Get your biggest competitor for bandwidth to spend all of their money on the spectrum you don't want by executing a feint in that direction, and then taking over the spectrum you really wanted.
It's almost like someone who reads those business books that are based on military strategy actually figured out how to apply the military concepts to competition...
Or maybe they read one of those "you can do it! Just visualize!" books and then visualized a kick-ass business tactic...
The unstated premise here is that people are being unfair for disliking the monopolistic corporation. After all, if Google and Apple become uber-rich monopolistic corporations, we'll hate them too. I can't speak for anybody else, but I like competition, and any organization that becomes successful enough to deprive the market of a healthy competition will attract my animosity.
I do not dislike Microsoft because they're "evil". I dislike the situation they are in.
The summary sites a poll released just this weekend, which says that the number of people who care has doubled to a whopping 44%. That means that, if Time magazine is looking at the numbers from last year (which may have been the only ones available when the article was written), then it said 22%, which would justify their assertion.
(From Wikipedia)
Winny (also known as WinNY) is a Japanese peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing program which claims to be loosely inspired by the design principles behind the Freenet network, which keep user identities untraceable.
So, this begs the question, how do they know what the user is downloading? Is there a vulnerability in WinNY that allows identities to be traced, or do they just assume that any WinNY user is filesharing?
According to a 2006 report by the Recording Industry Association of Japan, upwards of three million people had tried Winny, and it has alternated with WinMX as the most popular file-sharing program in Japan...Critics of Kaneko have stated that the main purpose of Winny is to violate copyright law, unlike Freenet, another peer-to-peer system that Winny is often compared to, which claims to protect freedom of speech. These critics also claim that 2ch's Download Software board, where the software was first announced, is a haven for copyright violators, and that Kaneko himself had said that the aim of development of Winny is to push the tide towards a world filled with copyright infringement, quoting several posts from 2ch.
So, this is a curious question. Is WinNY being singled out because its developer is promoting copyright infringement, because of its popularity, or because of its anonymity? I'm curious how this would affect other p2p technologies in Japan.
IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA is going to want to settle and prevent discovery from happening since they don't want all the sordid details of their dealings brought to light.
But that makes me wonder . . . if they do in fact settle, won't this just embolden all the other lawsuit recipients to file against the RIAA too? They can settle malicious lawsuits to keep them from going to trial to their heartss content (*snicker* we know they don't have hearts), but ultimately they're going to have to either WIN a malicious prosecution suit or stop engaging in malicious suits alltogether, no?
IANAL, but wouldn't the odds be stacked in their favor? You see, lets say that they sued a random person. Let's call him "bob". Wouldn't the following have to happen for this to repeat itself?
Bob would have to be innocent.
Bob would have to have the time and resources to fight this in court. Even if the EFF or some other group were to pay for his lawyers, he would still have to miss time from work, and face a great deal of negative publicity.
If it looks like Bob has a chance to win the case, then the lawyers would give him a chance to settle. This settlement would undoubtedly be cheaper than the cost to continue fighting the case, but Bob would have to refuse, acting solely on principal.
Then, Bob would have to file a malicious prosecution suit, and refuse any payoffs offered then.
Either Bob would have to win an ungodly amount of money, or this incident would have to playitself out several times, until the payout from the few times when this actually happens begins to outweigh the payment received the rest of the time.
Get a million people together (shouldn't be hard if all the torrent sites make note of the campaign) to chip in $1 or $10 each to make a matching offer: "We'll pay you to take this to trial."
Even if the RIAA outbids The Internets, it's still a PR coup -- "Look at what they were willing to do in order to hide stuff..." Wouldn't that also be a case of malicious prosecution?
Ok, there's also "late adopters don't like spending money" or "late adopters aren't that interested in gadgets", or "late adopters don't adopt early", but this seems a little obvious to me.
In the end that's kind of the solution we went for. We took on 4 more junior level people to train up alongside a couple of contractors to keep the project going while the training was ongoing.
BTW, unlike some of the other posts have suggested, we were offering a highly competitive salary of £60,000 per year (~$120,000).
Bob I'm glad to hear that. As a low-level IT worker who remembers how difficult it was to get a foot in the door, it is painful to see all this complaining about how there are so many jobs that need to be filled, and so many people who need jobs, but most of them do not have the requisite 3-5 years of experience, or will have to learn about a new technology.
I completely agree with you. Great example follows:
The company I work for has had an IT Help Desk Position open for nearly 3 years. We can't seem to find someone who has half a brain enough to perform the job. I don't understand what is so hard about it!
I picked up the job, the network and desktop infrastructure, and all policies in about 2 weeks. Of the 14 people that have been in and out of the position that has been open for the past 3 years, I think the one that learned it the fastest took 5 weeks and that was just barely grasping what was going on. Not to sound like a troll, but it sounds like you're blaming the suitable employee for not existing, when you may want to take a second look at what you're expecting from your employees.
I'm curious if this means that he believes that the world can be divided into 12 types of people? The word "baseline" seems to imply that he would make a reference to people being variants on 12 subtle themes. (I.E. most capricorns are like this to a small extent, but nature and nurture also play a significant role). I'm curious if this is the case.
Understand that judging groups of people is as a rule wrong. It is called bigotry. Even the question is bigoted since you are trying to say what a whole group should or should not do. It's a little more complicated than that. Let's say someone believes that the Earth is flat, or that modern medicine is evil and should be avoided, literally, at all costs. This may cause relationship issues down the line. What someone believes affects how they act, and who they are.
I personally think that the line should be based on how astrology affects one's personality, but I wouldn't see a problem with it being a red flag for highly skeptical individuals.
How many people really take this seriously? I may be demonstrating the no true Scotsman fallacy, here, but how many people who read astrology actually believe it any more than they believe in four-leaf clovers or knocking on wood? I suspect that, for most people who believe in astrology, their daily horoscope or astrological sign is in no way relevant to them. They read the horoscope, laugh about it if it comes true, and in no other way let it affect their lives.
Ryerson's academic misconduct policy, which is being updated, defines it as "any deliberate activity to gain academic advantage, including actions that have a negative effect on the integrity of the learning environment." Wouldn't studying be included in that?
What aspect of the platform is not working? Is this a content management system/portal issue, a programming language issue, an OS issue, an issue with a large special-purpose application, or something else entirely?
Is there an option to gradually phase out problematic code on the existing platform?
I don't think I'd be using Wikipedia as a source... It's not that reliable, you know?
Here's a choice quote from the page you gave: "Steven Moore was a well known ultra-Zionist that was known to make romantic passes at goats." But the amazing thing is that he has been able to double the rate at which he could make those passes roughly every 18 months
Since irrational Obama supporters apparently run the internets, I fully expect this post to be modded "Troll" or something, because it doesn't contain the requisite amount of Obama bias and instead offers a firsthand account of what went down in Texas last night, and posits a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes. How scandalous. Do your candidate of choice proud, and suppress any relatively objective post you see. Those bastards! Where are they? We should go find those imaginary people you just made up and pretend to hurt them.
One of the more surprising things about the story is that there is a free version of the first CD, and a $5 option that gives all the music, but people still paid $300 for the whole set. It is interesting how much more people are willing to pay for the extras.
Ok. So, if you do something embarrassing, illegal, or otherwise noteworthy, someone might get a permanent picture of it, but you are in public. Is it reasonable to have any expectation of privacy at all in public?
I'm sorry, but the allusions to Orwell go way too far. I'm curious if there is a version of Godwin's law that applies to use of Orwell references?
What's the big deal? Stupid teachers still wouldn't be allowed to teach "Intelligent Design" anyway, since -- according to the summary -- the information still has to be scientific (and "ID" fails at that).
They are moving from a centralized BS server (I.E. board of education standards) to a distributed model (the "bit torrent" of BS). The problem is that if the BOE decides to teach a non-science, then one law suit can change it. But, if individual instructors are allowed to teach whatever they want, then the problem will pop up in several counties all over the state.
So was that hate speech, or was it an attempt to inject more honesty in a charged political debate?
We ARE talking about Rush Limbaugh, right? Just checking. Could someone hand me a paper towel? I seem to have spit soda all over my screen.
Unfortunately, the partisans have already made their minds up on the answer to that.
This is just too ironic. So, Limbaugh is the honest and open-minded one, and the rest of the media is biased. For the record, I don't care if it's Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Sam Sedar, or Michael Moore. If you're getting your news from any of these people, then you're no better off than the guy who doesn't listen to the news at all.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he just predicted the recession.
It's almost like someone who reads those business books that are based on military strategy actually figured out how to apply the military concepts to competition...
Or maybe they read one of those "you can do it! Just visualize!" books and then visualized a kick-ass business tactic...
The unstated premise here is that people are being unfair for disliking the monopolistic corporation. After all, if Google and Apple become uber-rich monopolistic corporations, we'll hate them too. I can't speak for anybody else, but I like competition, and any organization that becomes successful enough to deprive the market of a healthy competition will attract my animosity.
I do not dislike Microsoft because they're "evil". I dislike the situation they are in.
The summary sites a poll released just this weekend, which says that the number of people who care has doubled to a whopping 44%. That means that, if Time magazine is looking at the numbers from last year (which may have been the only ones available when the article was written), then it said 22%, which would justify their assertion.
So, this begs the question, how do they know what the user is downloading? Is there a vulnerability in WinNY that allows identities to be traced, or do they just assume that any WinNY user is filesharing?
According to a 2006 report by the Recording Industry Association of Japan, upwards of three million people had tried Winny, and it has alternated with WinMX as the most popular file-sharing program in Japan...Critics of Kaneko have stated that the main purpose of Winny is to violate copyright law, unlike Freenet, another peer-to-peer system that Winny is often compared to, which claims to protect freedom of speech. These critics also claim that 2ch's Download Software board, where the software was first announced, is a haven for copyright violators, and that Kaneko himself had said that the aim of development of Winny is to push the tide towards a world filled with copyright infringement, quoting several posts from 2ch.So, this is a curious question. Is WinNY being singled out because its developer is promoting copyright infringement, because of its popularity, or because of its anonymity? I'm curious how this would affect other p2p technologies in Japan.
IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA is going to want to settle and prevent discovery from happening since they don't want all the sordid details of their dealings brought to light.
But that makes me wonder . . . if they do in fact settle, won't this just embolden all the other lawsuit recipients to file against the RIAA too? They can settle malicious lawsuits to keep them from going to trial to their heartss content (*snicker* we know they don't have hearts), but ultimately they're going to have to either WIN a malicious prosecution suit or stop engaging in malicious suits alltogether, no?
IANAL, but wouldn't the odds be stacked in their favor? You see, lets say that they sued a random person. Let's call him "bob". Wouldn't the following have to happen for this to repeat itself?
Since the RIAA already owns the music, I guess this won't really frighten them much. I've heard the music. It's pretty frightening.
Get a million people together (shouldn't be hard if all the torrent sites make note of the campaign) to chip in $1 or $10 each to make a matching offer: "We'll pay you to take this to trial."
Even if the RIAA outbids The Internets, it's still a PR coup -- "Look at what they were willing to do in order to hide stuff..." Wouldn't that also be a case of malicious prosecution?
Ok, there's also "late adopters don't like spending money" or "late adopters aren't that interested in gadgets", or "late adopters don't adopt early", but this seems a little obvious to me.
BTW, unlike some of the other posts have suggested, we were offering a highly competitive salary of £60,000 per year (~$120,000).
Bob I'm glad to hear that. As a low-level IT worker who remembers how difficult it was to get a foot in the door, it is painful to see all this complaining about how there are so many jobs that need to be filled, and so many people who need jobs, but most of them do not have the requisite 3-5 years of experience, or will have to learn about a new technology.
The company I work for has had an IT Help Desk Position open for nearly 3 years. We can't seem to find someone who has half a brain enough to perform the job. I don't understand what is so hard about it!
I picked up the job, the network and desktop infrastructure, and all policies in about 2 weeks. Of the 14 people that have been in and out of the position that has been open for the past 3 years, I think the one that learned it the fastest took 5 weeks and that was just barely grasping what was going on. Not to sound like a troll, but it sounds like you're blaming the suitable employee for not existing, when you may want to take a second look at what you're expecting from your employees.
I'm curious if this means that he believes that the world can be divided into 12 types of people? The word "baseline" seems to imply that he would make a reference to people being variants on 12 subtle themes. (I.E. most capricorns are like this to a small extent, but nature and nurture also play a significant role). I'm curious if this is the case.
Even the question is bigoted since you are trying to say what a whole group should or should not do. It's a little more complicated than that. Let's say someone believes that the Earth is flat, or that modern medicine is evil and should be avoided, literally, at all costs. This may cause relationship issues down the line. What someone believes affects how they act, and who they are.
I personally think that the line should be based on how astrology affects one's personality, but I wouldn't see a problem with it being a red flag for highly skeptical individuals.
How many people really take this seriously? I may be demonstrating the no true Scotsman fallacy, here, but how many people who read astrology actually believe it any more than they believe in four-leaf clovers or knocking on wood? I suspect that, for most people who believe in astrology, their daily horoscope or astrological sign is in no way relevant to them. They read the horoscope, laugh about it if it comes true, and in no other way let it affect their lives.
What aspect of the platform is not working? Is this a content management system/portal issue, a programming language issue, an OS issue, an issue with a large special-purpose application, or something else entirely?
Is there an option to gradually phase out problematic code on the existing platform?
Yeah, but after forty years, one would think we'd be running out of goats.
Here's a choice quote from the page you gave: "Steven Moore was a well known ultra-Zionist that was known to make romantic passes at goats." But the amazing thing is that he has been able to double the rate at which he could make those passes roughly every 18 months
One of the more surprising things about the story is that there is a free version of the first CD, and a $5 option that gives all the music, but people still paid $300 for the whole set. It is interesting how much more people are willing to pay for the extras.
Ok. So, if you do something embarrassing, illegal, or otherwise noteworthy, someone might get a permanent picture of it, but you are in public. Is it reasonable to have any expectation of privacy at all in public?
I'm sorry, but the allusions to Orwell go way too far. I'm curious if there is a version of Godwin's law that applies to use of Orwell references?
They are moving from a centralized BS server (I.E. board of education standards) to a distributed model (the "bit torrent" of BS). The problem is that if the BOE decides to teach a non-science, then one law suit can change it. But, if individual instructors are allowed to teach whatever they want, then the problem will pop up in several counties all over the state.
I'd do it, but I don't want to go to prison.
But, if he's drunk enough, then the Linux Torvalds poster over his bed may appear to be hot looking twins.