Hosting 1000 accounts as part of an organization's domain costs Google no more than hosting 1000 regular GMail accounts
Judging from the little that goes through my Gmail account, and the daily barrage of build reports, merge notices, corporate notices, coworker questions, etc., I would say it would cost significantly more to host corporate accounts than it would to host personal accounts.
Of course, I'm mostly in agreement with you, since I think the cost per account whether corporate or personal is fairly negligible--and also, Google is able to send even more targeted ads to the corporate accounts.
Imagine sending a coworker a question, only to have Google auto-respond with the answer to the same question that the same coworker answered yesterday to someone else? Obviously there are legitimate privacy concerns, like it shouldn't auto-respond to "How much does Dave in accounting make?"
I think the submitter's focus is slightly naive. My rate of pay should be orthogonal to my seating arrangement. Whereas, in fact, the two tend to be linked positively; when pay (especially along with title) goes up, so does the chance of having a door.
So asking "how much pay would you give up to have an office" isn't really paying attention to corporate culture; the submitter appears to be assuming that the two can be linked negatively (i.e., you can exchange pay for better office arrangement, which doesn't normally happen).
And anyway, they don't generally say, "Okay, now you have an office mate, what concessions would you like from us to compensate for your loss of privacy?" They generally say, "Okay, now you have an office mate."
I'd say it's fairly high on the BS scale. Girls that go to school are "exposed to males not related by blood" for 1/4 to 1/3 of their day.
That, and we didn't evolve with "schools" so I don't know that a female's biology can determine the difference between "1/4 to 1/3 of the time", versus "all the time" or "none of the time". Perhaps the incidence is higher in single mothers who home-school their female kid (meaning there'll be rotating boyfriends), but I haven't seen the data...
I think the court would judge based on the law, not based on trendy technologies. But there I go being naive again.
And, Google doesn't "tell them about it"; they have to know to look at Google's pages, Google isn't emailing every news publisher about their service. (Or if they are, then I'm not only naive I'm also ignorant.)
Funny how not one word from Microsoft describes what code is actually infringing.
In other words, what functionality installing this patch is going to remove (if any; but if none, they would have stated that in BOLD CAPS at the top...).
Interesting. This leads me to question, would a news publisher change their robots.txt, and then sue?
How to prove it was changed? They're suing Google, so Google's cache would be suspect (I would presume). There are other caches, but have they ever been used as evidence in a quart of slaw?
Even though you won't hear this response, thank you for making me smile with your last line. I haven't listened to Meatloaf in years! (Now I'm listening to that song. wasted... youth!)
I'm torn between agreeing with you, and wondering "what's the next technological wonder that publishers are going to have to educate themselves about in order to defend their rights?"
On the one hand, robots.txt is simple.
On the other hand, publishers are not code jockeys (and robots.txt was not in the original spec).
Yes, if the default was opt-in, we'd get a lot less news. Perhaps we'd get better news? Those news publishers choosing not to opt-in would simply get fewer and fewer eyeballs as time went on (assuming Google continues its dominance, which after China is not certain).
With trademark law, the trademark owner must vigorously pursue violators. So if this was a trademark dispute, I could understand the onus being on the publishers to tell Google to cease and desist.
However, copyright law is not the same. A years-old violation of copyright can be brought to the court, and redress granted (I don't know how many years, but I'm guessing at least 5).
So the publishers' best bet is to STFU for 4.9 years, then start suing the pants off Google. Therefore, we should be happy that they're making a big stink now (because everyone knows copyrights should be abolished after the clusterfuck that Disney has made of them (someone should patent a perpetual motion machine with copyright extensions as supporting evidence!)).
So you're saying they should just _lie_ to the Chinese government?
Great idea. "Dear esteemed heads of Google, you are cordially invited to our palace where we will honor and reward you for helping our country roll into the new millenium."
I'm sure they're able to read between the lines, but were I a Google higher-up, I'd prefer not to travel to a hostile country where people disappear.
I bet nearly everyone of the diehard Firefly fans who went to see it also bought it when it came out on DVD.
I loved the show. I bought the DVD. I didn't see it in the theatres simply because I almost never go (there's no pause button), but I did purchase the DVD. I was very, very disappointed.
Don't get me wrong; it was the same 'verse, the same excellent witty dialog, the same characters and expressions (I love Mal's wry smiles).
However, they killed off two of the characters during the movie (both right near the end, so it wasn't even part of the story arc). It definitely seemed like a "nailing the coffin" ending.
One other thing that really didn't sit well with me was when Mal was talking to the bad guy, and Mal quickly said something like "I'm not gonna let you get a trace on me" and hung up. That's lifting a several-years-old technology hook from movies; these days, traces are instant (movies and TV shows still show them since the public is familiar, and those in authority would also rather the public not know about the change although I don't know how much say they have in TV/movies' creative direction...).
That really disrupted my suspension of disbelief ("my bridge of doubt"), and caused me to not only leap out of the environment for the end of the movie, but be actively pissed at the way they killed off those two characters. Wash's death was after all the action had stopped, even! Bah, I say.
However, if they make another season I'll probably buy in to it. Hopefully they'll treat the movie like the second Highlander, and keep those characters.
Or, better thought, they could explore the 6 years between the war and Persephone.
Slashdot Mirror
Judging from the little that goes through my Gmail account, and the daily barrage of build reports, merge notices, corporate notices, coworker questions, etc., I would say it would cost significantly more to host corporate accounts than it would to host personal accounts.
Of course, I'm mostly in agreement with you, since I think the cost per account whether corporate or personal is fairly negligible--and also, Google is able to send even more targeted ads to the corporate accounts.
Imagine sending a coworker a question, only to have Google auto-respond with the answer to the same question that the same coworker answered yesterday to someone else? Obviously there are legitimate privacy concerns, like it shouldn't auto-respond to "How much does Dave in accounting make?"
So asking "how much pay would you give up to have an office" isn't really paying attention to corporate culture; the submitter appears to be assuming that the two can be linked negatively (i.e., you can exchange pay for better office arrangement, which doesn't normally happen).
And anyway, they don't generally say, "Okay, now you have an office mate, what concessions would you like from us to compensate for your loss of privacy?" They generally say, "Okay, now you have an office mate."
That was a great song by the Godfathers, on Birth School Work Death.
Waking up this morning I was thinking exactly that: today I don't not want to not hear a non-message about Seinfeld.
That, and we didn't evolve with "schools" so I don't know that a female's biology can determine the difference between "1/4 to 1/3 of the time", versus "all the time" or "none of the time". Perhaps the incidence is higher in single mothers who home-school their female kid (meaning there'll be rotating boyfriends), but I haven't seen the data...
And, Google doesn't "tell them about it"; they have to know to look at Google's pages, Google isn't emailing every news publisher about their service. (Or if they are, then I'm not only naive I'm also ignorant.)
Because they have got shit all over them?
Lacking a womb, I consider myself summarily disqualified from this discussion.
I just wish fucking Bush would get the same clue.
In other words, what functionality installing this patch is going to remove (if any; but if none, they would have stated that in BOLD CAPS at the top...).
How to prove it was changed? They're suing Google, so Google's cache would be suspect (I would presume). There are other caches, but have they ever been used as evidence in a quart of slaw?
Even though you won't hear this response, thank you for making me smile with your last line. I haven't listened to Meatloaf in years! (Now I'm listening to that song. wasted... youth!)
On the one hand, robots.txt is simple.
On the other hand, publishers are not code jockeys (and robots.txt was not in the original spec).
Yes, if the default was opt-in, we'd get a lot less news. Perhaps we'd get better news? Those news publishers choosing not to opt-in would simply get fewer and fewer eyeballs as time went on (assuming Google continues its dominance, which after China is not certain).
With trademark law, the trademark owner must vigorously pursue violators. So if this was a trademark dispute, I could understand the onus being on the publishers to tell Google to cease and desist.
However, copyright law is not the same. A years-old violation of copyright can be brought to the court, and redress granted (I don't know how many years, but I'm guessing at least 5).
So the publishers' best bet is to STFU for 4.9 years, then start suing the pants off Google. Therefore, we should be happy that they're making a big stink now (because everyone knows copyrights should be abolished after the clusterfuck that Disney has made of them (someone should patent a perpetual motion machine with copyright extensions as supporting evidence!)).
True, and true. However, we've declared War on Drugs, Poverty, Education, and Secularism, so I think they already have enough prior art.
I think it has something to do with the Earth's gravitational pull. In the future. 1985, to be exact.
(Wow, even a pun in there. Unintentional.)
I found the fourth picture rather enlightening; it reminded me of the difference between ludes (left) and coke (right).
(Who would have thought Sandra Bullock's sister was a coke head?)
What's really rich is that, by even making a deal with Google, the Chinese government is embracing "western influence"!
Great idea. "Dear esteemed heads of Google, you are cordially invited to our palace where we will honor and reward you for helping our country roll into the new millenium."
I'm sure they're able to read between the lines, but were I a Google higher-up, I'd prefer not to travel to a hostile country where people disappear.
Now we're seeing it in USA, and ...
Hang on, there's a knock at the door.
"Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment."
FUCKING BULLSHIT! The real reason is to keep down spammer bots. Can't they be fucking forthright?
Um, Stanford, perhaps?
(I know, I know, I'm starting an academic flamewar. Well, lukewarm war.)
Or, Saddam Hussein amassing 4,000 of them to further his nuclear program.
(Well, perhaps the next nuclear gaming LAN party will be in North Korea...)
I still watched it. You should too.
I loved the show. I bought the DVD. I didn't see it in the theatres simply because I almost never go (there's no pause button), but I did purchase the DVD. I was very, very disappointed.
Don't get me wrong; it was the same 'verse, the same excellent witty dialog, the same characters and expressions (I love Mal's wry smiles).
However, they killed off two of the characters during the movie (both right near the end, so it wasn't even part of the story arc). It definitely seemed like a "nailing the coffin" ending.
One other thing that really didn't sit well with me was when Mal was talking to the bad guy, and Mal quickly said something like "I'm not gonna let you get a trace on me" and hung up. That's lifting a several-years-old technology hook from movies; these days, traces are instant (movies and TV shows still show them since the public is familiar, and those in authority would also rather the public not know about the change although I don't know how much say they have in TV/movies' creative direction...).
That really disrupted my suspension of disbelief ("my bridge of doubt"), and caused me to not only leap out of the environment for the end of the movie, but be actively pissed at the way they killed off those two characters. Wash's death was after all the action had stopped, even! Bah, I say.
However, if they make another season I'll probably buy in to it. Hopefully they'll treat the movie like the second Highlander, and keep those characters.
Or, better thought, they could explore the 6 years between the war and Persephone.
In other words, the US search is both surprisingly not vetted, and more accurate.