A group of scientists in Taiwan recently discovered that placing gold nanoparticles within the leaves of trees, causes them to give off a luminous reddish glow.
Even better, a group of US capitalists has discovered that setting fire to the trees produces an even more luminous glow, at no cost to the company, keeping the gold available for executive bonuses.
Is there any list of titles she holds? She is the queen of many things, the head a large number of organizations, and for someone that wasn't raised under a monarchy, it all seems very confusing.
Enough for an indefinite block and a talk page full of patronising comments. In future please stick to editing articles you know nothing about.
Would you post to Slashdot if you'd read the article? No, of course not. So please show a similar respect for Wikipedia and avoid editing subjects you know anything about.
Frankly, it's no skin off my back whether any afghans were hit by the Taliban as a result of the wikileaks disclosure. I'm just against wikileaks on general, but that's because I hate snitches and they basically take snitching to an absurd extreme.
You don't care either way whether people have been killed but you do have it in for snitches??? What are you, a twelve year old sociopath?
Alright, so Free says THEY don't have to send the notices. Fine, so Hadopi has to send the email. Big deal, the customer's email address was probably in the data Free handed over.
I think you're misunderstanding.
"But, the law does say that only users who are alerted by their ISP can be taken to court to be disconnected."
They can't be disconnected unless alerted by their ISP. Hadopi alerting them does not move that process forwards. Users potentially can be sued of course based on the info provided but the whole point of this process is supposed to be to enable action against them based on accusation without all the inconvenience of a trial (whatever happened to the European Convention on Human Rights anyway?).
“But ‘Free’ did not agree to Hadopi using its SMTP servers without a signed agreement, which apparently was refused, probably because they required payment or other forms of compensations.”
So, Free is literally refusing to relay the emails via SMTP from Hadopi?
When they talk about using the ISP's SMTP server I think they mean that Hadopi get to send emails as if the originator is the ISP, not that the ISP will relay it like any normal piece of traffic. If so then it's hardly surprising that someone's refused (but hard to imagine why anyone at all would have agreed to it).
What do you think, Slashdotters? Is this a good move for Minnesota?
Hmmmm... I've studied the data carefully and considered the pros and cons, taking account of the prevailing trends and allowing for all the variables. Based on my analysis I predict that the Slashdot consensus will be that going all Microsoft is not a good move.
If they were that desperate for indemnification, they would have avoided Android completely rather than releasing on both platforms.
Or just talked to an insurance company. There are people who do this stuff professionally and you're not limited to off the shelf policies.
Many of the companies involved are of a scale to have their own offshore captive insurance companies that'll invest the 'premiums' on their behalf to have a pool to draw on if anything does ever happen, and keep the profits in house if it doesn't.
But the manufacturer/developer decides the price to sell to the shop owner. Bad analogy.
The manufacturer/developer decides what price their willing to sell at to the shop, correct. And the shop owner decides what they're willing to pay. And if the manufacturerdeveloper isn't willing to sell at a price that the shop is willing to pay then there's no sale. This is business as normal.
Imagine the uproar in the publishing industry if Amazon decided paper book prices.
Maybe I'm missing something weird about the American book market, but surely Amazon DO set the price for paper books in their store. Obviously they don't set the price of books in other people's stores, but that's not what's going to happen here either.
So... if I've got it right then "fragmentation" of stores is a problem because if we have more than one then phone providers may limit us to only one, so to prevent that we should only have one? Or something?
Brick and mortar stores are not relevant to this discussion.
Why? You'd need a chain with stores in enough areas but other than your arguments apply to people producing any other product having the joy of dealing with only one company, what's special about app developers?
And if there is some reason to exempt brick and mortar stores specially then how about web sites? Should I only be able to buy anything online through one supplier?
The price you are willing to sll at to Amazon is up to you. The price Amazon is willing to pay you is up to Amazon. The price Amazon is willing to sell to the public at is decided by Amazon. The price the public is willing to pay is decided by the public.
And obviously that means that if you won't sell for the amount Amazon offers you then you don't sell it to them and if the public aren't willing to buy for the amount Amazon is offering it at then Amazon don't get a sale.
Wait a minute... Amazon gets to set the price? So you want to sell at $3 and they can decide you can only sell at $0.49? Or at $10? WTF am I missing here
It's a shop. You must use shops some times. The shop owner typically decides the selling price. The price you are willing to see at to Amazon is up to you. The price Amazon is willing to pay you is up to Amazon. The price Amazon is willing to sell to the public at is decided by Amazon. The price the public is willing to pay is decided by the public. Amazon can have loss leaders or 200% mark ups. It's a shop.
It is not protection from naughty stuff, it is protection from embarassing searches.
Yes, but not embarrasing for you, embarrasing for Google. Google doesn't want to have suggested to your children that they should be searching for "amateur ass". Google doesn't want to have suggested to your children that they search for "God is evil" in case some group is outraged at them for doing so - nobody is likely to have typed in "god is evi" if they weren't going there anyway, it's not going to embarrase you at work (or if it was then you wouldn't be typing it), but it's not something Google wants to have suggested.
And"[anything] is evil"? e.g. "hatred is evil", "god is evil", "atheism is evil", "evil is evil", "slashdot is evil" are all blocked. Does absolutely any phrase ending in "is evil" always have undersirable related searches? It seems far more plausible to me for that one that they don't want Google to be seen to be 'suggesting' that something is evil when that something may be important to the person doing the search. Which suggests that at least part of this is a blacklist of search patterns.
(And personally I don't find their actions here objectionable, but I do think that if that is what they are trying to do then it is essentially unworkable - okay "allah is evil" won't be suggested but I start with "allah is " and it suggests "satan").
This has nothing to do with censorship. They just don't want people searching "assignment" to have their screen jammed full of porn before you finish typing.
I agree that it isn't censorship but I think it's harder to work out what the intention is than that, For example patterns like "[anything] is evil" are blocked - I don't think that really fits in with your explanation. Whatever they're trying to do it doesn't look like they've done it very well.
Could it be that this system blacklists the words based on the content to be displayed and not based on the input itself?
No. For example "amateur[anything]" is blocked. So "amateur", "amateur theatrics", "amateur night", "amateurish", "amateur diy" etc etc are all blocked. It's implausible to suppose that no combination produces acceptable search results. Also "[anything] is evil" is blocked. Thid is definitely a blacklist of search term patters, not results.
Thanks for the suggestion but I actually thought about it before (and while) making it. (And yet I didn't reach the same conclusion as you - how could such a thing happen unless I wasn't thinking???)
If you have to list not only all the real, but additionally all the imagined hazards, or not just the contents, but the imagined non-contents, of a product, the packaging/labeling will have to be more mass than the product itself.
You don't have to list all the real or imagined hazards or contents and imagined non-contents. You have to list the particular qualities that the regulators / legislators have identified as having to be identified. As far as I can tell that's not a particularly extensive list. The real issue is what you have against people knowing the SAR. Is it really just the appalling prospect that they might make choices on a basis you consider to be irrational?
At what point is this an unfair onus on the producer? Equal protection under the law implies that producers should have rights, too.
As long as this, rather easily met, requirement applies equally to all producers of cell phones I don't understand what you're going with that.
Slashdot Mirror
A group of scientists in Taiwan recently discovered that placing gold nanoparticles within the leaves of trees, causes them to give off a luminous reddish glow.
Even better, a group of US capitalists has discovered that setting fire to the trees produces an even more luminous glow, at no cost to the company, keeping the gold available for executive bonuses.
"...an adult gorilla's erect penis size is about 4cm in length"
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Who the hell goes around measuring that type of stuff?!
Insecure gorillas.
Is there any list of titles she holds? She is the queen of many things, the head a large number of organizations, and for someone that wasn't raised under a monarchy, it all seems very confusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II
I posted on a page where I'm sort of an expert in the field
There's the problem right there. Already I can sense violations of:
WP:OR
WP:COI
WP:RANDY
WP:WTF
Enough for an indefinite block and a talk page full of patronising comments. In future please stick to editing articles you know nothing about.
Would you post to Slashdot if you'd read the article? No, of course not. So please show a similar respect for Wikipedia and avoid editing subjects you know anything about.
Frankly, it's no skin off my back whether any afghans were hit by the Taliban as a result of the wikileaks disclosure. I'm just against wikileaks on general, but that's because I hate snitches and they basically take snitching to an absurd extreme.
You don't care either way whether people have been killed but you do have it in for snitches??? What are you, a twelve year old sociopath?
Alright, so Free says THEY don't have to send the notices. Fine, so Hadopi has to send the email. Big deal, the customer's email address was probably in the data Free handed over.
I think you're misunderstanding.
"But, the law does say that only users who are alerted by their ISP can be taken to court to be disconnected."
They can't be disconnected unless alerted by their ISP. Hadopi alerting them does not move that process forwards. Users potentially can be sued of course based on the info provided but the whole point of this process is supposed to be to enable action against them based on accusation without all the inconvenience of a trial (whatever happened to the European Convention on Human Rights anyway?).
“But ‘Free’ did not agree to Hadopi using its SMTP servers without a signed agreement, which apparently was refused, probably because they required payment or other forms of compensations.”
So, Free is literally refusing to relay the emails via SMTP from Hadopi?
When they talk about using the ISP's SMTP server I think they mean that Hadopi get to send emails as if the originator is the ISP, not that the ISP will relay it like any normal piece of traffic. If so then it's hardly surprising that someone's refused (but hard to imagine why anyone at all would have agreed to it).
You have extraordinary powers. Can you tell me lottery numbers?
Easily. The numbers are:
01
05
06
24
27
Now all you have to do for a guaranteed win is to pick the right lottery and the right draw date.
What do you think, Slashdotters? Is this a good move for Minnesota?
Hmmmm... I've studied the data carefully and considered the pros and cons, taking account of the prevailing trends and allowing for all the variables. Based on my analysis I predict that the Slashdot consensus will be that going all Microsoft is not a good move.
Nerds are supposed to be smart.
No, nerds are supposed to be borderline autistic.
Nerds are supposed to be both, and many other things too; it all depends on who is doing the supposing.
If they were that desperate for indemnification, they would have avoided Android completely rather than releasing on both platforms.
Or just talked to an insurance company. There are people who do this stuff professionally and you're not limited to off the shelf policies.
Many of the companies involved are of a scale to have their own offshore captive insurance companies that'll invest the 'premiums' on their behalf to have a pool to draw on if anything does ever happen, and keep the profits in house if it doesn't.
But the manufacturer/developer decides the price to sell to the shop owner. Bad analogy.
The manufacturer/developer decides what price their willing to sell at to the shop, correct. And the shop owner decides what they're willing to pay. And if the manufacturerdeveloper isn't willing to sell at a price that the shop is willing to pay then there's no sale. This is business as normal.
Imagine the uproar in the publishing industry if Amazon decided paper book prices.
Maybe I'm missing something weird about the American book market, but surely Amazon DO set the price for paper books in their store. Obviously they don't set the price of books in other people's stores, but that's not what's going to happen here either.
So... if I've got it right then "fragmentation" of stores is a problem because if we have more than one then phone providers may limit us to only one, so to prevent that we should only have one? Or something?
Brick and mortar stores are not relevant to this discussion.
Why? You'd need a chain with stores in enough areas but other than your arguments apply to people producing any other product having the joy of dealing with only one company, what's special about app developers?
And if there is some reason to exempt brick and mortar stores specially then how about web sites? Should I only be able to buy anything online through one supplier?
The price you are willing to sll at to Amazon is up to you. The price Amazon is willing to pay you is up to Amazon. The price Amazon is willing to sell to the public at is decided by Amazon. The price the public is willing to pay is decided by the public.
And obviously that means that if you won't sell for the amount Amazon offers you then you don't sell it to them and if the public aren't willing to buy for the amount Amazon is offering it at then Amazon don't get a sale.
Wait a minute ... Amazon gets to set the price? So you want to sell at $3 and they can decide you can only sell at $0.49? Or at $10? WTF am I missing here
It's a shop. You must use shops some times. The shop owner typically decides the selling price. The price you are willing to see at to Amazon is up to you. The price Amazon is willing to pay you is up to Amazon. The price Amazon is willing to sell to the public at is decided by Amazon. The price the public is willing to pay is decided by the public. Amazon can have loss leaders or 200% mark ups. It's a shop.
It was just a url I grabbed off Youtube for a test of goo.gl and was amused by the short url it gave me.
I think your cr4p link is destined to become famous.
How about this, not tubgirl but it is w1Kd :
http://goo.gl/w1Kd
It is not protection from naughty stuff, it is protection from embarassing searches.
Yes, but not embarrasing for you, embarrasing for Google. Google doesn't want to have suggested to your children that they should be searching for "amateur ass". Google doesn't want to have suggested to your children that they search for "God is evil" in case some group is outraged at them for doing so - nobody is likely to have typed in "god is evi" if they weren't going there anyway, it's not going to embarrase you at work (or if it was then you wouldn't be typing it), but it's not something Google wants to have suggested.
And"[anything] is evil"? e.g. "hatred is evil", "god is evil", "atheism is evil", "evil is evil", "slashdot is evil" are all blocked. Does absolutely any phrase ending in "is evil" always have undersirable related searches? It seems far more plausible to me for that one that they don't want Google to be seen to be 'suggesting' that something is evil when that something may be important to the person doing the search. Which suggests that at least part of this is a blacklist of search patterns.
(And personally I don't find their actions here objectionable, but I do think that if that is what they are trying to do then it is essentially unworkable - okay "allah is evil" won't be suggested but I start with "allah is " and it suggests "satan").
This has nothing to do with censorship. They just don't want people searching "assignment" to have their screen jammed full of porn before you finish typing.
I agree that it isn't censorship but I think it's harder to work out what the intention is than that, For example patterns like "[anything] is evil" are blocked - I don't think that really fits in with your explanation. Whatever they're trying to do it doesn't look like they've done it very well.
Could it be that this system blacklists the words based on the content to be displayed and not based on the input itself?
No. For example "amateur[anything]" is blocked. So "amateur", "amateur theatrics", "amateur night", "amateurish", "amateur diy" etc etc are all blocked. It's implausible to suppose that no combination produces acceptable search results. Also "[anything] is evil" is blocked. Thid is definitely a blacklist of search term patters, not results.
But...who are we hiding from?
Nice try but you're not going to find out that easily.
It's way too early to judge this government as a "the best". They've only been in power a year.
More like three months in fact.
Think about your statement.
Thanks for the suggestion but I actually thought about it before (and while) making it. (And yet I didn't reach the same conclusion as you - how could such a thing happen unless I wasn't thinking???)
If you have to list not only all the real, but additionally all the imagined hazards, or not just the contents, but the imagined non-contents, of a product, the packaging/labeling will have to be more mass than the product itself.
You don't have to list all the real or imagined hazards or contents and imagined non-contents. You have to list the particular qualities that the regulators / legislators have identified as having to be identified. As far as I can tell that's not a particularly extensive list. The real issue is what you have against people knowing the SAR. Is it really just the appalling prospect that they might make choices on a basis you consider to be irrational?
At what point is this an unfair onus on the producer? Equal protection under the law implies that producers should have rights, too.
As long as this, rather easily met, requirement applies equally to all producers of cell phones I don't understand what you're going with that.