And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?
Well, LONG before we traded stocks on the market so that speculators and people with no direct involvement the company could make money... in the simpler case this was the owners of companies.
So four people could start a corporation, each with 25% ownership in the company, but their personal assets would be shielded from liability for company debts. The company could fail, but they wouldn't lose their shirts (or houses).
The abstract, arms length stockholders is not who corporations were primarily created to protect.
But somehow along the way these corporate entities which existed for legal liability purposes have become things with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and feelings which we can't hurt.
Well, let's not pretend that the movie industry operates on anything other than a desire for money, and let's not pretend the movie going public is looking for high brow drama.
If vacuous action movies make billions of dollars, that's what they're going to make.
I guess you could spend your own personal money trying to make a black and white film about an angst-y mime and his damaged relationship with his mother... but nobody would give a damn.
The fact of the matter is, the movie going public isn't paying to see poncy art films.
Fast cars, pretty women, and explosions is where the real money is at. Ingmar Bergman? Not so much.
Love it, hate it.. but, honestly you simply can't discount a film franchise in which two of the four movies have had global revenues of over a billion dollars and shows up on the lists of highest grossing films.
At the end of the day, screw artistic merit when you earn zillions of dollars.
You don't have to like it, but there's not escaping that they've been successful. As long as those movies make that much money, you can count on more of them.
What does this mean? Ultimately it means you'll be able to find a recipe online, have the ingredient list and preparation instructions sent to your mobile device, and your smart oven will be automatically configured with the correct settings
No, the wealthy, the futurists, and the people selling us this stuff may or may not have it... but the overwhelming majority of people for the foreseeable will have nothing of the sort.
We're at least two decades, massive changes in how incompetent security is implemented and punished, an actual roll out of IPV6 and the year of the Linux desktop away from even a trifling amount of people having any of this crap.
If Microsoft or Miele think I will own a "oven, vacuum cleaner and washing machine" which is connected to the internet they're delusional.
Microsoft + Internet of Things = security and privacy nightmare.
This is a flying car or a jetpack. It's a cool idea, but the majority of people will never own one.
And so far the IoT is one bit of security incompetence after another. That has to be fixed before this technology doesn't just die on the vine.
The biggest issue is that having UAC on creates a different user context between user and admin.
That's kind of the point. Sudo does the exact same thing.
Running everything as the admin is idiotic, because everything you do is as admin, and the machine is wide open. Back in the bad old days of Windows everybody was always admin... we keep malware out by not running as admin.
If you need to be logged in as the admin, be logged in as admin to do only do the tasks you need.
Saying "oh noes, teh COM says we have to write teh sux04 security" sounds like someone did a cheap hack to accomplish something they couldn't actually do.
This sounds like crap software which incompetently implements a feature, and achieves it by stupidly disabling any sense of security.
This makes any PC running this crap so outrageously insecure that there's imply no excuse, and sure as hell not "well, they had to use COM, so they had to suck".
That's essentially malware.
If legacy apps on these systems need UAC disabled, stop using them, or stop pretending you still have a viable product.
If you're selling shit which makes everything admin, you're criminally incompetent.
Honestly, I find modern web browsers to be complete memory hogs.
I guess I just use machines differently... I have six virtual desktops, 3 completely different browsers being used for different things (with multiple windows of multiple tabs each), iTunes, a couple of VMs. Basically I keep as many things open as I need.
As I said, my wife's work laptop was a dog slow machine, and by the time she booted, launched her firewall, opened Outlook and maybe one other thing.. the machine was already thrashing and slow.
Pushing up to 12GB and she suddenly found it highly responsive and she could do far more. Her co-workers who agree.
I never actually find myself hibernating a PC, sleeping, but never hibernating.
As I said, for me, the strategy of throw tons of RAM at it and keep it from being memory bound solves a lot of problem. Programs load faster because the machine isn't page-faulting.
Maybe most people don't need 8GB, but I'd say many could use 6GB. My mother-in-law's PC was horrible for the first year because of all the crap wizards and widgets the manufacturer had loaded it up with which I eventually had to disable for her.
Depending on how you use your computer, and what you keep open... for some people the huge pool of RAM is the biggest boost you'll get.
Honestly, this is using a cannon to swat a mosquito. The legal charges are grossly disproportionate to what he did.
This is like putting teenagers who are almost adults on the sex offenders registry for taking pictures of their own junk.
Basically it is criminalizing something WAY disproportionate to what happened.
Potentially ruining the life of a kid for changing a desktop background? That sheriff is an incompetent fool, as is anybody else in the legal system who helps this happen.
But then again, schools seem to just go to full stupid these days over stuff, because they're being ran by people who barely grasp the issues and act like petty dictators.
This is censorship in the same way as "not allowing libel" is censorship.
Wow, you're making an awful huge leap to libel.
Because TFS says:
"The decision is based on a defamation suit from the clinic, a key part of which included an affidavit from the doctor who interacted with the anonymous reviewers and denied their claims."
It's not libel if it's true, and just because the doctor who was negatively reviewed says "nuh uh, am not" does NOT establish anything at all resembling libel.
Removal of any kind of public content is troubling, particularly when the process behind it appears to be little more than an on-record denial.
This is the heart of the problem... how is the subject of the bad review denying it evidence of a damned thing? You can safely assume the doctor would deny it even if it was true.
Sometimes you have to look at how these laws are being applied, and fight back the overwhelming urge to slap the stupid from the people who pursue these charges. And it might take a lot of slapping.
This is a high school prank, nothing more.
Honestly, the people who are filing felony charges of complete morons.
I doubt they care. They want the FTC to bless it as free speech so they can wash their hands of any culpability.
Well, the problem with this is... doe the FTC really have jurisdiction here?
This was intended to be global names, affecting multiple countries. So WTF does the FTC get to decide on global things for?
So, say in some fictional language.sucks is the same as.awesome... is the FTC responsible saying the people in this fictional country can't have their domain name?
This was the predictable pile of crap which was expected when they did this. Now they seem to have decided they will just approve anything, and then ask a US body to retroactively approve them.
Will the FTC also decide if, say,.peru should be OK? Or should the world tell the FTC they don't give a crap what they think about valid domain names.
And then we're back to "America thinks it owns the internet".
But this stuff with ICANN, this is self inflicted stupidity which many of us predicted would happen. Going to the FTC to rule on this just shows what a terrible job they did of thinking this through.
ICANN when they sold it, but mostly the guy who bought it.
Heard a radio interview with him the other week. He defended it as "free speech" and a useful way for customers to interact with brandholders.
He straight up denied it wasn't a shakedown racket, but, then, he would.
I'm sure any company wishing to buy it from the registered owner would need to up that $2500 by at least a zero or two.
Hell, why not have ICANN create an ".isanasshole" domain?
This is pretty much what lots of us expected... most of these tld's just become a cash grab as every company now has to defensively buy a crap ton more domains.
It's always been about monetizing more words, and ICANN was just looking to collect.
So, basically the ICANN approved this, sold it... and only then did they stop and think "is this a good idea"?
Way to do your due diligence.
No, wait, this is exactly how you don't do something like this.
This pretty much could be seen as a potential for a shakedown racket from miles away... don't want McDonalds.sucks to be a valid website? Well, you keep adding zeroes to the check until I tell you to stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, LONG before we traded stocks on the market so that speculators and people with no direct involvement the company could make money ... in the simpler case this was the owners of companies.
So four people could start a corporation, each with 25% ownership in the company, but their personal assets would be shielded from liability for company debts. The company could fail, but they wouldn't lose their shirts (or houses).
The abstract, arms length stockholders is not who corporations were primarily created to protect.
But somehow along the way these corporate entities which existed for legal liability purposes have become things with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and feelings which we can't hurt.
Decide on the stupidity of that at your leisure.
What franchises are you referring to?
Obviously Transformers is related to the kids series, but you clearly have some other franchise in mind which is appropriating source material.
The only thing I can even think of is "I Robot", which had nothing whatsoever to with the Asmiov story.
Sure, but nothing short of the mega-action flick does a billion dollars worldwide in box office revenues, at least not that I'm aware of.
You don't have to watch them. You don't have to like them.
But nobody at all should be surprised that the high grossing action films continue to get made when people pay to see them.
Michael Bay doesn't need to have some vaunted "artistic integrity", he just keep cashing the checks and not giving a crap what other people say.
Well, let's not pretend that the movie industry operates on anything other than a desire for money, and let's not pretend the movie going public is looking for high brow drama.
If vacuous action movies make billions of dollars, that's what they're going to make.
I guess you could spend your own personal money trying to make a black and white film about an angst-y mime and his damaged relationship with his mother ... but nobody would give a damn.
The fact of the matter is, the movie going public isn't paying to see poncy art films.
Fast cars, pretty women, and explosions is where the real money is at. Ingmar Bergman? Not so much.
Love it, hate it .. but, honestly you simply can't discount a film franchise in which two of the four movies have had global revenues of over a billion dollars and shows up on the lists of highest grossing films.
At the end of the day, screw artistic merit when you earn zillions of dollars.
You don't have to like it, but there's not escaping that they've been successful. As long as those movies make that much money, you can count on more of them.
Oh, man, that has to be the best headline all year.
I for one welcome our new giant, transforming robotic overlords.
Why the hell haven't we been seeing stories about transforming robots yet?
If (internet) then troll_present = true;
Done, just that easy.
Dude, you almost had a perfect score .. but you needed to mention "Gray Poupon". ;-)
There's an app for that.
No, the wealthy, the futurists, and the people selling us this stuff may or may not have it ... but the overwhelming majority of people for the foreseeable will have nothing of the sort.
We're at least two decades, massive changes in how incompetent security is implemented and punished, an actual roll out of IPV6 and the year of the Linux desktop away from even a trifling amount of people having any of this crap.
If Microsoft or Miele think I will own a "oven, vacuum cleaner and washing machine" which is connected to the internet they're delusional.
Microsoft + Internet of Things = security and privacy nightmare.
This is a flying car or a jetpack. It's a cool idea, but the majority of people will never own one.
And so far the IoT is one bit of security incompetence after another. That has to be fixed before this technology doesn't just die on the vine.
That's kind of the point. Sudo does the exact same thing.
Running everything as the admin is idiotic, because everything you do is as admin, and the machine is wide open. Back in the bad old days of Windows everybody was always admin ... we keep malware out by not running as admin.
If you need to be logged in as the admin, be logged in as admin to do only do the tasks you need.
Saying "oh noes, teh COM says we have to write teh sux04 security" sounds like someone did a cheap hack to accomplish something they couldn't actually do.
This sounds like crap software which incompetently implements a feature, and achieves it by stupidly disabling any sense of security.
This makes any PC running this crap so outrageously insecure that there's imply no excuse, and sure as hell not "well, they had to use COM, so they had to suck".
That's essentially malware.
If legacy apps on these systems need UAC disabled, stop using them, or stop pretending you still have a viable product.
If you're selling shit which makes everything admin, you're criminally incompetent.
So, let's be honest here ... this is a project by MIT to tell Yalies once and for all that, yes, your shit does stink.
You know it is. ;-)
Honestly, I find modern web browsers to be complete memory hogs.
I guess I just use machines differently ... I have six virtual desktops, 3 completely different browsers being used for different things (with multiple windows of multiple tabs each), iTunes, a couple of VMs. Basically I keep as many things open as I need.
As I said, my wife's work laptop was a dog slow machine, and by the time she booted, launched her firewall, opened Outlook and maybe one other thing .. the machine was already thrashing and slow.
Pushing up to 12GB and she suddenly found it highly responsive and she could do far more. Her co-workers who agree.
I never actually find myself hibernating a PC, sleeping, but never hibernating.
As I said, for me, the strategy of throw tons of RAM at it and keep it from being memory bound solves a lot of problem. Programs load faster because the machine isn't page-faulting.
Maybe most people don't need 8GB, but I'd say many could use 6GB. My mother-in-law's PC was horrible for the first year because of all the crap wizards and widgets the manufacturer had loaded it up with which I eventually had to disable for her.
Depending on how you use your computer, and what you keep open ... for some people the huge pool of RAM is the biggest boost you'll get.
What, the Ulster Liberation Army is doing rockets now? ;-)
Honestly, this is using a cannon to swat a mosquito. The legal charges are grossly disproportionate to what he did.
This is like putting teenagers who are almost adults on the sex offenders registry for taking pictures of their own junk.
Basically it is criminalizing something WAY disproportionate to what happened.
Potentially ruining the life of a kid for changing a desktop background? That sheriff is an incompetent fool, as is anybody else in the legal system who helps this happen.
But then again, schools seem to just go to full stupid these days over stuff, because they're being ran by people who barely grasp the issues and act like petty dictators.
Wow, you're making an awful huge leap to libel.
Because TFS says:
It's not libel if it's true, and just because the doctor who was negatively reviewed says "nuh uh, am not" does NOT establish anything at all resembling libel.
This is the heart of the problem ... how is the subject of the bad review denying it evidence of a damned thing? You can safely assume the doctor would deny it even if it was true.
You simply have no basis to conclude libel.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
LOL ... Troll??? Really? What morons are getting mod points these days?
Pointing out that "more RAM == faster computer" is not trolling.
Pointing out that some fucking idiot who can't count his own toes has mod points but should be drowned in his own drool? Now, that might be trolling.
So, what stuff does Apple have made in China which the Chinese could just start knocking off to replace the Intel stuff?
This is like refusing to export snow to the Arctic. :-P
Hell, the Intel stuff is probably made somewhere in Asia, who can then just make the sale and tell the state department to piss off.
Well, let's not make the lazy, incompetent people who run these computers and assigned terrible passwords out to be at fault here.
That's just blaming the victim and using common sense.
Honestly, anything he did after they already knew he had the password makes them complete idiots.
Well, it could have been 400 frogs in elaborate animatronic costumes ... but why the hell would we assume that?
Sometimes you have to look at how these laws are being applied, and fight back the overwhelming urge to slap the stupid from the people who pursue these charges. And it might take a lot of slapping.
This is a high school prank, nothing more.
Honestly, the people who are filing felony charges of complete morons.
Well, the problem with this is ... doe the FTC really have jurisdiction here?
This was intended to be global names, affecting multiple countries. So WTF does the FTC get to decide on global things for?
So, say in some fictional language .sucks is the same as .awesome ... is the FTC responsible saying the people in this fictional country can't have their domain name?
This was the predictable pile of crap which was expected when they did this. Now they seem to have decided they will just approve anything, and then ask a US body to retroactively approve them.
Will the FTC also decide if, say, .peru should be OK? Or should the world tell the FTC they don't give a crap what they think about valid domain names.
And then we're back to "America thinks it owns the internet".
But this stuff with ICANN, this is self inflicted stupidity which many of us predicted would happen. Going to the FTC to rule on this just shows what a terrible job they did of thinking this through.
Yeah, brilliant, let's keep making the internet entirely the domain of corporations.
No, wait, that's a fucking stupid idea.
who's profiting off of this?
ICANN when they sold it, but mostly the guy who bought it.
Heard a radio interview with him the other week. He defended it as "free speech" and a useful way for customers to interact with brandholders.
He straight up denied it wasn't a shakedown racket, but, then, he would.
I'm sure any company wishing to buy it from the registered owner would need to up that $2500 by at least a zero or two.
Hell, why not have ICANN create an ".isanasshole" domain?
This is pretty much what lots of us expected ... most of these tld's just become a cash grab as every company now has to defensively buy a crap ton more domains.
It's always been about monetizing more words, and ICANN was just looking to collect.
So, basically the ICANN approved this, sold it ... and only then did they stop and think "is this a good idea"?
Way to do your due diligence.
No, wait, this is exactly how you don't do something like this.
This pretty much could be seen as a potential for a shakedown racket from miles away ... don't want McDonalds.sucks to be a valid website? Well, you keep adding zeroes to the check until I tell you to stop.