Exactly, I don't see what the problem is. Google is the bad guy after calling out eBay for blatantly abusing their monopoly power? Who cares if they were trying to do so "anonymously"? Doesn't change the facts.
Your apathy frightens me. Since you are writing off this article based on the fact that it's a blog, check out the BBC article the author links to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7369543.stm
How you can justify this bullshit is beyond me. Have you even read 1984? This is how Big Brother starts, almost exactly! Everyone says "oh, a law (RIPA) used to combat internet crime, pedophilia and terrorism, of course I support that". Then it's repurposed to go after minor things that still technically qualify as "crime". Eventually new laws are passed that allow the government to manipulate their constituents in any way they seem fit, and by this point society is so locked down that nobody can do anything about it.
Humans can steal, humans can rape and murder each other, humans can even design devices capable of destroying all life on the planet.
Just 'cause we can eat meat doesn't automatically mean it's a good idea. This is such a retarded argument. Fine, you are a vegetarian. This does not mean that everyone who eats meat is wrong.
This is why everybody gets pissed off at vegetarians. I know a bunch of vegetarians and/or vegans, and they are intelligent people who know how to coexist with the rest of society and do not force their dietary choices upon others. Then there's the PETA-thumpers who compare eating meat to rape. Are you for real?
A lawsuit can claim *anything*, it's only a problem if a judge/jury upholds a stupid claim. Inevitably there will be comments below about how bad the U.S. legal system is, but despite my (many) misgivings about this system I just don't see this case having any legs whatsoever. It's patently ridiculous, pun intended.
However, this does not mean we all can't gnash our teeth over the story. Just remember to direct it at the dickhead who initiated this suit. I hope every U of Florida student that sees this avoids anything this guy teaches. I also hope that every single author cited in his class texts (which I'm sure were all written by him, the norm for college courses) sues HIM for profiting from their ideas.
I wish my mod points hadn't just expired, because you just summed it up perfectly. Silly study with no basis in reality.
In other news, I've just started a fund of stocks that are held and traded based on historical data. If you invest in it, I guarantee a large return, because complex systems that rely heavily on myriad human variables are of course determined entirely by statistics.
Here's an explanation: the punishment so far outweighs the potential damage such actions (there's no way I'm calling this a "crime") may cause as to be laughable.
You're tired of armchair lawyers here, yet you are worrying about the legal reading of the proposed bill and trying to shoehorn its intentions into another questionable set of laws. How about we ignore the legal aspects and look at common sense aspects. This bill is retarded, plain and simple. And it will hurt many innocent folks if it is passed. I'm scratching my head as to how anybody can support this proposal even the slightest bit!
Thanks for the clarification. However, who are the peers? The journals 3 authors are: 1) Canada Research Chair in Social Cognition at University of Waterloo, 2) Professor of Marketing and Psychology at Duke University, 3) Professor of Marketing and Psychology at Duke University.
I only skimmed the paper, and while I don't see signs of cheating, I still find the results suspect (the old "correlation is not causation" may apply here). Perhaps a statistician can chime in: how significant are these "statistically significant" numbers, as that term is used often in studies, and can be an effective smokescreen. Lies, damn lies, statistics, etc.
Then again, I could be wrong. I guess a study showing how some Americans are sheep isn't that hard to believe...
Indeed. This is not a scientific study, it's a bunch of marketers trying to "prove" that what they do matters. Journal of Consumer Research? Surely no conflict of interest there. In other news, a study backed by McDonald's proves that their food is actually good for you! Film at 11.
Well fast is one thing, memory is another. I did notice that FF3b4 "seemed" faster when opening a new tab, but I think that's more of a Gecko performance thing (i.e. browsing the web isn't any faster but drawing window elements is, a bit).
Anyway I always thought Firefox was fast enough. What I'm most surprised with (shocked, even) is the BIG leap in memory management, even from the last beta. Every release gets touted as being better at this, but this is the first time I'm really impressed with the steps they took. I accidentally left work Friday with my workstation still on and Firefox open with multiple tabs. I came in Monday, checked the Task Manager on a lark and FF3b4 was using about 30MB RAM. If you've used Firefox for any significant amount of time (Firebird 0.7, baby!), that number should impress.
Just one man's experience, on Windows (traditionally the best performing version of FF, the Linux version can be pretty buggy and the Mac version actually scares me into using Safari). Let's hope it doesn't regress from here.
That's usually the type of advertising I mind the least, as it adds a layer of realism if used competently. I'd rather Marty drink a Pepsi than a "Cola" movie prop.
On rare occasions this can even work in reverse. Thanks to product placement I found out that plants really crave this stuff (it's got electrolytes).
Exactly. This study is taking an assembly-line operations approach to a process involving humans, who might be late, have special needs (e.g. "I can't lift this 300-lb carry-on into the overhead, please help"), have incomplete paperwork; all kinds of variables are at play. The failures of such an approach should be self-evident in real-world scenarios.
Also, what difference would this truly make? Airports already maximize the number of takeoffs from multiple gates. The plane has no choice but to take off at time X, regardless of how annoying the boarding process is. Any successful implementation of speeding up this process means that everybody waits on the plane longer versus in the seating area at the gate.
Focus on the ridiculous security procedures, that's where I get pissed off when traveling.
Perhaps I would have taken this man more seriously had he looked at it with a neutral and objective point of view. Were that the case, this article probably never would have appeared on the front page of/.
Are the editors trolling for hits lately or what? I've seen more sensationalist, content-free postings this year than perhaps the entire, what, 8+ years I've been reading this site. Please editors, I beg you, stop. It's stupid and you're preaching to a choir full of educated, thoughtful folks who can see right through the nonsense these "experts" are spewing.
Anyone who did knows that they're not beige;) Anyone who played one for a while knows the color of the case changed over time from white to beige to yellow to brown to ewwimnottouchingthatanymore.
I eagerly await the insightful words of Lars Ulrich, Dr. Dre, et al to explain to me why pissing off the people who were perfectly willing to pony up good money for concerts, T-shirts and, yes, full retail priced CDs was worth it in the end.
Exactly. Before you even click through the article, the tame tags attached to this piece say all you really need to know about the double-standard at work on this site. As of this posting they are: drm, dtrace, apple, macosx, programming.
Now check out this article from earlier today: Microsoft Ties $235m IT Aid To Use of Windows (A story about MS, not Apple, protecting its own interests). Tags: microsoft, it, drugdealer, firsttasteisfree, justsayno.
I'm being a bit facetious here, but why bother? I've yet to see any significant punishments handed down with any of these cases, so where's the deterrent factor when things go wrong?
Of course anybody with half a brain knows sensitive information should always be encrypted, but these security breaches always seem to affect marketing, tracking and government agencies. You're lucky if you find someone with a quarter of a brain there.
Slashdot Mirror
Right-click c:\users\[username]\My Documents, choose properties, find the Location tab. You're welcome.
Obviously you're not much of a fan of the man or you'd have gotten the joke.
Did you forget about Smarch?
Exactly, I don't see what the problem is. Google is the bad guy after calling out eBay for blatantly abusing their monopoly power? Who cares if they were trying to do so "anonymously"? Doesn't change the facts.
And here I just ran out of mod points. Well said.
Your apathy frightens me. Since you are writing off this article based on the fact that it's a blog, check out the BBC article the author links to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7369543.stm
How you can justify this bullshit is beyond me. Have you even read 1984? This is how Big Brother starts, almost exactly! Everyone says "oh, a law (RIPA) used to combat internet crime, pedophilia and terrorism, of course I support that". Then it's repurposed to go after minor things that still technically qualify as "crime". Eventually new laws are passed that allow the government to manipulate their constituents in any way they seem fit, and by this point society is so locked down that nobody can do anything about it.
Get a clue man!
Just 'cause we can eat meat doesn't automatically mean it's a good idea. This is such a retarded argument. Fine, you are a vegetarian. This does not mean that everyone who eats meat is wrong.
This is why everybody gets pissed off at vegetarians. I know a bunch of vegetarians and/or vegans, and they are intelligent people who know how to coexist with the rest of society and do not force their dietary choices upon others. Then there's the PETA-thumpers who compare eating meat to rape. Are you for real?
Well then. Thanks for the info!
This sounds like baloney. Can you back this up with a link?
A lawsuit can claim *anything*, it's only a problem if a judge/jury upholds a stupid claim. Inevitably there will be comments below about how bad the U.S. legal system is, but despite my (many) misgivings about this system I just don't see this case having any legs whatsoever. It's patently ridiculous, pun intended.
However, this does not mean we all can't gnash our teeth over the story. Just remember to direct it at the dickhead who initiated this suit. I hope every U of Florida student that sees this avoids anything this guy teaches. I also hope that every single author cited in his class texts (which I'm sure were all written by him, the norm for college courses) sues HIM for profiting from their ideas.
I wish my mod points hadn't just expired, because you just summed it up perfectly. Silly study with no basis in reality.
In other news, I've just started a fund of stocks that are held and traded based on historical data. If you invest in it, I guarantee a large return, because complex systems that rely heavily on myriad human variables are of course determined entirely by statistics.
Since now: Google Takes Control of DoubleClick
Here's an explanation: the punishment so far outweighs the potential damage such actions (there's no way I'm calling this a "crime") may cause as to be laughable.
You're tired of armchair lawyers here, yet you are worrying about the legal reading of the proposed bill and trying to shoehorn its intentions into another questionable set of laws. How about we ignore the legal aspects and look at common sense aspects. This bill is retarded, plain and simple. And it will hurt many innocent folks if it is passed. I'm scratching my head as to how anybody can support this proposal even the slightest bit!
Thanks for the clarification. However, who are the peers? The journals 3 authors are: 1) Canada Research Chair in Social Cognition at University of Waterloo, 2) Professor of Marketing and Psychology at Duke University, 3) Professor of Marketing and Psychology at Duke University.
I only skimmed the paper, and while I don't see signs of cheating, I still find the results suspect (the old "correlation is not causation" may apply here). Perhaps a statistician can chime in: how significant are these "statistically significant" numbers, as that term is used often in studies, and can be an effective smokescreen. Lies, damn lies, statistics, etc.
Then again, I could be wrong. I guess a study showing how some Americans are sheep isn't that hard to believe...
Indeed. This is not a scientific study, it's a bunch of marketers trying to "prove" that what they do matters. Journal of Consumer Research? Surely no conflict of interest there. In other news, a study backed by McDonald's proves that their food is actually good for you! Film at 11.
Well fast is one thing, memory is another. I did notice that FF3b4 "seemed" faster when opening a new tab, but I think that's more of a Gecko performance thing (i.e. browsing the web isn't any faster but drawing window elements is, a bit).
Anyway I always thought Firefox was fast enough. What I'm most surprised with (shocked, even) is the BIG leap in memory management, even from the last beta. Every release gets touted as being better at this, but this is the first time I'm really impressed with the steps they took. I accidentally left work Friday with my workstation still on and Firefox open with multiple tabs. I came in Monday, checked the Task Manager on a lark and FF3b4 was using about 30MB RAM. If you've used Firefox for any significant amount of time (Firebird 0.7, baby!), that number should impress.
Just one man's experience, on Windows (traditionally the best performing version of FF, the Linux version can be pretty buggy and the Mac version actually scares me into using Safari). Let's hope it doesn't regress from here.
People called Romanes they go the house?
That's usually the type of advertising I mind the least, as it adds a layer of realism if used competently. I'd rather Marty drink a Pepsi than a "Cola" movie prop.
On rare occasions this can even work in reverse. Thanks to product placement I found out that plants really crave this stuff (it's got electrolytes).
Exactly. This study is taking an assembly-line operations approach to a process involving humans, who might be late, have special needs (e.g. "I can't lift this 300-lb carry-on into the overhead, please help"), have incomplete paperwork; all kinds of variables are at play. The failures of such an approach should be self-evident in real-world scenarios.
Also, what difference would this truly make? Airports already maximize the number of takeoffs from multiple gates. The plane has no choice but to take off at time X, regardless of how annoying the boarding process is. Any successful implementation of speeding up this process means that everybody waits on the plane longer versus in the seating area at the gate.
Focus on the ridiculous security procedures, that's where I get pissed off when traveling.
Are the editors trolling for hits lately or what? I've seen more sensationalist, content-free postings this year than perhaps the entire, what, 8+ years I've been reading this site. Please editors, I beg you, stop. It's stupid and you're preaching to a choir full of educated, thoughtful folks who can see right through the nonsense these "experts" are spewing.
I eagerly await the insightful words of Lars Ulrich, Dr. Dre, et al to explain to me why pissing off the people who were perfectly willing to pony up good money for concerts, T-shirts and, yes, full retail priced CDs was worth it in the end.
You must be a blast at parties
Exactly. Before you even click through the article, the tame tags attached to this piece say all you really need to know about the double-standard at work on this site. As of this posting they are: drm, dtrace, apple, macosx, programming.
Now check out this article from earlier today: Microsoft Ties $235m IT Aid To Use of Windows (A story about MS, not Apple, protecting its own interests). Tags: microsoft, it, drugdealer, firsttasteisfree, justsayno.
Just sayin'.
I'm being a bit facetious here, but why bother? I've yet to see any significant punishments handed down with any of these cases, so where's the deterrent factor when things go wrong?
Of course anybody with half a brain knows sensitive information should always be encrypted, but these security breaches always seem to affect marketing, tracking and government agencies. You're lucky if you find someone with a quarter of a brain there.