You could take a look at it... but what's the chance a student can get the school to change it?
You don't like the lighting, you'll have a lot of explaining to do if you want to say they need to change it or investigate it closely.
The only guaranteed way to get a school to change the lighting, is if you have some disability or medical condition such as epilepsy,
and you can tell them the lighting is a risk for you and ask them to change it.
That might work if the fluorescent lighting is flickering and indeed a danger, but otherwise....
You may need to organize an angry mob of students or persuade the professor / someone with influence to take up the cause...
It's widely known that EVERY species of long-lived, predatory ocean fish has significant mercury in it because it falls out of the fucking sky into the ocean from burning coal in power plants and then bioaccumulates.
Yes. Tuna and similar products are harmful to your health in large quantities, due to the mercury content.
However, fish / predatory sea animals that were grown in a farm / artificial growing environment might not be so contaminated, due to the structure or protections implemented.
Smaller water surface area = smaller accumulations of mercury in the water.
Sellers of Tuna that contains mercury to consumers should be required to put warnings on the can just like the "Surgeon General's warning" that has to be placed on boxes of cigarettes.
Mercury allowed in Tuna and Fluoride allowed to be added to municipal drinking water are indeed two great examples of where the FDA has totally failed.
And those are just the two we know about.... who knows what other games are being played with our drinking water.
We know the fluorine they get to put in drinking water comes from industrial hazardous waste;
fluorine would be expensive for the companies to dispose of legally, but instead they get to sell it to municipalities all over the country.
What other materials and impurities are in those waste-grade fluorine mineral products I wonder?
What other hazardous substances do they add to our water just below the FDA's opinion of the "safe" limits?
Do they even bother to know or check for sure about all the substances are (and their safery) that get added with the fluorine?
What about unknown ones.
The government is definitely not looking out for the people.
No... that's an artificial rationalization concocted for allowing industrial plants to continue to dispose of their poisonous fluorine wastes by selling them to water companies for injection into your drinking water.
It's similar to the there are minerals in there already, anyways argument.
Presumptively a 'safe' geotag is one that the user has control of.
The user should have options (A) No geotag [the default], (B) Fuzzy geotag that may reveal what city or state they are in, but not their actual location,
(C) Hi-Res Geotags
Their phone should ask them how detailed the Geotag should be before they take pictures.
Their graphics software / picture sharing websites should ask what to do with Geotags before uploading.
e.g. (A) Hide/remove all geotags, (B) Only let friends see GeoTag information, (C) Make all Geotags fuzzy
That's interesting and further evidence that Blizzard had some specific beef with bnetd, that they decided to prosecute them to the full extent of the law over.
It may have had to do with the fact that there was Warcraft III Beta support slated for bnetd,
and there were servers (outside of the US) running a fork of bnetd, and allowing players using the Warcraft III beta to connect to.
This would mean that Blizzard no longer controlled those Beta clients.... they couldn't disable them by simply locking them out of battle net when the Beta was over.
Someone who was using their code rattled Blizzard's cage too much, which perhaps provoked a response and a need to make an example out of someone...
Blizzard's installer required you to click 'Accept' to the EULA in order to install the software.
Blizzard argued that this meant installing the software requires acceptance of the EULA, and the court upheld Blizzard's position.
That is, because the EULA was shrink-wrapped, it's a contract, and people who install and run the software are bound by it.
But the cdkey was not being made available (this WOULD have required copyright license) and it doesn't stop you pirating the game, nor is bnetd's actions enabling piracy.
The algorithm for verifying CD Keys was not made available, because it's an anti-piracy measure, and Blizzard believes (or says) its security requires secrecy of the algorithm and any cryptographic material required to verify CD Keys.
If you want to argue the use and verification of CD Keys are not an anti-piracy measure, you will lose.
Unique CD Keys are required to install the software.
Unique CD keys have the stated purpose of deterring casual copying -- you cannot make and give a copy of the friend to a game without sharing your CD key.
Battle.net servers implement CD KEY verification prior to allowing access to multiplayer mode.
Since the software is a primarily multiplayer game, multiplayer play is extremely popular, and the type of gameplay done most often by most people, so control of access to multiplayer mode effectively protects the work and deters people from making casual copies.
"They failed to convince the court of the applicability of the exception to their situation. "
You mean the judge. See above.
You are drawing a distinction where there is none in the real world.
If the judge cannot even be convinced of something, then it generally follows that the court cannot be convinced.
"On appeal... BNETD was ruled a circumvention tool based on Blizzard's argument. "
Which argument is complete bollocks, but they had money and are important.
Maybe so, but noone's yet to provide a convincing reason why it is "complete bollocks".
Blizzard may be wrong, but they were pretty persuasive, and they convinced the court (which is what matters)
The bnetd developers had the game, which they reverse engineered, which meant they had agreed to the EULA which prohibits reverse engineering.
According to the court's summary judgement, the developers were bound by the EULA, which they were in breach of.
The developer's argued that "CD Keys" are not an anti-piracy measure, and 'battle.net' was not a valid trademark. Probably these arguments were a bit reaching... if CD Keys are not an anti-piracy measure, then what is their purpose?
On appeal...
BNETD was ruled a circumvention tool based on Blizzard's argument.
Developers argued EULA is overriden by the DMCA interoperability exception.
They failed to convince the court of the applicability of the exception to their situation.
Because when they saw the name 'bnetd' and blizzard name and imagery, the lawyers immediately saw an opportunity to justify their existence.
Once the thousand pound gorilla sees you and decides to sit on you, you are not going to change its mind by donning camouflage at that point.
If such an obvious name hadn't been chosen, it's doubtful Blizzard spidering for anyone using their protected names would have become aware of their existence, let alone pursued anything.
Remember, there were other similar programs which had been forked from bnetd, and were designed for Warcraft III play, with hacked WC3 beta copies?
Remember how blizzard pursued bnetd, but not the forks around at that time which were actually more blatant and being actively used by pirates (unlike bnetd which was used by legitimate players and didn't actively encourage piracy or distribute license hacks), but the forks just had a more obscure name, and nothing happened to them?
They have already been granted that ultimate authority, and probably have an agreement in place until the expiration of the cert in 2015, which they've presumably paid up or have paid annual fees to maintain.
To revoke the CA certificate you've signed and void everything they've signed and refuse to sign a new cert for them, you presumably need justification that will hold up in court, which will depend on the contract(s) in place.
An example justification would be your CSPs dictate the certificate should be revoked, for example, if you found it evident that they violated the CSPs you reviewed when you certified them.
Presumptively noone signs an agreement to get a private labelled CA in place,
pays their few hundred grand to the root CA, and agrees to a term that the root CA can revoke their certificate for any reason they please.
Companies don't generally buy expensive business-critical things and sign contracts that let the supplier just take the goods back at any time they please.
The dollar amount of the damage is still a consideration.
They are going to use their budget to go after criminals who kill lots of people or do millions in damage first.
Because companies that millions of damages are done to are taxpayers.
And in a better position than others to complain to legislators.
If police don't even bother to investigate a report by Apple of a million dollar theft, it can come back to haunt them.
If they do a stellar job, it could also come back in the form of a surprise donation to the police deprt' from the company....
but to call it left leaning is just silly unless you push an agenda.
Not necessarily.
Well, you think it is silly. But I am sure any rational person who called the media left leaning, had something specific in mind that they mean or intended to refer to and calling it 'left leaning' may have just been a (confusing) convenience on their part.
That is... I don't believe everyone has the same thing in mind or is thinking about the same types of things if they say "the media is biased to the right" or "the media has a leftist bias".
Where was this "left" American media in the build-up to the Iraq war?
Do you think opposing the war or the build up to a war on Iraq is a 'liberal' or 'left' position?
Both people who claimed to be "left" were in favor of a build up to war on Iraq, and people who claimed to be "right" were opposed to it.
Just because a politician is deemed 'right sided', does not mean every position they take is inherently a rightist position.
I believe when people refer to what they call "media bias", they are usually not referring to
media taking a non-neutral position in favor or against a certain politician.
For example, by closely scrutinizing failures, erratic activity, or scandals, of one politician, and not highly scrutinizing simular situations that arise with another politician.
An example of possible liberal media bias, would be the media digging into Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and covering it as much as possible.
And then when (say) a republican president were in office a few years later, a similar scandal arising, but the media not giving it much air time.
It is considered bias, because a politician with one political agenda appears to be given more criticism.
The amount of coverage the media gives to an issue effects people's awareness to the issue --
so giving a scandal more coverage hurts the subject more in terms of the public's perception, and giving less coverage to a scandal, benefits.
In this manner, the media is often seen to be biased on both directions at different times.
If he agreed with the left leaning thought, he would not see it as bias, he would simply see it as correct.
That is not necessarily true.
Even if was left leaning, he could still recognize the bias.
Opinions are neither correct nor incorrect.
Media can be biased even if everything being said is correct. There are many ways that bias or non-neutrality can be introduced intentionally or unintentionally.
If anything, if what you are saying is true, he is a -worse- human being for selling out his beliefs for the almighty dollar.
I don't intend to make any judgement regarding Murdoch as a human being.
Whether selling out 'your beliefs' for the almighty dollar is bad or not depends on your point of view.
Some people would regard sacrificing your own opinion to better yourself and provide more people access to something they want as requiring courage; other people would find it abhorrent.
If Murdoch has no beliefs or convictions that fall on either side of traditional politics, then it would follow that he wouldn't be 'selling out' any beliefs.
There are political positions that are neither right or left.
You are forgetting that democrats/republicans aren't the only possible political positions.
There are people with political positions that are diametrical opposites of left and right.
For example, we have what are referred to as "Anarchists", "Libertarians" / Progressives, and "Fascists".
We have Centrists, Authoritarians, Communists,
The political spectrum is a lot more complicated than "left and right".
And Murdoch has not explicitly revealed where he falls, that I have seen.
Since he perceives his competiors as biased to the left he obviously leans the other way.
Not necessarily.
It could be that his competitors are indeed biased to the left.
And he perceives that he has a lot of coverage biased to the right.
Him thinking his competition is biased to the left does not mean he has a conservative political opinion (or any opinions about politics or "which party is better", for that matter).
Don't assume the reasons based on the outcome.
That would be a cognitive bias in the form of a manifestation of the fundamental attribution error on your part...
Just because he has and may exercise editorial controls at times does not mean he personally believes the line he chooses to have a particular news outlet favor does, that is, does not mean he personally has that political opinion.
It can be a business decision on his part to back a particular party, in a newspaper, also.
That is: the decision can be made for other reasons, such as profit.
In certain areas, or for certain news outlets it may be more profitable for a newspaper to back a certain party, than an other, or than not to back one.
For example, if his research shows that more of his potential readers have a certain party affiliation, then backing that party may cause more people to read the paper.
In some areas, readers might boycott any paper that doesn't take a very strong stance against party Y and favor party X. ETC.
I'm raising my hand. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason. He's right more often than he is wrong. And he has the resources to back this venture.
No. He was right more often than he was wrong 20+ years ago at the time he made decisions that caused him to became a billionaire
A lot can change in 20 years.
The world we lived in underwent major changes when the internet and online news became popular.
We are in a completely different world today, and Murdoch is very much living in the old world.
So he may be right less often about things; doesn't mean Murdoch is dumb, it just means he has an incomplete/lacking understanding of all that has changed.
Less complete understanding of the present makes it a bit harder to understand let-alone predict and be right about the future
His thinking about iPad may be more hope than realistic expectation.
It's true the iPad presents an opportunity for him to sell electronic digital content.
But then again we have similar things available on computers and web sites..
News Corp's best chance at selling any news subscriptions for the iPad will be if it becomes more convenient for people to buy/read his content than other free sources, which is doubtful to be true for long.
Mr. Murdoch hasn't anticipated Google News and other ad-supported news products coming to the iPad.
What makes him think people will want to consume his for-pay content instead of free content, just because the presentation medium has changed slightly?
In the end News Corp's subsidiaries will probably have to go ad-supported, or become a dinousaur.
Alas, no. The patent license allows you to redistribute the Oracle version of Java, and even a modified version of the same. What it doesn't do is permit, in countries that recognize the patents, you to distribute a version that doesn't conform to the Java specification.
That's a problem. That restriction on the patent grant restricts you from modifying the software to no longer meet the Java specification, which is still modifying the software.
That requirement is in conflict with the GPL.
You cannot redistribute Java if received under the GPL period, due to that restriction.
But thanks to the 'National Security Letters' power, they don't have to tell anyone, and they can force all the parties involved to not disclose to the public that ALL UR BLACKBERRY MESSAGES ARE BELONG TO THEM.
Verizon Business. Actually the root certificate signing them is "GTE CyberTrust" /CN=GTE CyberTrust Global Root, OU = "GTE CyberTrust Solutions, Inc.", O = GTE Corporation, C=US/
For the benefit of anyone who would like to see full details, I have pastebin'd the entire certificate chain of a HTTPS session Etisalat cert chain
Issued to: CN=*.eim.ae, O=Etisalat, OU=SOM// Serial=0E:12
Issued by: CN=Comtrust Server Certification Authority, O=Etisalat, OU=Etisalat eBusiness Services, Not valid before 5/6/09, not valid after 5/6/11
SHA1
Comtrust Server Certification Authority
Issued by: CN=Comtrust Root Certification Authority, OU=Etisalat eBusiness Services, O=Etisalat, C=AE
Issued to: CN=Comtrust Server Certification Authority, O=Etisalat, OU=Etisalat eBusiness Services, C = AE
Not valid before 10/5/06 6:24:51 GMT
Not valid after 12/19/15 23:59:00 GMT
CRL not-critical URI: http://comtrust.etisalat.ae/rootca.crl
Comtrust Root Certification Authority
Issued by: CN=GTE CyberTrust Global Root, OU = "GTE CyberTrust Solutions, Inc.", O = GTE Corporation, C=US
Issued to: CN=Comtrust Root Certification Authority, OU=Etisalat eBusiness Services, O=Etisalat, C=AE
Not valid before 12/19/05 18:13:00 GMT
Not valid after 12/19/15 23:59:00 GMT
CRL not-critical URI: http://www.public-trust.com/cgi-bin/CRL/2018/cdp.crl
Slashdot Mirror
You could take a look at it... but what's the chance a student can get the school to change it? You don't like the lighting, you'll have a lot of explaining to do if you want to say they need to change it or investigate it closely.
The only guaranteed way to get a school to change the lighting, is if you have some disability or medical condition such as epilepsy, and you can tell them the lighting is a risk for you and ask them to change it.
That might work if the fluorescent lighting is flickering and indeed a danger, but otherwise....
You may need to organize an angry mob of students or persuade the professor / someone with influence to take up the cause...
It's widely known that EVERY species of long-lived, predatory ocean fish has significant mercury in it because it falls out of the fucking sky into the ocean from burning coal in power plants and then bioaccumulates.
Yes. Tuna and similar products are harmful to your health in large quantities, due to the mercury content. However, fish / predatory sea animals that were grown in a farm / artificial growing environment might not be so contaminated, due to the structure or protections implemented.
Smaller water surface area = smaller accumulations of mercury in the water.
Sellers of Tuna that contains mercury to consumers should be required to put warnings on the can just like the "Surgeon General's warning" that has to be placed on boxes of cigarettes.
Mercury allowed in Tuna and Fluoride allowed to be added to municipal drinking water are indeed two great examples of where the FDA has totally failed.
And those are just the two we know about.... who knows what other games are being played with our drinking water.
We know the fluorine they get to put in drinking water comes from industrial hazardous waste; fluorine would be expensive for the companies to dispose of legally, but instead they get to sell it to municipalities all over the country.
What other materials and impurities are in those waste-grade fluorine mineral products I wonder?
What other hazardous substances do they add to our water just below the FDA's opinion of the "safe" limits?
Do they even bother to know or check for sure about all the substances are (and their safery) that get added with the fluorine? What about unknown ones.
The government is definitely not looking out for the people.
No... that's an artificial rationalization concocted for allowing industrial plants to continue to dispose of their poisonous fluorine wastes by selling them to water companies for injection into your drinking water.
It's similar to the there are minerals in there already, anyways argument.
Presumptively a 'safe' geotag is one that the user has control of.
The user should have options (A) No geotag [the default], (B) Fuzzy geotag that may reveal what city or state they are in, but not their actual location, (C) Hi-Res Geotags
Their phone should ask them how detailed the Geotag should be before they take pictures.
Their graphics software / picture sharing websites should ask what to do with Geotags before uploading.
e.g. (A) Hide/remove all geotags, (B) Only let friends see GeoTag information, (C) Make all Geotags fuzzy
With the default being A.
That's interesting and further evidence that Blizzard had some specific beef with bnetd, that they decided to prosecute them to the full extent of the law over.
It may have had to do with the fact that there was Warcraft III Beta support slated for bnetd, and there were servers (outside of the US) running a fork of bnetd, and allowing players using the Warcraft III beta to connect to.
This would mean that Blizzard no longer controlled those Beta clients.... they couldn't disable them by simply locking them out of battle net when the Beta was over.
Someone who was using their code rattled Blizzard's cage too much, which perhaps provoked a response and a need to make an example out of someone...
EULA wasn't needed to run the game
Blizzard's installer required you to click 'Accept' to the EULA in order to install the software. Blizzard argued that this meant installing the software requires acceptance of the EULA, and the court upheld Blizzard's position.
That is, because the EULA was shrink-wrapped, it's a contract, and people who install and run the software are bound by it.
But the cdkey was not being made available (this WOULD have required copyright license) and it doesn't stop you pirating the game, nor is bnetd's actions enabling piracy.
The algorithm for verifying CD Keys was not made available, because it's an anti-piracy measure, and Blizzard believes (or says) its security requires secrecy of the algorithm and any cryptographic material required to verify CD Keys.
If you want to argue the use and verification of CD Keys are not an anti-piracy measure, you will lose.
Unique CD Keys are required to install the software. Unique CD keys have the stated purpose of deterring casual copying -- you cannot make and give a copy of the friend to a game without sharing your CD key. Battle.net servers implement CD KEY verification prior to allowing access to multiplayer mode.
Since the software is a primarily multiplayer game, multiplayer play is extremely popular, and the type of gameplay done most often by most people, so control of access to multiplayer mode effectively protects the work and deters people from making casual copies.
"They failed to convince the court of the applicability of the exception to their situation. "
You mean the judge. See above.
You are drawing a distinction where there is none in the real world. If the judge cannot even be convinced of something, then it generally follows that the court cannot be convinced.
"On appeal... BNETD was ruled a circumvention tool based on Blizzard's argument. "
Which argument is complete bollocks, but they had money and are important.
Maybe so, but noone's yet to provide a convincing reason why it is "complete bollocks".
Blizzard may be wrong, but they were pretty persuasive, and they convinced the court (which is what matters)
The bnetd developers had the game, which they reverse engineered, which meant they had agreed to the EULA which prohibits reverse engineering.
According to the court's summary judgement, the developers were bound by the EULA, which they were in breach of.
The developer's argued that "CD Keys" are not an anti-piracy measure, and 'battle.net' was not a valid trademark. Probably these arguments were a bit reaching... if CD Keys are not an anti-piracy measure, then what is their purpose?
On appeal... BNETD was ruled a circumvention tool based on Blizzard's argument.
Developers argued EULA is overriden by the DMCA interoperability exception.
They failed to convince the court of the applicability of the exception to their situation.
Because when they saw the name 'bnetd' and blizzard name and imagery, the lawyers immediately saw an opportunity to justify their existence.
Once the thousand pound gorilla sees you and decides to sit on you, you are not going to change its mind by donning camouflage at that point.
If such an obvious name hadn't been chosen, it's doubtful Blizzard spidering for anyone using their protected names would have become aware of their existence, let alone pursued anything.
Remember, there were other similar programs which had been forked from bnetd, and were designed for Warcraft III play, with hacked WC3 beta copies?
Remember how blizzard pursued bnetd, but not the forks around at that time which were actually more blatant and being actively used by pirates (unlike bnetd which was used by legitimate players and didn't actively encourage piracy or distribute license hacks), but the forks just had a more obscure name, and nothing happened to them?
That's right. The departments put their best and brightest on the task, which is not your average cop on the street.
Your average cop on the street is a traffic patrol, not a detective or crime investigator; they are different jobs.
Also, the FBI doesn't have your "average cop" on the street, period.
Unless they're investigating or dealing with a suspected or anticipated major crime, there aren't FBI agents "on the street", per se.
They minded that because the developers were stupid enough to call the product "bnetd" and refer to Blzzard's trademarked name battle net...
They have already been granted that ultimate authority, and probably have an agreement in place until the expiration of the cert in 2015, which they've presumably paid up or have paid annual fees to maintain.
To revoke the CA certificate you've signed and void everything they've signed and refuse to sign a new cert for them, you presumably need justification that will hold up in court, which will depend on the contract(s) in place.
An example justification would be your CSPs dictate the certificate should be revoked, for example, if you found it evident that they violated the CSPs you reviewed when you certified them.
Presumptively noone signs an agreement to get a private labelled CA in place, pays their few hundred grand to the root CA, and agrees to a term that the root CA can revoke their certificate for any reason they please.
Companies don't generally buy expensive business-critical things and sign contracts that let the supplier just take the goods back at any time they please.
Did he lie to the suppliers, leak fake information to get the kickbacks?
Or is this really about him using a code word and referring to payments as 'samples' ?
The dollar amount of the damage is still a consideration.
They are going to use their budget to go after criminals who kill lots of people or do millions in damage first.
Because companies that millions of damages are done to are taxpayers. And in a better position than others to complain to legislators.
If police don't even bother to investigate a report by Apple of a million dollar theft, it can come back to haunt them. If they do a stellar job, it could also come back in the form of a surprise donation to the police deprt' from the company....
but to call it left leaning is just silly unless you push an agenda.
Not necessarily.
Well, you think it is silly. But I am sure any rational person who called the media left leaning, had something specific in mind that they mean or intended to refer to and calling it 'left leaning' may have just been a (confusing) convenience on their part.
That is... I don't believe everyone has the same thing in mind or is thinking about the same types of things if they say "the media is biased to the right" or "the media has a leftist bias".
Where was this "left" American media in the build-up to the Iraq war?
Do you think opposing the war or the build up to a war on Iraq is a 'liberal' or 'left' position?
Both people who claimed to be "left" were in favor of a build up to war on Iraq, and people who claimed to be "right" were opposed to it.
Just because a politician is deemed 'right sided', does not mean every position they take is inherently a rightist position.
I believe when people refer to what they call "media bias", they are usually not referring to media taking a non-neutral position in favor or against a certain politician.
For example, by closely scrutinizing failures, erratic activity, or scandals, of one politician, and not highly scrutinizing simular situations that arise with another politician.
An example of possible liberal media bias, would be the media digging into Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and covering it as much as possible.
And then when (say) a republican president were in office a few years later, a similar scandal arising, but the media not giving it much air time.
It is considered bias, because a politician with one political agenda appears to be given more criticism.
The amount of coverage the media gives to an issue effects people's awareness to the issue -- so giving a scandal more coverage hurts the subject more in terms of the public's perception, and giving less coverage to a scandal, benefits.
In this manner, the media is often seen to be biased on both directions at different times.
If he agreed with the left leaning thought, he would not see it as bias, he would simply see it as correct.
That is not necessarily true. Even if was left leaning, he could still recognize the bias. Opinions are neither correct nor incorrect.
Media can be biased even if everything being said is correct. There are many ways that bias or non-neutrality can be introduced intentionally or unintentionally.
If anything, if what you are saying is true, he is a -worse- human being for selling out his beliefs for the almighty dollar.
I don't intend to make any judgement regarding Murdoch as a human being.
Whether selling out 'your beliefs' for the almighty dollar is bad or not depends on your point of view.
Some people would regard sacrificing your own opinion to better yourself and provide more people access to something they want as requiring courage; other people would find it abhorrent.
If Murdoch has no beliefs or convictions that fall on either side of traditional politics, then it would follow that he wouldn't be 'selling out' any beliefs.
There are political positions that are neither right or left.
You are forgetting that democrats/republicans aren't the only possible political positions.
There are people with political positions that are diametrical opposites of left and right.
For example, we have what are referred to as "Anarchists", "Libertarians" / Progressives, and "Fascists".
We have Centrists, Authoritarians, Communists,
The political spectrum is a lot more complicated than "left and right". And Murdoch has not explicitly revealed where he falls, that I have seen.
Since he perceives his competiors as biased to the left he obviously leans the other way.
Not necessarily. It could be that his competitors are indeed biased to the left. And he perceives that he has a lot of coverage biased to the right.
Him thinking his competition is biased to the left does not mean he has a conservative political opinion (or any opinions about politics or "which party is better", for that matter).
Don't assume the reasons based on the outcome. That would be a cognitive bias in the form of a manifestation of the fundamental attribution error on your part...
Just because he has and may exercise editorial controls at times does not mean he personally believes the line he chooses to have a particular news outlet favor does, that is, does not mean he personally has that political opinion. It can be a business decision on his part to back a particular party, in a newspaper, also.
That is: the decision can be made for other reasons, such as profit. In certain areas, or for certain news outlets it may be more profitable for a newspaper to back a certain party, than an other, or than not to back one.
For example, if his research shows that more of his potential readers have a certain party affiliation, then backing that party may cause more people to read the paper. In some areas, readers might boycott any paper that doesn't take a very strong stance against party Y and favor party X. ETC.
I'm raising my hand. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason. He's right more often than he is wrong. And he has the resources to back this venture.
No. He was right more often than he was wrong 20+ years ago at the time he made decisions that caused him to became a billionaire
A lot can change in 20 years.
The world we lived in underwent major changes when the internet and online news became popular.
We are in a completely different world today, and Murdoch is very much living in the old world. So he may be right less often about things; doesn't mean Murdoch is dumb, it just means he has an incomplete/lacking understanding of all that has changed.
Less complete understanding of the present makes it a bit harder to understand let-alone predict and be right about the future
His thinking about iPad may be more hope than realistic expectation.
It's true the iPad presents an opportunity for him to sell electronic digital content.
But then again we have similar things available on computers and web sites..
News Corp's best chance at selling any news subscriptions for the iPad will be if it becomes more convenient for people to buy/read his content than other free sources, which is doubtful to be true for long.
Even non-"professional" journalism costs money. If for nothing more than to run the servers....
Mr. Murdoch hasn't anticipated Google News and other ad-supported news products coming to the iPad.
What makes him think people will want to consume his for-pay content instead of free content, just because the presentation medium has changed slightly?
In the end News Corp's subsidiaries will probably have to go ad-supported, or become a dinousaur.
WOT is worthless. As you have seen, it's just a popularity contest.
People who disagree with something that I site said (true or not), maliciously report the site to try to get it listed as 'untrustworhy'.
Neither Foxnews nor MSNBC put out that much propaganda.
But there are people with a political agenda, who want a news network that fully conforms to their particular bias du jour.
The media is "biased" if it presents any view I disagree with in a non-negative light.
Alas, no. The patent license allows you to redistribute the Oracle version of Java, and even a modified version of the same. What it doesn't do is permit, in countries that recognize the patents, you to distribute a version that doesn't conform to the Java specification.
That's a problem. That restriction on the patent grant restricts you from modifying the software to no longer meet the Java specification, which is still modifying the software.
That requirement is in conflict with the GPL. You cannot redistribute Java if received under the GPL period, due to that restriction.
But thanks to the 'National Security Letters' power, they don't have to tell anyone, and they can force all the parties involved to not disclose to the public that ALL UR BLACKBERRY MESSAGES ARE BELONG TO THEM.
Verizon Business. Actually the root certificate signing them is "GTE CyberTrust"
/CN=GTE CyberTrust Global Root, OU = "GTE CyberTrust Solutions, Inc.", O = GTE Corporation, C=US/
For the benefit of anyone who would like to see full details, I have pastebin'd the entire certificate chain of a HTTPS session Etisalat cert chain
Based on the certificate presented by https://www.eim.ae/:
*.eim.ae
Comtrust Server Certification Authority
Comtrust Root Certification Authority