They want to move lyrics searches from free fan sites maintained by people who sell advertising and get money off page views, to sites that do exactly the same thing but share ad revenue with RIAA sites.
It's not even a challenge to come up with the explanation. It might be a dime a year, but RIAA does not want people playing copy/paste and making money without adding value.
Honestly, most lyrics sites are terrible and I support de-duplicating as much of the internet as possible. A few fringe sites to make up for when all of the mainstream sites go AJAX only can remain of course.
Every jackhat who learns how to spit out html and store stuff in a database doesn't need to set up a website that does exactly what something else does, and I support anyone who enforces this.
How many people are going to go there, get the wrong information, and make the wrong decision? That's so much worse than some people accidentally making the right decision.
Because lawmakers tend to know the law, writing the law, changing the law. They are generalists, and show on average no desire to learn about what they legislate.
They are supposed to have committees to be the specialists, but when a powerful yet ignorant ranking member feels threatened by job cuts or funding cuts, the law has to bend to politics.
The unintended consequences are seen as ideologically motivated disinformation campaigns. Any rational objection sounds like either lies or regurgitated propaganda.
It is the natural consequence of electing people based on campaign ads, rather than investigating their qualifications. It is the natural consequence of having to fight a popularity contest to bridge the gap between being an ineffectual newbie and an ineffectual lame duck. Do we have term limits to solve the problem? The people no longer get to vote the person who best represents them - by law instead of out of ignorance, which is not acceptable.
And, due to bipartisan cooperation, any side can blame the other side for crippling what would have otherwise worked.
Cooperating makes the public think you are doing the best for your country, while simultaneously removing what will hurt your constituents, and including what will hurt your opponents. The net benefit is weighed by the number of voters who agree with you, not on an objective social impact. It is a system best suited to masking incompetence, and perpetuating ignorance.
If the people collectively wanted to change that, it would change the direction of the country in a generation. So the answer to why is people. As always.
Experian already has this data. When you put something correct and Experian disagrees, it doesn't just accept the new value - it actively resists those changes. There is nothing whatsoever that suggests that any data is flowing to Experian, other than to be validated against what is already there.
Experian's business model is buying and selling data, and the fact that it has this info is why Experian was chosen in the first place.
What discount you can get depends on the interaction of a lot of different sites. You could get a rough estimate, but like you said people want actual dollar amounts. When the government says it costs this, and it doesn't, that's a problem.
The ground troops were waiting for someone to identify requirements and how things were going to work. The contractors, as always, are the insurance salesmen who promise a product and under-deliver. Because of the poorly written contract and bidding process, and the lack of penalties written in. And the blame goes to the people who wrote the government contract.
Anyone who paid for this website should be personally responsible for paying it back, because they failed utterly to do their job according to the public trust.
The vast majority of visitors want data they can do something with. What was thrown together doesn't do that. And the do-gooders part, I'm not sure who you are blaming, but you obviously don't care about having a rational, informed conversation.
Would you prefer they finish the Windows 95 compatibility? Me neither. The targeted OS version specifies which API calls are available, and various implications about the underlying implementation, such as whether side-by-side is available or you get to enjoy dll hell. And as new Windows versions are released, it makes sense to add the new API calls to the codebase. It is not moving the goalposts.
Meanwhile, poorly implemented components get a rewrite while new systems, like USB recently, gradually evolve. It can seem stuck at times while the internals get rearranged.
Being pre-alpha is just a label - they could go for the perpetual beta long after it's functional. Or call it release 1.0 with known issues. You have a problem with that?
Wine makes the user-mode libraries, and ReactOS re-uses everything that can be re-used. So Wine is only in a better state because it doesn't have to sit on top of a kernel that is also being developed. It's actually the same code, other than the diffs where ReactOS has to fix things that work atop Linux but not on Windows. And yes, some people do test drop-in replacements to make sure windows components actually interoperate.
So, you asked why we care. I have tried to switch to Linux many many times, and it never works. I'm not explaining why because that devolves into people troubleshooting a problem that doesn't exist. I have Ubuntu on a live CD in front of me, and that's as close as I'm getting to switching. Having the ability to do a drop-in replacement for components that I don't like is invaluable.
Being able to debug, on Windows, with source code, and make things work the way I want, because that's where I work, is invaluable.
You talk like having a functioning OS is more important, and if that's how we determine importance then you're right, no one should care. Let's take all of the non-functional programs and half-complete operating systems, and throw them out. Just delete it, because it apparently serves no purpose. All the projects on github that don't work, just remove them, because they are pointless.
Let's throw out Windows completely, because it obviously isn't finished. I saw commits to Linux yesterday so obviously it's not done. So where do we draw the line? Your personal opinion of what's important? If you can't understand why it's important, no one will. And if other people want to watch it from time to time and see what's up, why object?
I worked on a team based in 8 locations, and any one of us could fill in for just about anyone else in any meeting.
Plenty of interaction outside of work-related talk, and I rarely talked to any of the 300-400 people at my physical location where I went to work to telecommute.
We naturally just communicated, and a few people encouraged it by just being natuarl leaders, despite not being the actual leaders.
I have worked on teams where one person was shut out, and that person was described as having poor communication skills, when it was the rest of the team with the problem.
With kids, the solution is to get them all on the same page. With adults, the easiest solution is hope the oddball finds another job. I've never seen another solution that works consistently, though some could work inconsistently.
If the object is to have a team that works like a team, the whole team is to blame if the team isn't working. If the object is to trim the fat, blame goes to the worst person. So what is the real goal here?
You used the term "re-educating" incorrectly. You imply that people who violate copyright are not actually offenders. And the slippery slope argument about breeding is so ridiculous right now that you deserve to be stripped of your posting rights.
As you said, people have the natural instinct of sharing things. On a normal basis of friend to friend, this is generally tolerated. Buying one copy and sharing it with everyone on the planet is illegal in pretty much every part of the world, by social contract. At some point between giving it to your friend and giving to the world, this becomes illegal.
Educating people that this is part of the social contract, and sharing is permissible only within the confines of fair use, if such a concept exists in the community, is not unreasonable.
You should divert your energy to fighting the parts that need fighting. Copyright length is clearly absurd, armed swat team enforcement is clearly overkill. Hyperbole and misinterpretation gets us nowhere.
Nope. I joined repeatedly, and earned positive karma repeatedly, with many accounts.
Bunch of deleted stuff... you can leave your past behind, if you are willing to leave your past behind. Most people aren't, and that's what everyone against you is counting on.
Kill your wife, or child, or countryman, or government, or celebrity, or friend? I count on you to be strong, while the perpetrator counts on you to be weak.
Everyone should be mentally reviewing their activity. and if it should be censored or stopped, then don't say it or do it. Breathe or don't, type or don't, speak or don't... live or don't. Decide your own fate, and decide your actions accordingly.
Are you searching the internet for something that supports your view? Then consider if you are wrong. Are you repeating something your parents told you, or something you learned ten years ago or more? Consider that society has learned some things since then.
Put on the foil if you must, but appreciate that your own mind can come up with facts, consequences, and conclusions, if you do not submit your mind to input from adversarial forces.
LeVar is poised to accept this, as his character, which he, I assume, has in some form studied more than anyone on the planet. Fans aside, he had to play the part.
As someone famous, he does not accept it. Mostly due to the hundreds or thousands of bitches who would storm his house and demand no-strings-attached sex.
Or maybe, just maybe, he speaks for the technophiles who nonetheless find fault with the so-called benefits Glass promises.
It cannot replace your eyes yet, and promises that your private life, once shared with a third party (google), is no longer yours. Maybe not explicitly, but from one who gathers this information, we assure you it does.
I would advise you to first consider, then dismiss, the words of an idiot. Sometimes, it only require half that effort. Discarding it out of hand, on the other hand, makes you the idiot, and the other, the question mark. Would it not be better to raise a question and have it answered? Or would you silence all conversation?
Then let it be so inside yourself, as it is outside.
"Never heard of this guy" usually means "I hang out everywhere, and the name doesn't ring a bell".
It could mean, "I know a whole crapload of celebrities, and while many of you might know him, he's not a blip on the radar".
Sometimes, it means, "I did a quick search to see if I could figure out which LeVar Burton you meant, and it could be a CEO in Chicago, or a babysitter in Shithole, LA."
From time to time, it means, "I have read every horsecrap shitfilled cockgargling arsemunching word you assfucks have written in the last five years and this fuckstain doesn't even appear in the retarded, window-licking, drooling masses of fools who have managed to bang enough keys in the form of a not-immediately-dismissable-sentence, posts that I have subjected myself to in that time, so you must not know s/him either."
In this case, it means, "I am not the target audience for the site I'm posting on, and I don't know this, and therefore everyone should ignore me because I'm an idiot who should take an arrow to the knee."
What if you have 1000 people asking for a share of the funds, is it a net benefit to dilute the pool by splitting it evenly, or do we say the crazy guy who mumbles and can't put a sentence together does not qualify?
If one person does not qualify, where do we draw a fair line?
How do we set up a system to resist complaints analogous to gerrymandering, where the people who decide the rules seem fair but are manipulated into giving a predetermined answer by apparently unrelated rules?
If the internet decides to crowdfund a candidate, do we deny that person access to those funds?
If the crowdfunding comes about as a perceived lack of fairness in the funding rules or decisions, how do we guarantee those concerns will be addressed and resolved in time for the candidate to have a fair shot at redress?
What happens when a well-known and vocally partial media-savvy group discounts time to a specific candidate, or refuses to take on other candidates, giving that person's equal share of money more effect? Is that group's output banned?
What if a celebrity who happens to have a movie coming out, unabashedly and without compensation decides to add positive comments to their press junket? Do we silence the positive press because the other candidates cannot afford a similar plant?
How about when a politically minded Beiber writes a song about how Obama is awesome and Romney sucks it and it circulates on an unregulated medium where "equal time" rules cannot be enforced, such as e-mail inboxes and youtube - while getting no financial backing from a candidate?
Or the current office holder who is popular shows up at and stumps for their proposed replacement?
Point is, getting money out will not solve any inequality problems due to existing connections. Money is just one of those connections. Solving for money means you play whack-a-mole with every other kind of influence all the way back to who their parents and grandparents knew.
Maybe there is a solution, but it is a hell of a lot more complex than "public campaign funds". And since it will be completely ineffective other than paying lip service, I would prefer some of the other issues to be resolved first before taking such a huge and ineffective step.
A tool by others, like facebook or google login? Or maybe you meant a middle ground between reuse nothing vs. reuse everything? I read the comment as not baking the pie from scratch when a good flour is on the grocery shelves. And if you grow your own wheat, you deserve the inevitable problems.
Let's have some balance and reason, I don't ask for anything unreasonable.
I'm glad someone other than the feds are investigating this. What good is old fashioned research when you have the pure, elegant, and obviously correct deductive reasoning of an internet pseudonym?
I'm pretty sure It's socialism when the nhtsa threatens the following: "NHTSA will contact the local authorities who are looking into the incident to determine if there are vehicle safety implications that merit agency action."
We must band together and ensure this novel vehicle does not get any sort of review before someone dies in a fire, because that is completely impossible based on inductive reasoning. Goddamed waste of my money for anyone else to look at it, thanks to your personal review of the physical evidence and confirmation that initial reports were, as usual, completely error free. Kyoodos, and carry on.
The alternative is giving everything to the most powerful internet based company outside of your isp?
No thanks. I have to have both, as do my audience, so it is still the forced social integration as the original complaint.
I want to be able to communicate with the original content creators of YouTube with no integration of Google+ Oh, because I use different email addresses with different devices and ghostery and roadblock and conscript and different browsers I can, but most people are not insane.
Also, I can't put the caret where I need to to fix conscript to noscript. I am willing to tolerate annoyance, but your market is not. Can you at least fix this fucking caret problem? In exchange for the billions of dollars earn you?
By "US government propaganda" do you mean Fox News and/or Republicans? Because I'm pretty sure the tree hugging free-range liberal hippies who want to give the country away to whomever crossed the immigration date line last don't see it that way.
Also, ZigiSamblak (745960) is confusing "Americans" with "a portion of the American population", as many foreigners do, and as many Americans do to foreigners. So we're even. All of the people wherever you come from are half wrong too. Or half are all wrong. Or maybe it's just you.
How the fuck did 5 ignorant idiots moderate this insightful? I get the sarcasm, but did you just give the last part a pass in order to prove how open minded and democrat you are?
Completely irrelevant, unless we can put the client in the role of merchant, processor, credit card company, intermediary, IT support, search engine, or something else.
Bennett is attempting to place blame. Obviously someone is to blame, but to be helpful you need to tell us which.
From your terms, I assume a merchant, but it would have to be a direct to customer merchant without an intermediary. From your mention of PCI compliance, it could be the processor.
Either way, should Google in absence of other search operators, bear the responsibility of proactively scrubbing data? Sloppy practice aside, that's what we are here to discuss.
The victim is the merchant, since they are out the goods and the price in the event of a stolen card claim chargeback. In some cases, they are also the leak.
Payment processor is only out money if it is their fault, and usually those are future earnings, not the cost itself, and only if the credit card company can nail them with good proof.
Large merchants can absorb the cost, and probably consider it a cost of doing business. Small merchants take a larger hit, as a percentage, since their profits are by definition less.
The smaller merchants are the biggest losers, and also are in no way able to police the internet for the very data which causes them trouble.
Search engines are not going to proactively censor data which passes the Luhn test, simply because it is very difficult to avoid false positives.
I would be more willing to believe that search engines could take reported stolen cards and remove results that match. But there are still plenty of numbers that could be a false positive.
If Bennett is more supportive of removing false positives than in support of freedom of information, he has no place here. If he misunderstood the impact on the merchants, he has no place asserting cause. Once again, as the issues I have raised should demonstrate, frequent idiot Bennett has demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the causes of a problem, and therefore the solutions to those very same problems.
The alternative is saying no, and fighting a very expensive lawsuit. Warrants cost more money than paying off ATT, so everyone just assumes it would be granted. Saves time and money for everyone. If they require a warrant, they can't bill for time spent, and LEA could just seize servers. So it is business continuity as well. Many more points to be made, including things like the current scotus opinions on whether that data is protected from warrants, and soon you see ATT made the right choice. Which is why I do no business with them at all.
Your tax dollars are supporting criminal investigations.
And it takes time to compile the data. Even a straight data query without going to backup requires some dedicated time. I don't expect companies to volunteer this time.
The issue is volume of requests. Say the volume is too high if you want, but each company has millions of customers generating lots of data.
Get congress to make fewer things illegal, that's a far easier line to argue.
No, we don't. Some are, and some are not. I worked with a single person who was vocal about his views, and he wants small government and a large military.
I found it necessary to balance need and funding. He disagreed. Of the thousands of people I know, I only have two views on military strength, and we balance to a disagreement. I can infer several staunch republicans and their opinions, and several democrats and their opinions. But most people don't bleat their affiliations like sheep, so I have to assume that there is at least one dissenting opinion, and there will be more.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't remember wrecking you, but I did feel tingly in my bits this morning. And a mild hangover explains the missing memories, and dignity.
They want to move lyrics searches from free fan sites maintained by people who sell advertising and get money off page views, to sites that do exactly the same thing but share ad revenue with RIAA sites.
It's not even a challenge to come up with the explanation. It might be a dime a year, but RIAA does not want people playing copy/paste and making money without adding value.
Honestly, most lyrics sites are terrible and I support de-duplicating as much of the internet as possible. A few fringe sites to make up for when all of the mainstream sites go AJAX only can remain of course.
Every jackhat who learns how to spit out html and store stuff in a database doesn't need to set up a website that does exactly what something else does, and I support anyone who enforces this.
How many people are going to go there, get the wrong information, and make the wrong decision? That's so much worse than some people accidentally making the right decision.
Because lawmakers tend to know the law, writing the law, changing the law. They are generalists, and show on average no desire to learn about what they legislate.
They are supposed to have committees to be the specialists, but when a powerful yet ignorant ranking member feels threatened by job cuts or funding cuts, the law has to bend to politics.
The unintended consequences are seen as ideologically motivated disinformation campaigns. Any rational objection sounds like either lies or regurgitated propaganda.
It is the natural consequence of electing people based on campaign ads, rather than investigating their qualifications. It is the natural consequence of having to fight a popularity contest to bridge the gap between being an ineffectual newbie and an ineffectual lame duck. Do we have term limits to solve the problem? The people no longer get to vote the person who best represents them - by law instead of out of ignorance, which is not acceptable.
And, due to bipartisan cooperation, any side can blame the other side for crippling what would have otherwise worked.
Cooperating makes the public think you are doing the best for your country, while simultaneously removing what will hurt your constituents, and including what will hurt your opponents. The net benefit is weighed by the number of voters who agree with you, not on an objective social impact. It is a system best suited to masking incompetence, and perpetuating ignorance.
If the people collectively wanted to change that, it would change the direction of the country in a generation. So the answer to why is people. As always.
Experian already has this data. When you put something correct and Experian disagrees, it doesn't just accept the new value - it actively resists those changes. There is nothing whatsoever that suggests that any data is flowing to Experian, other than to be validated against what is already there.
Experian's business model is buying and selling data, and the fact that it has this info is why Experian was chosen in the first place.
What discount you can get depends on the interaction of a lot of different sites. You could get a rough estimate, but like you said people want actual dollar amounts. When the government says it costs this, and it doesn't, that's a problem.
The ground troops were waiting for someone to identify requirements and how things were going to work. The contractors, as always, are the insurance salesmen who promise a product and under-deliver. Because of the poorly written contract and bidding process, and the lack of penalties written in. And the blame goes to the people who wrote the government contract.
Anyone who paid for this website should be personally responsible for paying it back, because they failed utterly to do their job according to the public trust.
The vast majority of visitors want data they can do something with. What was thrown together doesn't do that. And the do-gooders part, I'm not sure who you are blaming, but you obviously don't care about having a rational, informed conversation.
Would you prefer they finish the Windows 95 compatibility? Me neither. The targeted OS version specifies which API calls are available, and various implications about the underlying implementation, such as whether side-by-side is available or you get to enjoy dll hell. And as new Windows versions are released, it makes sense to add the new API calls to the codebase. It is not moving the goalposts.
Meanwhile, poorly implemented components get a rewrite while new systems, like USB recently, gradually evolve. It can seem stuck at times while the internals get rearranged.
Being pre-alpha is just a label - they could go for the perpetual beta long after it's functional. Or call it release 1.0 with known issues. You have a problem with that?
Wine makes the user-mode libraries, and ReactOS re-uses everything that can be re-used. So Wine is only in a better state because it doesn't have to sit on top of a kernel that is also being developed. It's actually the same code, other than the diffs where ReactOS has to fix things that work atop Linux but not on Windows. And yes, some people do test drop-in replacements to make sure windows components actually interoperate.
So, you asked why we care. I have tried to switch to Linux many many times, and it never works. I'm not explaining why because that devolves into people troubleshooting a problem that doesn't exist. I have Ubuntu on a live CD in front of me, and that's as close as I'm getting to switching. Having the ability to do a drop-in replacement for components that I don't like is invaluable.
Being able to debug, on Windows, with source code, and make things work the way I want, because that's where I work, is invaluable.
You talk like having a functioning OS is more important, and if that's how we determine importance then you're right, no one should care. Let's take all of the non-functional programs and half-complete operating systems, and throw them out. Just delete it, because it apparently serves no purpose. All the projects on github that don't work, just remove them, because they are pointless.
Let's throw out Windows completely, because it obviously isn't finished. I saw commits to Linux yesterday so obviously it's not done. So where do we draw the line? Your personal opinion of what's important? If you can't understand why it's important, no one will. And if other people want to watch it from time to time and see what's up, why object?
I worked on a team based in 8 locations, and any one of us could fill in for just about anyone else in any meeting.
Plenty of interaction outside of work-related talk, and I rarely talked to any of the 300-400 people at my physical location where I went to work to telecommute.
We naturally just communicated, and a few people encouraged it by just being natuarl leaders, despite not being the actual leaders.
I have worked on teams where one person was shut out, and that person was described as having poor communication skills, when it was the rest of the team with the problem.
With kids, the solution is to get them all on the same page. With adults, the easiest solution is hope the oddball finds another job. I've never seen another solution that works consistently, though some could work inconsistently.
If the object is to have a team that works like a team, the whole team is to blame if the team isn't working. If the object is to trim the fat, blame goes to the worst person. So what is the real goal here?
Too many words. Not enough data. Results indeterminate.
No, you are not understanding this correctly.
You used the term "re-educating" incorrectly. You imply that people who violate copyright are not actually offenders. And the slippery slope argument about breeding is so ridiculous right now that you deserve to be stripped of your posting rights.
As you said, people have the natural instinct of sharing things. On a normal basis of friend to friend, this is generally tolerated. Buying one copy and sharing it with everyone on the planet is illegal in pretty much every part of the world, by social contract. At some point between giving it to your friend and giving to the world, this becomes illegal.
Educating people that this is part of the social contract, and sharing is permissible only within the confines of fair use, if such a concept exists in the community, is not unreasonable.
You should divert your energy to fighting the parts that need fighting. Copyright length is clearly absurd, armed swat team enforcement is clearly overkill. Hyperbole and misinterpretation gets us nowhere.
TL;DR - you are not helping.
Nope. I joined repeatedly, and earned positive karma repeatedly, with many accounts.
Bunch of deleted stuff... you can leave your past behind, if you are willing to leave your past behind. Most people aren't, and that's what everyone against you is counting on.
Kill your wife, or child, or countryman, or government, or celebrity, or friend? I count on you to be strong, while the perpetrator counts on you to be weak.
Everyone should be mentally reviewing their activity. and if it should be censored or stopped, then don't say it or do it. Breathe or don't, type or don't, speak or don't... live or don't. Decide your own fate, and decide your actions accordingly.
Are you searching the internet for something that supports your view? Then consider if you are wrong. Are you repeating something your parents told you, or something you learned ten years ago or more? Consider that society has learned some things since then.
Put on the foil if you must, but appreciate that your own mind can come up with facts, consequences, and conclusions, if you do not submit your mind to input from adversarial forces.
LeVar is poised to accept this, as his character, which he, I assume, has in some form studied more than anyone on the planet. Fans aside, he had to play the part.
As someone famous, he does not accept it. Mostly due to the hundreds or thousands of bitches who would storm his house and demand no-strings-attached sex.
Or maybe, just maybe, he speaks for the technophiles who nonetheless find fault with the so-called benefits Glass promises.
It cannot replace your eyes yet, and promises that your private life, once shared with a third party (google), is no longer yours. Maybe not explicitly, but from one who gathers this information, we assure you it does.
I would advise you to first consider, then dismiss, the words of an idiot. Sometimes, it only require half that effort. Discarding it out of hand, on the other hand, makes you the idiot, and the other, the question mark. Would it not be better to raise a question and have it answered? Or would you silence all conversation?
Then let it be so inside yourself, as it is outside.
"Never heard of this guy" usually means "I hang out everywhere, and the name doesn't ring a bell".
It could mean, "I know a whole crapload of celebrities, and while many of you might know him, he's not a blip on the radar".
Sometimes, it means, "I did a quick search to see if I could figure out which LeVar Burton you meant, and it could be a CEO in Chicago, or a babysitter in Shithole, LA."
From time to time, it means, "I have read every horsecrap shitfilled cockgargling arsemunching word you assfucks have written in the last five years and this fuckstain doesn't even appear in the retarded, window-licking, drooling masses of fools who have managed to bang enough keys in the form of a not-immediately-dismissable-sentence, posts that I have subjected myself to in that time, so you must not know s/him either."
In this case, it means, "I am not the target audience for the site I'm posting on, and I don't know this, and therefore everyone should ignore me because I'm an idiot who should take an arrow to the knee."
Who sets the rules?
What if you have 1000 people asking for a share of the funds, is it a net benefit to dilute the pool by splitting it evenly, or do we say the crazy guy who mumbles and can't put a sentence together does not qualify?
If one person does not qualify, where do we draw a fair line?
How do we set up a system to resist complaints analogous to gerrymandering, where the people who decide the rules seem fair but are manipulated into giving a predetermined answer by apparently unrelated rules?
If the internet decides to crowdfund a candidate, do we deny that person access to those funds?
If the crowdfunding comes about as a perceived lack of fairness in the funding rules or decisions, how do we guarantee those concerns will be addressed and resolved in time for the candidate to have a fair shot at redress?
What happens when a well-known and vocally partial media-savvy group discounts time to a specific candidate, or refuses to take on other candidates, giving that person's equal share of money more effect? Is that group's output banned?
What if a celebrity who happens to have a movie coming out, unabashedly and without compensation decides to add positive comments to their press junket? Do we silence the positive press because the other candidates cannot afford a similar plant?
How about when a politically minded Beiber writes a song about how Obama is awesome and Romney sucks it and it circulates on an unregulated medium where "equal time" rules cannot be enforced, such as e-mail inboxes and youtube - while getting no financial backing from a candidate?
Or the current office holder who is popular shows up at and stumps for their proposed replacement?
Point is, getting money out will not solve any inequality problems due to existing connections. Money is just one of those connections. Solving for money means you play whack-a-mole with every other kind of influence all the way back to who their parents and grandparents knew.
Maybe there is a solution, but it is a hell of a lot more complex than "public campaign funds". And since it will be completely ineffective other than paying lip service, I would prefer some of the other issues to be resolved first before taking such a huge and ineffective step.
A tool by others, like facebook or google login? Or maybe you meant a middle ground between reuse nothing vs. reuse everything?
I read the comment as not baking the pie from scratch when a good flour is on the grocery shelves. And if you grow your own wheat, you deserve the inevitable problems.
Let's have some balance and reason, I don't ask for anything unreasonable.
Is it too hard to suggest a one word correction?
I'm an asshole, but only when over 80% of the words are wrong, misunderstood, or misused.
Or, unrelatedly, you are fundamentally so stupid you have no business contributing publicly. But one word, really?
I'm glad someone other than the feds are investigating this. What good is old fashioned research when you have the pure, elegant, and obviously correct deductive reasoning of an internet pseudonym?
I'm pretty sure It's socialism when the nhtsa threatens the following:
"NHTSA will contact the local authorities who are looking into the incident to determine if there are vehicle safety implications that merit agency action."
We must band together and ensure this novel vehicle does not get any sort of review before someone dies in a fire, because that is completely impossible based on inductive reasoning. Goddamed waste of my money for anyone else to look at it, thanks to your personal review of the physical evidence and confirmation that initial reports were, as usual, completely error free.
Kyoodos, and carry on.
We need a new standard. Free as in beer, free as in open source, or free as in privacy?
Or maybe Software as a Service vs. Software as a Business Model?
The alternative is giving everything to the most powerful internet based company outside of your isp?
No thanks. I have to have both, as do my audience, so it is still the forced social integration as the original complaint.
I want to be able to communicate with the original content creators of YouTube with no integration of Google+
Oh, because I use different email addresses with different devices and ghostery and roadblock and conscript and different browsers I can, but most people are not insane.
Also, I can't put the caret where I need to to fix conscript to noscript. I am willing to tolerate annoyance, but your market is not. Can you at least fix this fucking caret problem? In exchange for the billions of dollars earn you?
More importantly, Oracle is a serial killer. Anyone called Agent Jarreau?
If so, can I have her number? You know, in case I need to find the team?
By "US government propaganda" do you mean Fox News and/or Republicans? Because I'm pretty sure the tree hugging free-range liberal hippies who want to give the country away to whomever crossed the immigration date line last don't see it that way.
Also, ZigiSamblak (745960) is confusing "Americans" with "a portion of the American population", as many foreigners do, and as many Americans do to foreigners. So we're even. All of the people wherever you come from are half wrong too. Or half are all wrong. Or maybe it's just you.
How the fuck did 5 ignorant idiots moderate this insightful? I get the sarcasm, but did you just give the last part a pass in order to prove how open minded and democrat you are?
Completely irrelevant, unless we can put the client in the role of merchant, processor, credit card company, intermediary, IT support, search engine, or something else.
Bennett is attempting to place blame. Obviously someone is to blame, but to be helpful you need to tell us which.
From your terms, I assume a merchant, but it would have to be a direct to customer merchant without an intermediary. From your mention of PCI compliance, it could be the processor.
Either way, should Google in absence of other search operators, bear the responsibility of proactively scrubbing data? Sloppy practice aside, that's what we are here to discuss.
The victim is the merchant, since they are out the goods and the price in the event of a stolen card claim chargeback. In some cases, they are also the leak.
Payment processor is only out money if it is their fault, and usually those are future earnings, not the cost itself, and only if the credit card company can nail them with good proof.
Large merchants can absorb the cost, and probably consider it a cost of doing business. Small merchants take a larger hit, as a percentage, since their profits are by definition less.
The smaller merchants are the biggest losers, and also are in no way able to police the internet for the very data which causes them trouble.
Search engines are not going to proactively censor data which passes the Luhn test, simply because it is very difficult to avoid false positives.
I would be more willing to believe that search engines could take reported stolen cards and remove results that match. But there are still plenty of numbers that could be a false positive.
If Bennett is more supportive of removing false positives than in support of freedom of information, he has no place here. If he misunderstood the impact on the merchants, he has no place asserting cause. Once again, as the issues I have raised should demonstrate, frequent idiot Bennett has demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the causes of a problem, and therefore the solutions to those very same problems.
Bennett, your blog sucks.
The alternative is saying no, and fighting a very expensive lawsuit.
Warrants cost more money than paying off ATT, so everyone just assumes it would be granted. Saves time and money for everyone.
If they require a warrant, they can't bill for time spent, and LEA could just seize servers. So it is business continuity as well.
Many more points to be made, including things like the current scotus opinions on whether that data is protected from warrants, and soon you see ATT made the right choice.
Which is why I do no business with them at all.
Your tax dollars are supporting criminal investigations.
And it takes time to compile the data. Even a straight data query without going to backup requires some dedicated time. I don't expect companies to volunteer this time.
The issue is volume of requests. Say the volume is too high if you want, but each company has millions of customers generating lots of data.
Get congress to make fewer things illegal, that's a far easier line to argue.
No, we don't. Some are, and some are not. I worked with a single person who was vocal about his views, and he wants small government and a large military.
I found it necessary to balance need and funding. He disagreed. Of the thousands of people I know, I only have two views on military strength, and we balance to a disagreement. I can infer several staunch republicans and their opinions, and several democrats and their opinions. But most people don't bleat their affiliations like sheep, so I have to assume that there is at least one dissenting opinion, and there will be more.
We, the people, do not agree.