So Lyonnaise de Garantie's website no longer shows up on searches for escroc. But I bet a fortune that "Lyonnaise de Garantie sues to stop being called escrocs" news reports will soon be one of the top search results for "escroc".
After all, I doubt the ruling covers news stories written, published and hosted by third parties.
Oh, the teacher openly admitted that Microsoft set the requirements for the class. If we used anything else, even IIS6 on Server 2003, we'd lose our MSAA license.
Good thing I've run both Apache and lighttpd for personal experience. And taught myself C, C++, PHP, Lisp, Perl, Python, and a little bit of Assembly. And MySQL. And how to run Linux from the command line. And... what the fuck am I paying this college for, again?
Is anyone arguing that the guy shouldn't get a fair, open trial, legal rendition, and all that? I know I'm not. Learn the difference between, "We should identify people committing crimes," and, "We should string people up without due process."
Quote sethstorm:
The US Government knows where they are, why not just go and black-bag them? Repeat until the spam stops, no matter what country.
Funny how, when it's (suspected) terrorists, drug lords, etc., most posters here argue for a fair, open trial, legal rendition and all that. Shut down Gitmo, stop the drone killings, stop the indefinite holdings, because we're becoming that which we fight.
But a spammer? Call in the CIA, call in DEVGRU, call in Jack Bauer, that man needs to be dead YESTERDAY, no matter the cost!
Who could replace Google? Yahoo is against SOPA. Microsoft doesn't seem to have taken an official stance, but I suspect they'll ultimately go against it. Which leaves what, Ask Jeeves?
Facebook? Their biggest threat is Google+, and Google's doing it too. Same for Twitter. Unless Myspace jumps back into supremacy, nobody's well-suited for conquering the social scene.
Make it global from day 1. SOPA would be a problem not just for Americans, but for everyone.
I'm pretty sure that if Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Wikipedia all went down for a day, even Washington would realize that SOPA can't stand. And if they went on a blackout until SOPA was defeated (with the implied or explicit threat of shutting down permanently should SOPA pass), defeating SOPA would become the #1 priority of Congress. Because *NOBODY* would vote for "the Senator that killed the Internet".
Maybe you're both right: Microsoft will release a Linux distro. It will be both wildly successful and record-breakingly secure. It will also cure cancer, balance the US federal budget, and bring about world peace.
Yes, one or two times the amount would be fine. The problem is, up to now, the cost to legitimately obtain it had no bearing on actual damages. But this would establish that yes, damages should be based not on some arbitrary statutory damage, but on how much it would cost to just buy the thing.
Later judges will probably inch it up (even ten times the base cost of the product would be fine - that would make pirating a music album $100-$240, not $250,000), but the fundamental "damages are proportional to the cost of the item" is still well worth establishing.
Which is why they haven't so far. But what if there was precedent showing that ISPs could actually be found liable? Lawyers can only do so much if case law is against them.
But all it might take is an actual terrorist event where an ISP *is* held accountable, for ISPs to retreat back to common carrier status.
Why wait for that? Copyright infringement works just as well.
I know that if I'm ever suing someone for piracy, I'll be sure to list their ISP as a co-defendant. I win either way - either they're forced to obey the rules of common carriership, or I get fat stacks of cash and opened the floodgates for a million more lawsuits.
Think of all those lawsuits MAFIAA files against downloaders. Now have them file that number again against Comcast, Verizon et cetera. Bam. We just fought evil with evil.
See, here's the thing. I'm American, and while I keep somewhat in touch with world events, I don't know how Britain's doing, politically. Don't know how Germany, or France, or Australia, or Uzbekistan or Liberia or Kosovo are doing. I know, vaguely, that there's some electoral shit going down in Russia re: Putin, I know there's shit going down in Korea with Kim III succeeding Kim II, and I think there's still general economic problems in much of Europe, but I don't know specifics. I could probably find out, but I barely keep current on my own country's politics, let alone the world's. I'm not even 100% sure Cameron's still PM of Britain. So I don't know why I subconsciously assumed he's ruining it, why I accidentally read it as "Ruining".
While you *could* say that it's because politicians are *always* ruining everything forever, a less pessimistic view would be that you don't hear many stories like "Everything's Going OK!" or "Nothing Bad Happens for Third Week Straight", so I just expect negative headlines.
I dunno, maybe they'll name a psychological disorder after the guy.
Christoforo's Syndrome - a psychological disorder characterized by pathological lying, shallow affect, a noted lack of empathy and consistent abusive behavior. It is distinguished from Antisocial Personality Disorder chiefly by poor spelling and grammar.
Google hardly has a monopoly. They have market dominance, but none of their products are the only major option.
Search? They own 80%. For the rest, there's Bing, Baidu, even Ask.com. 80% is not normally a monopoly, especially when you can point to a single competitor with nearly 10% market share (if it were Google 80% and 200 other companies 0.1% each, then you could argue that it was effectively a monopoly, but that is not the case).
Ads? There's nothing stopping you from taking bids to run your own ads on a site (many do), and there's a variety of competitors in various areas. There's also specialized niche advertisers like Project Wonderful that focus on specific things.
Android? The iPhone's got over 40%, and, while it may be easy to, don't forget Blackberry and Windows Mobile.
Youtube? There's Vimeo, plus dozens of smaller competitors.
Groups? As if Google has a monopoly on Usenet access and custom forums.
GMail? There's hundreds of free and paid webmail hosts. Hotmail anyone?
Chrome? They're being beaten by IE, they're about even with Firefox and Opera and Safari remain respectable competitors.
Google+? Facebook is beating them. Google Docs? Microsoft Office Web Apps. Google Code? Sourceforge and/or Github. Checkout? Paypal is thrashing them.
Google does not have any monopolies. They're big enough to engage in monopolistic behaviors like bundling, but they're not a monopoly. You admit as much yourself:
It's anything-but supply and demand. You've got a monopoly dumping money into an adjacent industry, running their operations at an OBSCENE loss year after year. With the primary goal not of trying to get a foothold, but instead happily wasting money on a failed cause in hopes of wounding a major competitor on their home turf.
(emphasis mine)
The existence of a major competitor is directly incompatible with monopoly status. Your mistake is in thinking that Search is Google's main product. It is not - it is their most visible, most prominent, but not their main. Their main product is advertisements, and they are making quite a deal of money off those. Everything else they make is intended to support that, and it does - Search allows them to show ads, Youtube shows ads, GMail shows ads, Chrome drives people to Search which then shows them ads. Buying Default Search Provider status from Mozilla makes sense purely as a business move to bring more people in to Search so they can show more ads. That $300,000,000 will pay for itself this way.
This is free-market capitalism working. Supply is constant (there's only one Firefox), but demand increased (Bing wanted in on the traffic). Therefore prices increased.
And it's even good for the consumer. "Default search provider" can't really hurt the consumer, as long as they're free to change it (and they are). Meanwhile, this provides funding to one of the few open-source brands. Firefox isn't just a browser - it managed to build a respect and legitimacy as a product in a world dominated by closed-source, and it built that legitimacy with regular desktop users, not IT people. Mozilla could make a music e-store, or a netbook line, or an operating system, and it would share that perception of legitimacy, of the brand identity. Not many open-source non-profits can say the same.
I think it could be done if it was done unit-by-unit. Start with volume - we already buy 2 liter sodas, replacing the lingering pint, quart and gallon items shouldn't be hard.
Then, distance. Most people use it in terms of speed - miles per hour - to stay within (or mostly within) speed limits. Simply change all the limits to metric, the other uses of the mile will follow.
Temperature will be the hardest, since there's few personal reasons to switch. Save it for last, so you can make the argument that "this is the last one holding us back".
Remember, the US has been teaching kids metric for decades. Most of my generation would be fine with metrication. It would take some getting used to, but we know the theory at least, even if I don't know how to estimate in it well. It's just the older generations that are more reluctant, that are holding us back. Once the baby boomers start dying off, I bet we'll see quite a bit of progress being made on this front.
Most likely, they'll have the effectively-proprietary Thunderbolt connector (while not 100% proprietary, it's currently only used on Macs, and I'd bet money that it will end up like Firewire - only extensively used by Macs, and not standard or common for PCs) as well as the standard HDMI.
It's even odds whether it will have the older standards - I can see Apple not including Composite Video and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
So they are either idiots or assholes.
Or both.
Hell, even the summary is condescending.
This is Slashdot. You don't have to explain what a GPU is.
So Lyonnaise de Garantie's website no longer shows up on searches for escroc. But I bet a fortune that "Lyonnaise de Garantie sues to stop being called escrocs" news reports will soon be one of the top search results for "escroc".
After all, I doubt the ruling covers news stories written, published and hosted by third parties.
CIS311, not CS311. It's a "Computer Information Services" class, not "Computer Science".
Oh, the teacher openly admitted that Microsoft set the requirements for the class. If we used anything else, even IIS6 on Server 2003, we'd lose our MSAA license.
Guess what class I had today?
CIS311 - Web Server Management
Guess what we use!
IIS 7 and Windows Server 2008!
Good thing I've run both Apache and lighttpd for personal experience. And taught myself C, C++, PHP, Lisp, Perl, Python, and a little bit of Assembly. And MySQL. And how to run Linux from the command line. And... what the fuck am I paying this college for, again?
Trust no inputs. Check your inputs. Validate cookies. Validate parameters. Validate your validation. Encrypt whatever you can, whenever you can.
SQL injection is the most common vulnerability. Learn how to make it impossible with prepared statements.
If possible, hire some white-hat hackers to try to break into the site, and see if they find anything.
Above all, trust nothing.
Is anyone arguing that the guy shouldn't get a fair, open trial, legal rendition, and all that? I know I'm not. Learn the difference between, "We should identify people committing crimes," and, "We should string people up without due process."
Quote sethstorm:
The US Government knows where they are, why not just go and black-bag them? Repeat until the spam stops, no matter what country.
Funny how, when it's (suspected) terrorists, drug lords, etc., most posters here argue for a fair, open trial, legal rendition and all that. Shut down Gitmo, stop the drone killings, stop the indefinite holdings, because we're becoming that which we fight.
But a spammer? Call in the CIA, call in DEVGRU, call in Jack Bauer, that man needs to be dead YESTERDAY, no matter the cost!
just an extremely small walled garden.
More like an extremely large LAN with the most restrictive firewalls possible ("deny * from *" is a firewall, right?
Which ones?
Who could replace Google? Yahoo is against SOPA. Microsoft doesn't seem to have taken an official stance, but I suspect they'll ultimately go against it. Which leaves what, Ask Jeeves?
Facebook? Their biggest threat is Google+, and Google's doing it too. Same for Twitter. Unless Myspace jumps back into supremacy, nobody's well-suited for conquering the social scene.
Make it global from day 1. SOPA would be a problem not just for Americans, but for everyone.
I'm pretty sure that if Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Wikipedia all went down for a day, even Washington would realize that SOPA can't stand. And if they went on a blackout until SOPA was defeated (with the implied or explicit threat of shutting down permanently should SOPA pass), defeating SOPA would become the #1 priority of Congress. Because *NOBODY* would vote for "the Senator that killed the Internet".
Maybe you're both right: Microsoft will release a Linux distro. It will be both wildly successful and record-breakingly secure. It will also cure cancer, balance the US federal budget, and bring about world peace.
Yes, one or two times the amount would be fine. The problem is, up to now, the cost to legitimately obtain it had no bearing on actual damages. But this would establish that yes, damages should be based not on some arbitrary statutory damage, but on how much it would cost to just buy the thing.
Later judges will probably inch it up (even ten times the base cost of the product would be fine - that would make pirating a music album $100-$240, not $250,000), but the fundamental "damages are proportional to the cost of the item" is still well worth establishing.
Which is why they haven't so far. But what if there was precedent showing that ISPs could actually be found liable? Lawyers can only do so much if case law is against them.
But all it might take is an actual terrorist event where an ISP *is* held accountable, for ISPs to retreat back to common carrier status.
Why wait for that? Copyright infringement works just as well.
I know that if I'm ever suing someone for piracy, I'll be sure to list their ISP as a co-defendant. I win either way - either they're forced to obey the rules of common carriership, or I get fat stacks of cash and opened the floodgates for a million more lawsuits.
Think of all those lawsuits MAFIAA files against downloaders. Now have them file that number again against Comcast, Verizon et cetera. Bam. We just fought evil with evil.
See, here's the thing. I'm American, and while I keep somewhat in touch with world events, I don't know how Britain's doing, politically. Don't know how Germany, or France, or Australia, or Uzbekistan or Liberia or Kosovo are doing. I know, vaguely, that there's some electoral shit going down in Russia re: Putin, I know there's shit going down in Korea with Kim III succeeding Kim II, and I think there's still general economic problems in much of Europe, but I don't know specifics. I could probably find out, but I barely keep current on my own country's politics, let alone the world's. I'm not even 100% sure Cameron's still PM of Britain. So I don't know why I subconsciously assumed he's ruining it, why I accidentally read it as "Ruining".
While you *could* say that it's because politicians are *always* ruining everything forever, a less pessimistic view would be that you don't hear many stories like "Everything's Going OK!" or "Nothing Bad Happens for Third Week Straight", so I just expect negative headlines.
as "Ruining Great Britain"?
I dunno, maybe they'll name a psychological disorder after the guy.
Christoforo's Syndrome - a psychological disorder characterized by pathological lying, shallow affect, a noted lack of empathy and consistent abusive behavior. It is distinguished from Antisocial Personality Disorder chiefly by poor spelling and grammar.
And he wasn't caught at bad time either like he says now. There's many similar stories about how he treated customers for a long time.
I think "alive" is a bad time for this guy to be caught, myself.
Google hardly has a monopoly. They have market dominance, but none of their products are the only major option.
Search? They own 80%. For the rest, there's Bing, Baidu, even Ask.com. 80% is not normally a monopoly, especially when you can point to a single competitor with nearly 10% market share (if it were Google 80% and 200 other companies 0.1% each, then you could argue that it was effectively a monopoly, but that is not the case).
Ads? There's nothing stopping you from taking bids to run your own ads on a site (many do), and there's a variety of competitors in various areas. There's also specialized niche advertisers like Project Wonderful that focus on specific things.
Android? The iPhone's got over 40%, and, while it may be easy to, don't forget Blackberry and Windows Mobile.
Youtube? There's Vimeo, plus dozens of smaller competitors.
Groups? As if Google has a monopoly on Usenet access and custom forums.
GMail? There's hundreds of free and paid webmail hosts. Hotmail anyone?
Chrome? They're being beaten by IE, they're about even with Firefox and Opera and Safari remain respectable competitors.
Google+? Facebook is beating them. Google Docs? Microsoft Office Web Apps. Google Code? Sourceforge and/or Github. Checkout? Paypal is thrashing them.
Google does not have any monopolies. They're big enough to engage in monopolistic behaviors like bundling, but they're not a monopoly. You admit as much yourself:
It's anything-but supply and demand. You've got a monopoly dumping money into an adjacent industry, running their operations at an OBSCENE loss year after year. With the primary goal not of trying to get a foothold, but instead happily wasting money on a failed cause in hopes of wounding a major competitor on their home turf.
(emphasis mine)
The existence of a major competitor is directly incompatible with monopoly status. Your mistake is in thinking that Search is Google's main product. It is not - it is their most visible, most prominent, but not their main. Their main product is advertisements, and they are making quite a deal of money off those. Everything else they make is intended to support that, and it does - Search allows them to show ads, Youtube shows ads, GMail shows ads, Chrome drives people to Search which then shows them ads. Buying Default Search Provider status from Mozilla makes sense purely as a business move to bring more people in to Search so they can show more ads. That $300,000,000 will pay for itself this way.
This is free-market capitalism working. Supply is constant (there's only one Firefox), but demand increased (Bing wanted in on the traffic). Therefore prices increased.
And it's even good for the consumer. "Default search provider" can't really hurt the consumer, as long as they're free to change it (and they are). Meanwhile, this provides funding to one of the few open-source brands. Firefox isn't just a browser - it managed to build a respect and legitimacy as a product in a world dominated by closed-source, and it built that legitimacy with regular desktop users, not IT people. Mozilla could make a music e-store, or a netbook line, or an operating system, and it would share that perception of legitimacy, of the brand identity. Not many open-source non-profits can say the same.
Keeping an open-source brand alive is worth it.
I think it could be done if it was done unit-by-unit. Start with volume - we already buy 2 liter sodas, replacing the lingering pint, quart and gallon items shouldn't be hard.
Then, distance. Most people use it in terms of speed - miles per hour - to stay within (or mostly within) speed limits. Simply change all the limits to metric, the other uses of the mile will follow.
Temperature will be the hardest, since there's few personal reasons to switch. Save it for last, so you can make the argument that "this is the last one holding us back".
Remember, the US has been teaching kids metric for decades. Most of my generation would be fine with metrication. It would take some getting used to, but we know the theory at least, even if I don't know how to estimate in it well. It's just the older generations that are more reluctant, that are holding us back. Once the baby boomers start dying off, I bet we'll see quite a bit of progress being made on this front.
Don't pick a fight with someone who has their own convention.
Most likely, they'll have the effectively-proprietary Thunderbolt connector (while not 100% proprietary, it's currently only used on Macs, and I'd bet money that it will end up like Firewire - only extensively used by Macs, and not standard or common for PCs) as well as the standard HDMI.
It's even odds whether it will have the older standards - I can see Apple not including Composite Video and the like.