There's already a rule for that. It's called the principle of self-defense. You're allowed to shoot when you determine you're in danger. Armed unfriendlies approaching your boat in pirate waters? That's danger.
That transition wasn't exactly bloodless, though the threat of blood was generally sufficient. And a thousand years is a little long to wait when there are already viable democracies all over the world.
We're not intervening everywhere for the sake of intervening.
We're intervening because this country is stable* and happy and we think the world could use some of that.
* - well, it is when the GOP isn't trying to turn it into a third world country like Somalia, where the average citizen has three guns and pays in newborn children for water service.
No, the point was whether you're too big to sue. When you have the government mediating the fight, nobody is. The RIAA's intimidation tactic is a legal gambit. It doesn't depend on the size of the target. As I said, with a bigger target their eyes just get bigger. If they think they can find a legal angle to throw against the wall with Google's bank account as the lottery prize, you can bet your ass they'll throw it. They're probably sick and tired of the ROI they're getting from teenagers.
I mean, if we're going to just go making up shit like "force field" when characterizing a simple grid of eye-beam sensors...
(Hint: where does the "force" come in?)
And yes, the earliest touch-screen technologies were essentially exactly this sort of light-beam interruptor laid near the surface of a CRT. They were soon replaced by surface-acoustical-wave systems and even capacitive feedback through the cathode beam itself.
Google Locker will make Limewire look like a quill and a stack of staff paper.
No more hive-mind searches with itinerant servers. 24/7 google-indexed searching of a constantly growing database of music miles deep and wide and thick with uptimes in the 9-sigmas and God's own bandwidth.
I can't believe the RIAA couldn't find a way to come to a compromise with these folks. Unless you work on the theory that they're going to add a bunch of zeroes to their trillion-dollar lawsuit forms.
If you steal a car and I allow you to park it in my garage, I'm helping you steal it, and the person you stole it from could charge me with theft, too.
The point, though, isn't whether Google is or isn't actually stealing something. It's whether anyone should avoid taking action if they perceive Google to be doing something injurious to them, just because Google is "too big to sue." Nobody is too big to sue. Suing goes through the government, which organizes itself to be bigger than anyone. If you're right about the facts and you sue, you get the government on your side to get your stuff back. That's the point of suing instead of just bludgeoning them with your fists until they give you back your stuff. Google is too big to care about any citizen's personal bludgeon.
No, if this ruling had failed, you could call a spade a spade, but you couldn't use their spade-shaped logo on your website. The logo is not the company name, it's a created image that belongs to the company. The company name is public record. The company's logo is company property.
This ruling says you can use company property to mock the company. Should have been obvious, but needed a court test for some legal reason. Now it's precedent. Yippee...
Slashdot Mirror
When I fart you can tell what I had for dinner last night.
Is this a privacy concern?
No?
Damn. I was going to submit it to /.
If you're using a ThinkPad you bought seven years ago...
eww.
What's Canada?
Is that near China?
Does it have money?
Then you go into management, and perpetuate the problem as a form of rebellion against its having been thrust upon you by a negligent society.
You missed a more important point:
Yahoo! is a shit company that makes a shit product.
Interesting people are interesting. Film on YouTube.
Also, when the US does it = securing.
When Somalians do it = piracy.
The Somali pirates are kidnapping people and demanding ransom. I didn't realize the US Navy was in that business, too.
"Secure the horn of Africa"? What is this, the 18th century?
In Africa, or the rest of the world? Because much of Africa is living in 1800, B.C.
"An armed society is a polite society," as the saying goes.
There's already a rule for that. It's called the principle of self-defense. You're allowed to shoot when you determine you're in danger. Armed unfriendlies approaching your boat in pirate waters? That's danger.
a willingness to swallow their pride and be friendly
Not on their part. That "willingness" was created with the greatest weapon ever devised (at the time).
And their prosperity was imposed on them.
By us.*
One of the reasons we think we can do it elsewhere.
* - yes, America.
Pirates have satellite dishes. They get CNN. You don't need to leave one alive to send a message.
there have been people in the position like the Somalis for all of history,
And that's no reason to allow that to continue to be history on the planet Earth.
They can't solve it internally. So we're going to help them.
That transition wasn't exactly bloodless, though the threat of blood was generally sufficient. And a thousand years is a little long to wait when there are already viable democracies all over the world.
We're not intervening everywhere for the sake of intervening.
We're intervening because this country is stable* and happy and we think the world could use some of that.
* - well, it is when the GOP isn't trying to turn it into a third world country like Somalia, where the average citizen has three guns and pays in newborn children for water service.
No, the point was whether you're too big to sue. When you have the government mediating the fight, nobody is. The RIAA's intimidation tactic is a legal gambit. It doesn't depend on the size of the target. As I said, with a bigger target their eyes just get bigger. If they think they can find a legal angle to throw against the wall with Google's bank account as the lottery prize, you can bet your ass they'll throw it. They're probably sick and tired of the ROI they're getting from teenagers.
O rly?
Where does the force come in, Luke?
No wait -- a roaring lion!
Better: a subordinated debenture.
I mean, if we're going to just go making up shit like "force field" when characterizing a simple grid of eye-beam sensors...
(Hint: where does the "force" come in?)
And yes, the earliest touch-screen technologies were essentially exactly this sort of light-beam interruptor laid near the surface of a CRT. They were soon replaced by surface-acoustical-wave systems and even capacitive feedback through the cathode beam itself.
Urg.
Just try to use the subjunctive case around here, and the literalists lose their marbles.
Google Locker will make Limewire look like a quill and a stack of staff paper.
No more hive-mind searches with itinerant servers. 24/7 google-indexed searching of a constantly growing database of music miles deep and wide and thick with uptimes in the 9-sigmas and God's own bandwidth.
I can't believe the RIAA couldn't find a way to come to a compromise with these folks. Unless you work on the theory that they're going to add a bunch of zeroes to their trillion-dollar lawsuit forms.
You walked right past that "(presumably)" as though we weren't talking about the RIAA here.
If you steal a car and I allow you to park it in my garage, I'm helping you steal it, and the person you stole it from could charge me with theft, too.
The point, though, isn't whether Google is or isn't actually stealing something. It's whether anyone should avoid taking action if they perceive Google to be doing something injurious to them, just because Google is "too big to sue." Nobody is too big to sue. Suing goes through the government, which organizes itself to be bigger than anyone. If you're right about the facts and you sue, you get the government on your side to get your stuff back. That's the point of suing instead of just bludgeoning them with your fists until they give you back your stuff. Google is too big to care about any citizen's personal bludgeon.
No, if this ruling had failed, you could call a spade a spade, but you couldn't use their spade-shaped logo on your website. The logo is not the company name, it's a created image that belongs to the company. The company name is public record. The company's logo is company property.
This ruling says you can use company property to mock the company. Should have been obvious, but needed a court test for some legal reason. Now it's precedent. Yippee...
Takes away from bandwidth used to send your browser history and cookies to their advertisers.
And no mention of battery life.
The meta is all ironic in that article.
But then how would they be able to serve me the songs I've manipulated aurally but not identificationally?
They'd have to hash the recorded content of every upload to create a proper database without duplicates. I bet that's easy on the server.