majority have jaundice from an immature liver and it passes after a few days.
In adults, OTOH, jaundice in itself is not harmful, but it is worrying because it is a sign of an underlying disease (hepatitis, cirrhosis, malignancy and more). So yes, in adults it is not a problem but a sign (not symptom) of another problem. In neonates, it is a problem in and of itself.
Yep, and when someone hacks into your rolled-up screen measuring-tape (iTape, anyone?) we are going to see some mighty pranks:
"Johnny, did you change Daddy's tape from Inchs to cm? So that's why the new porch crushed with grandma on it!"
Ok, where do I sign up of this?
So, if you connect them to one another, you're actually talking about a Beowulf Cluster of cats? Nice, didn't take us to long to get there. Go Slashdot!