WTF? Mod parent flamebait, offtopic, or just plain stupid. Why write that? You don't know me or what I do. Is there anything I said there that is incorrect?
So, the investment bank did a very good job in pricing.
The investment banks pinned the price to $38. You can clearly see by the graph that it wanted to fall below that. They pinned it at $40 for a while. I thought that was going to hold but it didn't. Must have been too much selling pressure for them to finance at that level. So the banks actually did a poor job of pricing. They seriously overestimated the demand.
Perhaps there is something in this bunch that helps FB against the Yahoo suit. That is still on, right? Such silly games we force companies (and people) to play.
Wasn't the idea for having patents in the first place mainly to spur on the small time inventor? Hello, sir or madame government person, how is that working out? These contests appear to be another sign that it isn't going so well!
I actually heard this question asked on the show "Are you dumber than a first grader".
True or false, the sun is at the center of the universe.
The contestant, of course, answered true.
I, on the other hand, after purchasing the HP books, feel entitled to the digital copy (for a small formatting fee). If I bought a DVD long ago, I should be able to get the new BD for a formatting + disc + burning fee. I bought the content, not the media it is on. So, if over time that content becomes available in other formats, I should not have to pay for it again, only for the costs (if any) of reformatting.
If you say a site must be delisted if it has 50% or more infringing content, how do you figure that out?
It's either infringing or it isn't, it's not hard to determine. I don't think it even matters what the percentage is, it should have never gotten to this point, the onus should have always bee on the webmaster to not post up blatant infringement.
If you think it is not hard to determine, then we have nothing more to talk about. You are one of those people that don't "understand ANYTHING about IT". The webmaster at piratebay never posted anything that was infringing. He may never have posted anything.
Giving someone power to close a website based on a feeling is stifling free speech.
ISPs and hosting providers already have that power, so yeah, silly argument is silly. Stifling free speech is stifling free speech. It's not about what you can do, but about what you actually do do.
I don't think they do have that power. If all hosting providers were to conspire together to not host a website, they have no legal basis on which to do it.
Second, they're asking for the delisting of something that's illegal, Google doesn;t exactly list snuff or child porn sites either. Not that I'm putting piracy at the same level as the other two, only pointing out that other blatantly illegal stuff gets de-listed all the time. Why's it so bad to de-list p2p networks? This proposal doesn't even have anything technical about it.
Have you thought about what you are asking? How does google identify a "p2p network" to delist? That is where the problem lies in all this. It isn't technically difficult for them to never show any links to piratebay, it is technically impossible to figure out that piratebay needs to be removed in the first place. Oh, somebody is just going to tell them what to remove. Then who gets to decide what sites to delist?
... or how it would kill wikipedia, despite wikipedia's policy of using only material that's free to use or in the public domain (meaning wiki would be unaffected). And then there's the whole tiff about how these things somehow kill free speech (pro tip: pirating isn't freedom of speech).
Again, the problem with SOPA is a lack of due process in shutting down websites. That leads, without using much imagination, to the possibility of wikipedia being shut down by accusation alone. Shutting down websites without due process does by definition kill free speech. SOPA is just plain bad legislation. If you think different, I'd like to live on a different planet from you.
But go on, keep pretending like de-listing sites from search engines somehow teabags free speach to death and sodomizes the internet's mother, if that's what makes you feel better.
Actually it makes me feel worse. And I ain't pretending. Who decides? Do you believe your fellow men to be saints? Where in any of this legislation is the un-biased process to decide what sites to delist? See, the problem they have, if they want to define the process, is that they then have to quantify and qualify things specifically. eg. If you say a site must be delisted if it has 50% or more infringing content, how do you figure that out? Oh, it is just a feeling you have that most of the stuff on pirate bay is infringing. Giving someone power to close a website based on a feeling is stifling free speech.
I guess you missed the point of what I was trying to say. One of my points was that religion and science are one and the same and both are biased. Take for example, a scientist who is a biblical Christian. He/she is going to look at the at a piece of data with the mindset that everything was created by God. An evolutionist is going to look at that same piece of data with the mindset that there is no God and that everything is the result of random chance. Both are observing the data with their own personal biased views.
No, you really don't get it! An evolutionist is going to look at that same piece of data with the mindset that it does not matter if there is a God or not. If there was evidence of a God, and it helped explain things better (produce more predictable results) than without introducing the additional complexity of a God, then the evolutionist would be concerned with God. Why is it so difficult for some of you to understand that shouting "God" is only of any concern to a scientist if shouting "God" predictably changed the results of said scientists experiment.
Neither science nor religion are based on 100% total fact. A scientific theory, (as is much religion), is based on what appears to be known about something from a given set of data. Can you explain Dark Matter with 100% certainty? No. Can you explain Intelligent Design with 100% certainty? No. You can make a lot of guesses but in the end those guesses are subjective.
I reply to this only because I take offense at it having a score of 3. What this person is saying is nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding of science. If there is one thing science is not, that is subjective. Science is also based 100% on the facts. Every time a new fact comes in, science has to take it into consideration. Dark Matter is an explanation for a gap where the current science does not fit the facts. I just explained to you what DM is with 100% certainty.
Regardless I'm not a failure, when life is over I will be triumphant and I think you'll be shocked at how wrong you are.
Arrogant much?
This illustrates my problem with (many) religious types, perfectly. Audacious self-indulgence is shown when they place their beliefs as superior or true above the delusions of others. Ironically a tenet of many religions is humility.
The reason that they "aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall" is in a large part because of your tea baggers.
The extremist views coming into play at this time are a reaction to the continuous status quo that is getting us no where. When a spring is wound too much in one direction it takes a lot of tension in the other just to pull it back to the middle. I keep hearing people say that they will not vote for a libertarian because if we do the radical changes they make will cause things to break or conditions to worsen. But to me that is an excuse to remain with the status quo. Our system doesn't work in a way that anyone gets what they want, especially not overnight. If you vote for the moderate that accurately represents your position, you are unlikely ever to see a system that has that position. You need to weigh how far things are out of whack and put enough tension in the other direction that the system arrow will come to rest at the position you want when it balances out.
Or alternatively the "theft" being referred to in the data snooping case is that of privacy. In the music distribution case if someone downloads a copy of a song the original owner of the song has lost nothing - they still have their copy. In the data snooping case the original owner of the history has lost something - they no longer their privacy.
Following that line of argument, the owner of the copyright on the song has lost something as well - the ability to control who/ when/ where the song can be copied.
I suspect that the relatively brief period between the breakdown of the 'symmetric transparency' of village and smaller social groups and the rise of the 'asymmetric transparency' of rationalized, technocratic surveillance will be looked back upon as a curious historical anomaly.
Is there any way I can save both Zion and Trinity?
Slashdot Mirror
WTF? Mod parent flamebait, offtopic, or just plain stupid. Why write that? You don't know me or what I do. Is there anything I said there that is incorrect?
I'm terrible with money...
Buying Facebook stock now will result in making a bunch of money.
I am perplexed why anyone would waste their precious mod points to +1 you on this posting!
So, the investment bank did a very good job in pricing.
The investment banks pinned the price to $38. You can clearly see by the graph that it wanted to fall below that. They pinned it at $40 for a while. I thought that was going to hold but it didn't. Must have been too much selling pressure for them to finance at that level. So the banks actually did a poor job of pricing. They seriously overestimated the demand.
You make a good point. I'm in at $40 - let's see how the rest of the day goes :)
You are in luck. It looks like the Market Movers aren't going to let FB fall below $38 for the day.
I thought Cyberdyne Systems was the leader in this area.
That was in the other timeline!
Perhaps there is something in this bunch that helps FB against the Yahoo suit. That is still on, right? Such silly games we force companies (and people) to play.
Wasn't the idea for having patents in the first place mainly to spur on the small time inventor? Hello, sir or madame government person, how is that working out? These contests appear to be another sign that it isn't going so well!
JAFFE!!!
Breed and then sell them and see if anybody sues you.
I actually heard this question asked on the show "Are you dumber than a first grader". True or false, the sun is at the center of the universe. The contestant, of course, answered true.
The waste of fuel and money on these helicopter searches is disgusting.
I, on the other hand, after purchasing the HP books, feel entitled to the digital copy (for a small formatting fee). If I bought a DVD long ago, I should be able to get the new BD for a formatting + disc + burning fee. I bought the content, not the media it is on. So, if over time that content becomes available in other formats, I should not have to pay for it again, only for the costs (if any) of reformatting.
If you say a site must be delisted if it has 50% or more infringing content, how do you figure that out?
It's either infringing or it isn't, it's not hard to determine. I don't think it even matters what the percentage is, it should have never gotten to this point, the onus should have always bee on the webmaster to not post up blatant infringement.
If you think it is not hard to determine, then we have nothing more to talk about. You are one of those people that don't "understand ANYTHING about IT". The webmaster at piratebay never posted anything that was infringing. He may never have posted anything.
Giving someone power to close a website based on a feeling is stifling free speech.
ISPs and hosting providers already have that power, so yeah, silly argument is silly. Stifling free speech is stifling free speech. It's not about what you can do, but about what you actually do do.
I don't think they do have that power. If all hosting providers were to conspire together to not host a website, they have no legal basis on which to do it.
Second, they're asking for the delisting of something that's illegal, Google doesn;t exactly list snuff or child porn sites either. Not that I'm putting piracy at the same level as the other two, only pointing out that other blatantly illegal stuff gets de-listed all the time. Why's it so bad to de-list p2p networks? This proposal doesn't even have anything technical about it.
Have you thought about what you are asking? How does google identify a "p2p network" to delist? That is where the problem lies in all this. It isn't technically difficult for them to never show any links to piratebay, it is technically impossible to figure out that piratebay needs to be removed in the first place. Oh, somebody is just going to tell them what to remove. Then who gets to decide what sites to delist?
... or how it would kill wikipedia, despite wikipedia's policy of using only material that's free to use or in the public domain (meaning wiki would be unaffected). And then there's the whole tiff about how these things somehow kill free speech (pro tip: pirating isn't freedom of speech).
Again, the problem with SOPA is a lack of due process in shutting down websites. That leads, without using much imagination, to the possibility of wikipedia being shut down by accusation alone. Shutting down websites without due process does by definition kill free speech. SOPA is just plain bad legislation. If you think different, I'd like to live on a different planet from you.
But go on, keep pretending like de-listing sites from search engines somehow teabags free speach to death and sodomizes the internet's mother, if that's what makes you feel better.
Actually it makes me feel worse. And I ain't pretending. Who decides? Do you believe your fellow men to be saints? Where in any of this legislation is the un-biased process to decide what sites to delist? See, the problem they have, if they want to define the process, is that they then have to quantify and qualify things specifically. eg. If you say a site must be delisted if it has 50% or more infringing content, how do you figure that out? Oh, it is just a feeling you have that most of the stuff on pirate bay is infringing. Giving someone power to close a website based on a feeling is stifling free speech.
I guess you missed the point of what I was trying to say. One of my points was that religion and science are one and the same and both are biased. Take for example, a scientist who is a biblical Christian. He/she is going to look at the at a piece of data with the mindset that everything was created by God. An evolutionist is going to look at that same piece of data with the mindset that there is no God and that everything is the result of random chance. Both are observing the data with their own personal biased views.
No, you really don't get it! An evolutionist is going to look at that same piece of data with the mindset that it does not matter if there is a God or not. If there was evidence of a God, and it helped explain things better (produce more predictable results) than without introducing the additional complexity of a God, then the evolutionist would be concerned with God. Why is it so difficult for some of you to understand that shouting "God" is only of any concern to a scientist if shouting "God" predictably changed the results of said scientists experiment.
Neither science nor religion are based on 100% total fact. A scientific theory, (as is much religion), is based on what appears to be known about something from a given set of data. Can you explain Dark Matter with 100% certainty? No. Can you explain Intelligent Design with 100% certainty? No. You can make a lot of guesses but in the end those guesses are subjective.
I reply to this only because I take offense at it having a score of 3. What this person is saying is nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding of science. If there is one thing science is not, that is subjective. Science is also based 100% on the facts. Every time a new fact comes in, science has to take it into consideration. Dark Matter is an explanation for a gap where the current science does not fit the facts. I just explained to you what DM is with 100% certainty.
Regardless I'm not a failure, when life is over I will be triumphant and I think you'll be shocked at how wrong you are.
Arrogant much? This illustrates my problem with (many) religious types, perfectly. Audacious self-indulgence is shown when they place their beliefs as superior or true above the delusions of others. Ironically a tenet of many religions is humility.
if Ron Paul were president, he'd be spending a lonely four years in the White House with a Congress that would refuse to work with him.
So what you are saying is that nothing will change from how it is now.
"There are billions and billions of planets. And Pluto isn't one of them."
The reason that they "aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall" is in a large part because of your tea baggers. The extremist views coming into play at this time are a reaction to the continuous status quo that is getting us no where. When a spring is wound too much in one direction it takes a lot of tension in the other just to pull it back to the middle. I keep hearing people say that they will not vote for a libertarian because if we do the radical changes they make will cause things to break or conditions to worsen. But to me that is an excuse to remain with the status quo. Our system doesn't work in a way that anyone gets what they want, especially not overnight. If you vote for the moderate that accurately represents your position, you are unlikely ever to see a system that has that position. You need to weigh how far things are out of whack and put enough tension in the other direction that the system arrow will come to rest at the position you want when it balances out.
Or alternatively the "theft" being referred to in the data snooping case is that of privacy. In the music distribution case if someone downloads a copy of a song the original owner of the song has lost nothing - they still have their copy. In the data snooping case the original owner of the history has lost something - they no longer their privacy.
Following that line of argument, the owner of the copyright on the song has lost something as well - the ability to control who/ when/ where the song can be copied.
It is funny. C'mon, we aren't allowed a little fun?
Patents aren't the problem, stupid patents are the problem.
All patents are stupid.
I suspect that the relatively brief period between the breakdown of the 'symmetric transparency' of village and smaller social groups and the rise of the 'asymmetric transparency' of rationalized, technocratic surveillance will be looked back upon as a curious historical anomaly.
Is there any way I can save both Zion and Trinity?
du ~/pr0n/downloads/