I think they do have to expend active effort eliminating accounts opened with false information if they want to claim that accounts opened with false information are injurious to them.
They need to demonstrate that they care about false information all the time, not just when it makes them look bad. If they are ignoring thousands of accounts that were opened with false information (I have no idea what the real numbers are; I doubt MySpace has any sort of reasonable idea), it dramatically weakens their ability to claim that the resources they are expending on 1 of those accounts are somehow injurious.
Right, but how many active users of MySpace registered with false information? How much effort does MySpace expend trying to deal with them? If MySpace isn't doing anything (and they are not, as far as my limited awareness extends), they have an awful hard time arguing that the false information was injurious in this case (based on a line in the TOS; if they aren't enforcing the TOS, they shouldn't be relevant).
The overall actions of the lady are a PR disaster for them, but they can't go claiming, after the fact, that her lies are worse for them than the lies they are ignoring.
Read "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker and "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris. They make an excellent case for it being a mix of nature and environment (i.e., your peers growing up are at least as important as your parents; think about the language and accents of transplanted children) rather than nature and nurture.
To some extent, the difference between nurture and environment is quibbling, but nurture is pretty loaded at this point.
Having a no annual fee credit card that you pay off every month doesn't cost you a cent and will increase your credit score.
(this is something most people who have plans to buy a house should be doing as they will very likely have a mortgage and an increased credit score generally makes it easier/possible to get a better rate)
I'm fine with society unrolling (so to speak) the genetic dice (to make sure no one misunderstands, I mean that it is a good thing for society to step in and pay for expensive treatments for people that need them from birth), but can we go ahead and call it a tax instead of dancing around pretending that it is insurance?
Personally, I thought locking, hardened cockpit doors were a pretty good response to 9/11, and I didn't really understand why there were high strung 20-somethings with M16s in the airport the first time I flew after the incident (well, I did understand, they were there to make people feel better, but I didn't see that they would possibly be shooting at anything). Checking IDs probably makes it harder to kill a plane full of people, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people walking around with officially issued identification that is falsified or inaccurate.
So your argument is that because some things that are called security are necessary and beneficial, anything that is called security must be necessary and beneficial?
Yes, but if you are choosing properly between wasting time building the thing and wasting time drinking a beer, getting seen with it isn't a problem, it doesn't exist.
There isn't any reason for someone with an insubstantial number of shares to ever think that they own part of the company. It makes a lot more sense to think of the money as a loan if you can't do much more than vote in the shareholder meeting once a year.
Your tense is all wrong. At most, the U.S. banking system is going belly-up.
More likely, Crazy Cramer is correct and Wall street is in the midst of recovery, with the rest of the economy to follow over the next year or so (because nay-sayers and doom-cryers aside, the U.S. economy is, no really, it is, productive, so the disaster is only partial).
That's relatively high cost. If you are paying (luke) warm bodies $60,000 a year (and another $30,000 in benefits and shit), $600 software doesn't have to improve their productivity a whole lot to be entirely and completely worth it. Especially if you only pay that $600 every two or three years.
End to end encryption to an unknown host doesn't increase security. It increases privacy (by limiting access to the communication to the connected parties), but it doesn't do anything to prevent hijacking.
Compare the statements made in the summary to the actual statements made in the annual report (or in the article). The annual report makes statements (that I find to be reasonable) about market conditions; the summary distorts those statements from being about what their competitors *can* do with open source (spend less on development, implement copies of software/features and distribute them cheaply) to implying that open source *only* does those things.
The annual report doesn't make any statement to the effect that "Open source projects don't innovate", it says:
"A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services and products. These firms do not bear the full costs of research and development for the software. Some of these firms may build upon Microsoft ideas that we provide to them free or at low royalties in connection with our interoperability initiatives. To the extent open source software gains increasing market acceptance, our sales, revenue and operating margins may decline."
Microsoft isn't failing. Look at their revenue growth (in absolute terms, they have grown more than Google since forever; Google just grows faster relative to size).
And really, read the letter, it doesn't say "Open Source doesn't innovate", it says (roughly) "Open Source is able to take ideas from our products, which ca make it harder for us to sell them". That's pretty reasonable disclosure of the market conditions that they face.
Slashdot Mirror
The rich and powerful fly on private jets and don't bother with airport security at all.
Clear is for their functionaries.
I think they do have to expend active effort eliminating accounts opened with false information if they want to claim that accounts opened with false information are injurious to them.
They need to demonstrate that they care about false information all the time, not just when it makes them look bad. If they are ignoring thousands of accounts that were opened with false information (I have no idea what the real numbers are; I doubt MySpace has any sort of reasonable idea), it dramatically weakens their ability to claim that the resources they are expending on 1 of those accounts are somehow injurious.
Right, but how many active users of MySpace registered with false information? How much effort does MySpace expend trying to deal with them? If MySpace isn't doing anything (and they are not, as far as my limited awareness extends), they have an awful hard time arguing that the false information was injurious in this case (based on a line in the TOS; if they aren't enforcing the TOS, they shouldn't be relevant).
The overall actions of the lady are a PR disaster for them, but they can't go claiming, after the fact, that her lies are worse for them than the lies they are ignoring.
It isn't clear to me that the TOS can be used to establish legal injury, so it isn't clear to me that it was fraud.
Read "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker and "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris. They make an excellent case for it being a mix of nature and environment (i.e., your peers growing up are at least as important as your parents; think about the language and accents of transplanted children) rather than nature and nurture.
To some extent, the difference between nurture and environment is quibbling, but nurture is pretty loaded at this point.
*her* actions.
Urg.
It isn't abundantly clear that actions would meet the legal definition of fraud.
Having a no annual fee credit card that you pay off every month doesn't cost you a cent and will increase your credit score.
(this is something most people who have plans to buy a house should be doing as they will very likely have a mortgage and an increased credit score generally makes it easier/possible to get a better rate)
I'm fine with society unrolling (so to speak) the genetic dice (to make sure no one misunderstands, I mean that it is a good thing for society to step in and pay for expensive treatments for people that need them from birth), but can we go ahead and call it a tax instead of dancing around pretending that it is insurance?
Personally, I thought locking, hardened cockpit doors were a pretty good response to 9/11, and I didn't really understand why there were high strung 20-somethings with M16s in the airport the first time I flew after the incident (well, I did understand, they were there to make people feel better, but I didn't see that they would possibly be shooting at anything). Checking IDs probably makes it harder to kill a plane full of people, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people walking around with officially issued identification that is falsified or inaccurate.
So your argument is that because some things that are called security are necessary and beneficial, anything that is called security must be necessary and beneficial?
Or maybe you responded to the wrong comment? Were you really trying to respond to this comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=635873&cid=24477973
???
Does your rant still make sense if I think that 1% of a company constitutes a substantial number of shares?
Yes, but if you are choosing properly between wasting time building the thing and wasting time drinking a beer, getting seen with it isn't a problem, it doesn't exist.
I would take this more as a sign of not enough beer.
There isn't any reason for someone with an insubstantial number of shares to ever think that they own part of the company. It makes a lot more sense to think of the money as a loan if you can't do much more than vote in the shareholder meeting once a year.
Your tense is all wrong. At most, the U.S. banking system is going belly-up.
More likely, Crazy Cramer is correct and Wall street is in the midst of recovery, with the rest of the economy to follow over the next year or so (because nay-sayers and doom-cryers aside, the U.S. economy is, no really, it is, productive, so the disaster is only partial).
You may have embraced the typo spirit, for the 240k figure is absolutely true, and there is no shame in believing it.
Your expectations appear to be hilarious.
That's relatively high cost. If you are paying (luke) warm bodies $60,000 a year (and another $30,000 in benefits and shit), $600 software doesn't have to improve their productivity a whole lot to be entirely and completely worth it. Especially if you only pay that $600 every two or three years.
Only worth it if you enjoy life in the mountainous caves of Pakistan.
End to end encryption to an unknown host doesn't increase security. It increases privacy (by limiting access to the communication to the connected parties), but it doesn't do anything to prevent hijacking.
Compare the statements made in the summary to the actual statements made in the annual report (or in the article). The annual report makes statements (that I find to be reasonable) about market conditions; the summary distorts those statements from being about what their competitors *can* do with open source (spend less on development, implement copies of software/features and distribute them cheaply) to implying that open source *only* does those things.
The annual report doesn't make any statement to the effect that "Open source projects don't innovate", it says:
"A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services and products. These firms do not bear the full costs of research and development for the software. Some of these firms may build upon Microsoft ideas that we provide to them free or at low royalties in connection with our interoperability initiatives. To the extent open source software gains increasing market acceptance, our sales, revenue and operating margins may decline."
Microsoft isn't failing. Look at their revenue growth (in absolute terms, they have grown more than Google since forever; Google just grows faster relative to size).
And really, read the letter, it doesn't say "Open Source doesn't innovate", it says (roughly) "Open Source is able to take ideas from our products, which ca make it harder for us to sell them". That's pretty reasonable disclosure of the market conditions that they face.