If they have permission, it should be documented in a centralised location readable (but not necessarily editable) by moderators. This should happen for legal reasons anyway. This is common sense, not quantum mechanics for goodness' sake.
Hence the manual review process mentioned in the parent. Once it is flagged as copyrighted material, a moderator should check the claim and if the claim is correct, remove the offending item. That way copyright infringement is dealt with both quickly and efficiently, without nutjobs and vandals having the power to remove material for their own gains or agendas.
Crowd moderation in doing the grunt work - i.e. "I like the material by the author of this and it is being ripped off so I will report it as infringing" is also a fuck ton more fair than expecting copyright owners to police every shitty website on the internet to see if their creative works are being stolen.
E.g. I like the C&H guys. If I see somebody unfairly using their works, I would report as infringing material. I certainly don't expect them to have the time to police the Internet when they're providing me with entertainment on a daily basis on such modest income means.
That's way too fiddly for most though and requires you have an HDMI capable screen where you want to set down and work, meaning for most applications it is unfeasible outside of the home, where you likely have a proper computer anyway.
If this pairs up with Ubuntu for Android, I'd say there's a damn tempting reason to avoid buying £280-£350 craptops - perhaps one enticing enough to kill off that segment of shitty, bloatware'd, inferior grade hardware that so many unsuspecting consumers fall into the trap of buying into.
Absolutely. Grand Theft Auto taught me many things including, but not limited to, how to exact revenge on a gang of crack dealers that have encroached on my turf, how running over hookers after you have paid them allows you to get your money back, how if a Yardie guns me down in a drive by I will return to the nearest hospital with full health and no weapons and how if I've got the pigs chasing me, a quick stop in a respray garage will totally fox them.
You make the erroneous assumption that the biases are empirically provable or that opinions are in some way absolute rather than normative, which is not always the case. (Actually, in politics this is never the case, they all distort facts beyond any limitations of meaningfulness to suit their own agendas.)
You're trying to make neutrality of opinion an absolute measurement; everybody gets an equal say and everybody gets to air their beliefs. Which is as close to neutrality as is realistically possible for the simple reason that neutrality of opinion is no more or less relative than the different biases that exist.
Yeah, which is weird because getting served with a class action lawsuit and an SEC investigation days after your IPO generally points to a company worth handing your money over to.
The company, by its own admission, is not convinced that they can monetise the mobile user experience, so for them to be wasting time, money and resources on flash in the pan shite like Instagram points to a company that isn't worth the paper its shares are printed on.
I see your point and I know that it is valid - if you want somebody to do something in particular, you give them the illusion of choice rather than let them feel constricted, it is one of the oldest sales tricks in the book. But such freedom has unintended consequences, I am just of the opinion that if you can make a person feel like they're winning from your draconian policies then they're more likely to forget about that draconian bit.
For example, instead of a BYOD policy, I think that giving each employee their own smartphone (see: Blackberry) with a plan that the company pays for, no questions asked, has two benefits. One; the employee feels like they're getting a sweet deal - "hey, my company is paying me and they're paying my phone bill too!" and two; they're never able to escape work because their corporate email is always with them. This translates to laptops too - "hey, my company pays me and they gave me a pretty sweet computer too!" - which carries the same benefits.
But then, I'm of the belief that a company is a corporate entity with the express goal of turning a profit and minimising losses. All this touchy-feely shit you hear from the likes of Google like hackysack on a Friday afternoon and having really off-the-wall brainstorming sessions are a waste of company time. Yes. I am a massive square.
There's a difference between an employee bringing their own device to work which is unable to access the company's systems and enforcing a policy which gives employees access to all the company's systems on a device they personally own and can do anything they like with.
If you are a corporate entity that is very careful and protective of sensitive information, a BYOD policy is nothing short of idiotic. Either they really are as cautious as their CIO claims, or they're not and they're just being cheap.
There's no way we'd have a BYOD policy and essentially open the door to people making potentially ruinous mistakes because their devices weren't company-issue locked down devices.
He was custom-making the barcodes, I'm pretty sure the guy's smart enough to have them run up 'generic lego item name' that some drip getting paid minimum wage isn't going to give shit about following up.
So basically, exactly the same things everybody else is saying. Bravo, really sorting the wheat from the chaff there old boy.
I'll give you a hint, seeing as you are so hell-bent on being obtuse. The Green Party is either a party with environmentalism or legalising marijuana at its core. If they need to bloody well spell that out in their manifesto then the problems are more severe than I thought.
"If I have a choice of investing in a blockbuster cancer drug that will pay me nothing for ten years, at best, whereas social media will go big in two years, what do you think I'm going to pick?" concludes Blank.
So who will use Facebook when everybody's dead because the medicines that cured them weren't invested in and went bust?
This is why he is not a millionaire VC. If anything, he's probably pissing on the tent because he bought FB at $45 yesterday before it dropped back to close at $38. Cry me a river, bitch.
Slashdot Mirror
If they have permission, it should be documented in a centralised location readable (but not necessarily editable) by moderators. This should happen for legal reasons anyway. This is common sense, not quantum mechanics for goodness' sake.
My immediate thought was just how freaking badly McCain got pummelled despite having this 'home state advantage' across the states...
Hence the manual review process mentioned in the parent. Once it is flagged as copyrighted material, a moderator should check the claim and if the claim is correct, remove the offending item. That way copyright infringement is dealt with both quickly and efficiently, without nutjobs and vandals having the power to remove material for their own gains or agendas.
Crowd moderation in doing the grunt work - i.e. "I like the material by the author of this and it is being ripped off so I will report it as infringing" is also a fuck ton more fair than expecting copyright owners to police every shitty website on the internet to see if their creative works are being stolen.
E.g. I like the C&H guys. If I see somebody unfairly using their works, I would report as infringing material. I certainly don't expect them to have the time to police the Internet when they're providing me with entertainment on a daily basis on such modest income means.
That's way too fiddly for most though and requires you have an HDMI capable screen where you want to set down and work, meaning for most applications it is unfeasible outside of the home, where you likely have a proper computer anyway.
If this pairs up with Ubuntu for Android, I'd say there's a damn tempting reason to avoid buying £280-£350 craptops - perhaps one enticing enough to kill off that segment of shitty, bloatware'd, inferior grade hardware that so many unsuspecting consumers fall into the trap of buying into.
You can say it a thousand times, it doesn't make you any less wrong.
Yeah, it's great. The entire house of cards is on the verge of collapse, but at least our bureaucrats found the time to vote this shit down.
Meanwhile, in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Italy...
Absolutely. Grand Theft Auto taught me many things including, but not limited to, how to exact revenge on a gang of crack dealers that have encroached on my turf, how running over hookers after you have paid them allows you to get your money back, how if a Yardie guns me down in a drive by I will return to the nearest hospital with full health and no weapons and how if I've got the pigs chasing me, a quick stop in a respray garage will totally fox them.
THE MOAR YOU KNOW!
You make the erroneous assumption that the biases are empirically provable or that opinions are in some way absolute rather than normative, which is not always the case. (Actually, in politics this is never the case, they all distort facts beyond any limitations of meaningfulness to suit their own agendas.)
You're trying to make neutrality of opinion an absolute measurement; everybody gets an equal say and everybody gets to air their beliefs. Which is as close to neutrality as is realistically possible for the simple reason that neutrality of opinion is no more or less relative than the different biases that exist.
Give DHS another few billion, and we would probably have the Anal Probinator 3000 at the airports.
Few billion? I have one of those in my bedroom. Set me back $69.95 on QVC.
Family and friends discount?
...patent lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee. I should have gone to law school after all...
Ah, mea culpa. I guess the shares aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on then!
You are mistaken.
http://allfacebook.com/files/2012/05/FacebookStockCertificate.jpg
...Or like complaining that Google's Street View cameras caught you paying for hookers?
Yeah, which is weird because getting served with a class action lawsuit and an SEC investigation days after your IPO generally points to a company worth handing your money over to.
The company, by its own admission, is not convinced that they can monetise the mobile user experience, so for them to be wasting time, money and resources on flash in the pan shite like Instagram points to a company that isn't worth the paper its shares are printed on.
If he paid for 4364 teachers, it still would not be his strong point.
The idea is that he has put his money where his mouth is, now the government should do the same.
I see your point and I know that it is valid - if you want somebody to do something in particular, you give them the illusion of choice rather than let them feel constricted, it is one of the oldest sales tricks in the book. But such freedom has unintended consequences, I am just of the opinion that if you can make a person feel like they're winning from your draconian policies then they're more likely to forget about that draconian bit.
For example, instead of a BYOD policy, I think that giving each employee their own smartphone (see: Blackberry) with a plan that the company pays for, no questions asked, has two benefits. One; the employee feels like they're getting a sweet deal - "hey, my company is paying me and they're paying my phone bill too!" and two; they're never able to escape work because their corporate email is always with them. This translates to laptops too - "hey, my company pays me and they gave me a pretty sweet computer too!" - which carries the same benefits.
But then, I'm of the belief that a company is a corporate entity with the express goal of turning a profit and minimising losses. All this touchy-feely shit you hear from the likes of Google like hackysack on a Friday afternoon and having really off-the-wall brainstorming sessions are a waste of company time. Yes. I am a massive square.
There's a difference between an employee bringing their own device to work which is unable to access the company's systems and enforcing a policy which gives employees access to all the company's systems on a device they personally own and can do anything they like with.
If you are a corporate entity that is very careful and protective of sensitive information, a BYOD policy is nothing short of idiotic. Either they really are as cautious as their CIO claims, or they're not and they're just being cheap.
There's no way we'd have a BYOD policy and essentially open the door to people making potentially ruinous mistakes because their devices weren't company-issue locked down devices.
BYOD, but we dictate a usage policy as if it were a company-issue device?
Seems legit...
He was custom-making the barcodes, I'm pretty sure the guy's smart enough to have them run up 'generic lego item name' that some drip getting paid minimum wage isn't going to give shit about following up.
-1 Disagree it is then ;)
So basically, exactly the same things everybody else is saying. Bravo, really sorting the wheat from the chaff there old boy.
I'll give you a hint, seeing as you are so hell-bent on being obtuse. The Green Party is either a party with environmentalism or legalising marijuana at its core. If they need to bloody well spell that out in their manifesto then the problems are more severe than I thought.
"If I have a choice of investing in a blockbuster cancer drug that will pay me nothing for ten years, at best, whereas social media will go big in two years, what do you think I'm going to pick?" concludes Blank.
So who will use Facebook when everybody's dead because the medicines that cured them weren't invested in and went bust?
This is why he is not a millionaire VC. If anything, he's probably pissing on the tent because he bought FB at $45 yesterday before it dropped back to close at $38. Cry me a river, bitch.