shorting only works in the short (odd, that) term - you sell stocks you claim to have, the brokerage gives you a few days to come up with them. Or, vice versa, you buy stocks with money you claim to have, and they give you a few days to come up with that.
If Orbitz fails, it won't be in the next few days. Go ahead and sell short though - brokerages love the extra fees they charge.
Here - go look. If you haven't figured out what the site is within 15 seconds, turn off your computer and return it to best buy or where ever you got it.
don't be stupid. It would cost Orbitz MORE to file a frivolous lawsuit against Google than it would cost Google to defend against it. The lawyers on both sides want to get paid, and there's all the court fees, and the danger of coming across as being frivolous...
wow, you didn't really look at his page, did you? His site does nothing other than list things you would get if you looked for asbestos under google news.
yes, really. All they read are certs. They don't understand that XYZ application is disabled on your box, or that the exploit only occurs when someone is logged in locally and running X, or...whatever else. All they see is a cert advisory.
I work for a very large corp, and we're constantly getting notified by the security teams that we need to do XYZ patches. Patches for packages that aren't even installed...and we don't even run linux. We run Solaris and AIX, yet the security team here is absolutely certain that Win2000 is more secure.
Lets say you bought your first house a few months ago.
Then lets say you aren't sure what the blown-in insulation is...it looks like cellulose, but you know the exterior of the house is done in asbestos (which isn't a problem, since its hard and painted) so you're concerned that the blown-in insulation in your walls might be asbestos.
So, you want to go do a search at google. You find a few government sites that tell you to contact expensive labs, but...you just want a picture. You just want to know what the best course of action is.
To find that, you have to sift through a bazillion crap-pollution sites like the one this guy has made. Where the HELL is the "valid service" in that? I don't have cancer. I've been exposed for minutes, not years. I don't want to be part of a class-action lawsuit (which are, thankfully, going to be smaller now). I just want to know what the best course of action is.
The only reason my super-market provides groceries is to make money, and the result is a valid service.
Your supermarket DOES provide a valid service - they give you a place to buy food. The alternative would be to spend a considerable amount of time going from market to market, just to get the things that you can get under one roof at the supermarket. The "valid service?" Convience.
This guy, on the other hand admits that "The subject matter, while weighty and all that, is of little importance." His site provides *NO* service, and instead merely attempts to snag people searching about asbestos and get them to click on banner ads. He readily admits that his site has NO CONTENT other than those ads - and guess what? One can find those lawyers without net-pollution (mostly via making search results completely worthless) taking place.
And how dare you compare this to journalism, when he directly states that it is for nothing other than generating banner ad revenue! He is making NO effort to provide any service, information or otherwise.
no it won't. It will merely serve to dilute sites that actually provide a "valid service."
Why was this put up on/.? He even *admits* to being a fraud - "The subject matter, while weighty and all that, is of little importance to me. It's not that I don't have opinions on asbestos and asbestos reform, because I do" so what the hell is his "valid service?"
There's nothing interesting about spamming, nor is there anything interesting about setting up bogus websites that have no content on them. There is SO MUCH CRAP out there in google results that its hard to find real results - most are just filler pages exactly like this person is describing. A page with keywords and banner ads. Its been around for a while - nothing about this is "news" or "interesting." Its worthless pollution.
1 - you'd be an artist, "speaking" about the disparity of wealth in the US.
2 - they wouldn't arrest you, unless it appeared you would continue doing it (and at which point, they'd arrest you for disobeying a lawful order). Destruction of private property is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
perhaps, but plumbers should really keep 5hit to themselves. Dry Cleaning professionals should know better than to disclose their company's dirty laundry, too...
"freedom of speech" means the guy won't go to JAIL for it. It doesn't mean his employer can't do anything to him. He could claim flinging poo on cars in the Google parking lot was an act of "speech" according to today's warped interpretation of the first ammendment, but that wouldn't mean that Google couldn't *fire* him for it. His saying something in a blog just won't get him put in *jail*, per the first ammendment.
"a blogger whose candid comments about life on the job at Google sparked controversy last month...Given Google's push into the blogging space with their recent acquisition of Blogger it might be interesting to see how this shakes out."
The two have nothing to do with each other. If a janitor was trash-talking google, would that make it interesting if they purchased a janitorial service? If he had made the same comments in a newspaper, or on fliers stuck to the walls of bathrooms, Google would probably have had the same reaction to him. That they are purchasing Blogger is completely irrelevent.
I do so wish they'd stop. I mean, really...this is just slashdot. If I'm not directly claiming perfect grammar, nor publishing something and thereby claiming it indirectly, then people should back off. Especially when they're *wrong*. "Got set to having," as I used it, was grammatically correct. So bah on him:P
its amazing how freaking terrible grammar nazi's are at being correct here on slashdot. One would think they'd pass secondary English courses before they'd make a public attempt, but nOOooOo...
Three cheers for the anti-grammar nazi Threni!
Now, lets police our ranks and make sure we only do this to people who are attempting to do it to others. After all, this IS informal writing for the most part....until someone opens the can of worms by "correcting" someone else's post desings their post.
And geeze people...perl solves real needs for sysadmins. Better than freaking python or some crap, and can do things that are awkward in any shell. And, as others have pointed out, there are all the mods that are available... only an academic could say perl is "a real problem in the long term."
yeah, because when my mom dies, the very most important thing for me at that point will be to make the RIAA look silly. I'll want to actually show up in court with the bother and hassle that involves, show the judge the document, and get my kicks out of my mom's death. Yeah. That's what I'd do.[/sarcasm]
Where you inserted a bazillion extra commas, and capitalized things in the middle of a sentence, likewise amused me. This especially since I made no claims to the remotest attempt to be grammatically correct, yet in your very post attempting to correct me, you had multiple flaws. That is what us wee folk call "hypocrisy." Note that I clearly stated I was using what is referred to as "informal writing," and not making any attempt to write an essay for my high school English teachers (if they're still teaching).
I only wish you'd kept going, describing "having" as yet another verb or something. It would have been even funnier.
"..or something." Well, at least you admit to not knowing anything other than "noun-verb-object." I'm going to take you up on the challenge though, just to further expose your fraud..that, and you wished for it, and I want to make you happy. I'm a nice guy like that.
Lets look at the sentence in question: "I, and many other folks, recently got set to having 50 invites left."
I - the subject. You called it "noun" instead, yet really...in this sentence it's a pronoun. "I eat" is valid enough, yes? Do you allow for the subject to be a pronoun, or must it be a noun? BTW...you do know that a sentence can have just a SUBJECT and a verb, and no object...correct? Like: "I laugh." No object at all! Craziness.
, and many other folks, - in this situation, this serves as an appositive. I'm making the claim that not only did this happen to me, but (amplifying it) it happened to many other folks as well. Before you question "folks," look it up - "folks" refers to a class of people.
recently - an adverb, modifying the verb that follows it (got).
got - past participle of "get," in this situation (search for it in the page) used as a verbal auxiliary (for set). The dictionary gives "got caught" as an example...which really, structurally speaking, is pretty damn close to "got set." It sounds bad, but isn't -wrong- per se.
set a phrasal verb, when combined with the following prepositional phrase.
to - preposition.
having 50 invites left - a gerund phrase. Sorry that the "having" confuses you, but...its not a verb here. The phrase in its entirety becomes the object of the preposition "to." Gerund phrases are not all that uncommon. Try reading a book sometime.
The fact that you won't answer the questions asked, and instead respond with snide remarks, is very telling. I challenge you to crack open your English textbooks prior to the next time you try to correct someone. And really...don't bother. THIS ISN'T FORMAL WRITING. I did not claim it to be. You, however, stepped into the realm of grammar nazism...and while so doing made several flaws yourself - some of which I bothered to correct. Can you defend your flaws? No. Did I claim mine had none? No. What does that make me? A person writing an informal post in an internet forum. What does that make you? A hypocrite who doesn't know squat about anything other than "noun-verb-object," which is, all by its self, one of the more...interesting... "corrections" you made.
Just accept it, anyone that tries to be a grammar nazi on Slashdot and can't bother to proofread their own post while doing it...*they*, at least at that point in time, are the one with the smaller penis. It doesn't even matter if they're responding to a *girl* at that point, they still have a smaller penis. I know you thoroughly enjoy correcting us wee folk from way up in the stratosphere where you reside, but...we don't need it. This isn't a textbook, it is a forum. My audience, and even you, fully understood what I was saying. Come on, dude...if you're not trying
ok, the gp: Couldn't we say the same about street illumination, waste disposal or sewer networks? It's another service, and if the municipality thinks that it would benefit the whole community to put a wireless network in place, why shouldn't they get that service with the residents' tax dollars/euros/cookies?
your responses come in several parts, and deserve individual consideration.
The difference is that your examples are basic requirements to have a good clean infrastructure. Wireless Internet is a luxury and not employed by many. "Street illumination, waste disposal [and] sewer networks" are luxuries not enjoyed by anything close to a majority of the people in the world. Therefore, using that as a distinction fails.
If the government provides this service how long before they will have to subsidize the equipment to those who cannot afford it? Pretty soon you end up with little groups of people who get the equipment and service for free because they are classified as one type of minority or another. Of "street illumination, waste disposal [and] sewer networks" only the street illumination is "free," and even then its not. The people who own the property on the street that is illuminated are who are paying for it, if you think about it. Nothing from the government is "free" anyway. As for waste disposal and sewage - doesn't matter if you're poor, or a minority, those things aren't free. Businesses and homeowners alike have bills for those things (sewage is often on the same bill as the water). So...your distinction fails again. No one is proposing that the government buys things for people to be able to throw away so they can utilize waste disposal, nor are they proposing that the government buys wireless nics.
While I love the idea of cheap wireless I do not want the government controlling it. Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones that control access and content. They also are very good at pushing an agenda with such services. Um...you don't seriously think that no corporations engage in illegal activities, or push agendas, do you? Additionally, with *LOCAL* governments, its easy for the norms to enact change. The person who can do something is their neighbor. Its not like we're talking about federal wireless networks...
There is no clear need to provide this service as there is no majority that needs it or has the equipment to use it. With that logic, there is no need to build sewage systems in 3rd world countries, because the people there don't own toilets. Instead, why not consider the possibility that if a municipal wireless network was put in place that was secure, people might then have the imputus to *obtain* the requisite equiptment to use it? If random person X that lives in an apartment above a store in downtown uses dialup, its not necessarily because he lacks a wireless nic. It may well be because he can't afford the $50 a month for highspeed, or maybe the building he's in isn't wired for cable so he can't even get it, or...whatever else. Again, local governments are established and empowered by the local residents to do things for the benefit of the local residents...like provide street illumination, police officers, etc.
Do not allow the government to expand simply because it convienences you. If there's something that would benefit a large chunk of people, and would be *considerably* cheaper (pennies instead of dollars) to do it for everyone , then...why shouldn't it be done? Isn't the very purpose of civilization to be increasing efficiency?
Pretty soon you will find you will only have to access to what they want you to and when they want you to. Unless you purchase your own net access seperate from the "free" offering from the local government.
I also believe that they should only provide the services that are required. They are not here to provide luxuries.
Slashdot Mirror
If Orbitz fails, it won't be in the next few days. Go ahead and sell short though - brokerages love the extra fees they charge.
Here - go look. If you haven't figured out what the site is within 15 seconds, turn off your computer and return it to best buy or where ever you got it.
don't be stupid. It would cost Orbitz MORE to file a frivolous lawsuit against Google than it would cost Google to defend against it. The lawyers on both sides want to get paid, and there's all the court fees, and the danger of coming across as being frivolous...
wow, you didn't read the post, did you? He says he provides no content himself - he gets it all from google.
Like, this one?
Of those, find the one that's blown-in insulation. I dare ya.
wow, you didn't really look at his page, did you? His site does nothing other than list things you would get if you looked for asbestos under google news.
I work for a very large corp, and we're constantly getting notified by the security teams that we need to do XYZ patches. Patches for packages that aren't even installed...and we don't even run linux. We run Solaris and AIX, yet the security team here is absolutely certain that Win2000 is more secure.
Yes, really. Sad, no?
if you DIDN'T link to those sites, then those sites would actually come up in the search results. Ergo, there is NO VALUE to your site.
Then lets say you aren't sure what the blown-in insulation is...it looks like cellulose, but you know the exterior of the house is done in asbestos (which isn't a problem, since its hard and painted) so you're concerned that the blown-in insulation in your walls might be asbestos.
So, you want to go do a search at google. You find a few government sites that tell you to contact expensive labs, but...you just want a picture. You just want to know what the best course of action is.
To find that, you have to sift through a bazillion crap-pollution sites like the one this guy has made. Where the HELL is the "valid service" in that? I don't have cancer. I've been exposed for minutes, not years. I don't want to be part of a class-action lawsuit (which are, thankfully, going to be smaller now). I just want to know what the best course of action is.
The only reason my super-market provides groceries is to make money, and the result is a valid service.
Your supermarket DOES provide a valid service - they give you a place to buy food. The alternative would be to spend a considerable amount of time going from market to market, just to get the things that you can get under one roof at the supermarket. The "valid service?" Convience.
This guy, on the other hand admits that "The subject matter, while weighty and all that, is of little importance." His site provides *NO* service, and instead merely attempts to snag people searching about asbestos and get them to click on banner ads. He readily admits that his site has NO CONTENT other than those ads - and guess what? One can find those lawyers without net-pollution (mostly via making search results completely worthless) taking place.
And how dare you compare this to journalism, when he directly states that it is for nothing other than generating banner ad revenue! He is making NO effort to provide any service, information or otherwise.
Why was this put up on /.? He even *admits* to being a fraud - "The subject matter, while weighty and all that, is of little importance to me. It's not that I don't have opinions on asbestos and asbestos reform, because I do" so what the hell is his "valid service?"
There's nothing interesting about spamming, nor is there anything interesting about setting up bogus websites that have no content on them. There is SO MUCH CRAP out there in google results that its hard to find real results - most are just filler pages exactly like this person is describing. A page with keywords and banner ads. Its been around for a while - nothing about this is "news" or "interesting." Its worthless pollution.
bah! I should stop typing on the other keyboard when I'm on slashdot.
bastard!
Threni=2, dazed=0.5 (I gave myself half a point for looking at a random post from you that was grammar-nazi-bait).
2 - they wouldn't arrest you, unless it appeared you would continue doing it (and at which point, they'd arrest you for disobeying a lawful order). Destruction of private property is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
absofreakinlutely.
perhaps, but plumbers should really keep 5hit to themselves. Dry Cleaning professionals should know better than to disclose their company's dirty laundry, too...
"freedom of speech" means the guy won't go to JAIL for it. It doesn't mean his employer can't do anything to him. He could claim flinging poo on cars in the Google parking lot was an act of "speech" according to today's warped interpretation of the first ammendment, but that wouldn't mean that Google couldn't *fire* him for it. His saying something in a blog just won't get him put in *jail*, per the first ammendment.
good thing this is informal writing, eh? ;)
The two have nothing to do with each other. If a janitor was trash-talking google, would that make it interesting if they purchased a janitorial service? If he had made the same comments in a newspaper, or on fliers stuck to the walls of bathrooms, Google would probably have had the same reaction to him. That they are purchasing Blogger is completely irrelevent.
bad Threni! I wasn't making claims to grammar-correctness. Other direction! Informal writing! Heel, heel!
I do so wish they'd stop. I mean, really...this is just slashdot. If I'm not directly claiming perfect grammar, nor publishing something and thereby claiming it indirectly, then people should back off. Especially when they're *wrong*. "Got set to having," as I used it, was grammatically correct. So bah on him :P
Three cheers for the anti-grammar nazi Threni!
Now, lets police our ranks and make sure we only do this to people who are attempting to do it to others. After all, this IS informal writing for the most part....until someone opens the can of worms by "correcting" someone else's post desings their post.
And geeze people...perl solves real needs for sysadmins. Better than freaking python or some crap, and can do things that are awkward in any shell. And, as others have pointed out, there are all the mods that are available... only an academic could say perl is "a real problem in the long term."
no, it wasn't. It was the quickest way to get them to leave her and her family alone. Should she have dealt with a protracted legal battle instead?
yeah, because when my mom dies, the very most important thing for me at that point will be to make the RIAA look silly. I'll want to actually show up in court with the bother and hassle that involves, show the judge the document, and get my kicks out of my mom's death. Yeah. That's what I'd do.[/sarcasm]
I only wish you'd kept going, describing "having" as yet another verb or something. It would have been even funnier.
"..or something." Well, at least you admit to not knowing anything other than "noun-verb-object." I'm going to take you up on the challenge though, just to further expose your fraud..that, and you wished for it, and I want to make you happy. I'm a nice guy like that.
Lets look at the sentence in question: "I, and many other folks, recently got set to having 50 invites left."
I - the subject. You called it "noun" instead, yet really...in this sentence it's a pronoun. "I eat" is valid enough, yes? Do you allow for the subject to be a pronoun, or must it be a noun? BTW...you do know that a sentence can have just a SUBJECT and a verb, and no object...correct? Like: "I laugh." No object at all! Craziness.
, and many other folks, - in this situation, this serves as an appositive. I'm making the claim that not only did this happen to me, but (amplifying it) it happened to many other folks as well. Before you question "folks," look it up - "folks" refers to a class of people.
recently - an adverb, modifying the verb that follows it (got).
got - past participle of "get," in this situation (search for it in the page) used as a verbal auxiliary (for set). The dictionary gives "got caught" as an example...which really, structurally speaking, is pretty damn close to "got set." It sounds bad, but isn't -wrong- per se.
set a phrasal verb, when combined with the following prepositional phrase.
to - preposition.
having 50 invites left - a gerund phrase. Sorry that the "having" confuses you, but...its not a verb here. The phrase in its entirety becomes the object of the preposition "to." Gerund phrases are not all that uncommon. Try reading a book sometime.
The fact that you won't answer the questions asked, and instead respond with snide remarks, is very telling. I challenge you to crack open your English textbooks prior to the next time you try to correct someone. And really...don't bother. THIS ISN'T FORMAL WRITING. I did not claim it to be. You, however, stepped into the realm of grammar nazism...and while so doing made several flaws yourself - some of which I bothered to correct. Can you defend your flaws? No. Did I claim mine had none? No. What does that make me? A person writing an informal post in an internet forum. What does that make you? A hypocrite who doesn't know squat about anything other than "noun-verb-object," which is, all by its self, one of the more...interesting... "corrections" you made.
Just accept it, anyone that tries to be a grammar nazi on Slashdot and can't bother to proofread their own post while doing it...*they*, at least at that point in time, are the one with the smaller penis. It doesn't even matter if they're responding to a *girl* at that point, they still have a smaller penis. I know you thoroughly enjoy correcting us wee folk from way up in the stratosphere where you reside, but...we don't need it. This isn't a textbook, it is a forum. My audience, and even you, fully understood what I was saying. Come on, dude...if you're not trying
your responses come in several parts, and deserve individual consideration.
The difference is that your examples are basic requirements to have a good clean infrastructure. Wireless Internet is a luxury and not employed by many. "Street illumination, waste disposal [and] sewer networks" are luxuries not enjoyed by anything close to a majority of the people in the world. Therefore, using that as a distinction fails.
If the government provides this service how long before they will have to subsidize the equipment to those who cannot afford it? Pretty soon you end up with little groups of people who get the equipment and service for free because they are classified as one type of minority or another. Of "street illumination, waste disposal [and] sewer networks" only the street illumination is "free," and even then its not. The people who own the property on the street that is illuminated are who are paying for it, if you think about it. Nothing from the government is "free" anyway. As for waste disposal and sewage - doesn't matter if you're poor, or a minority, those things aren't free. Businesses and homeowners alike have bills for those things (sewage is often on the same bill as the water). So...your distinction fails again. No one is proposing that the government buys things for people to be able to throw away so they can utilize waste disposal, nor are they proposing that the government buys wireless nics.
While I love the idea of cheap wireless I do not want the government controlling it. Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones that control access and content. They also are very good at pushing an agenda with such services. Um...you don't seriously think that no corporations engage in illegal activities, or push agendas, do you? Additionally, with *LOCAL* governments, its easy for the norms to enact change. The person who can do something is their neighbor. Its not like we're talking about federal wireless networks...
There is no clear need to provide this service as there is no majority that needs it or has the equipment to use it. With that logic, there is no need to build sewage systems in 3rd world countries, because the people there don't own toilets. Instead, why not consider the possibility that if a municipal wireless network was put in place that was secure, people might then have the imputus to *obtain* the requisite equiptment to use it? If random person X that lives in an apartment above a store in downtown uses dialup, its not necessarily because he lacks a wireless nic. It may well be because he can't afford the $50 a month for highspeed, or maybe the building he's in isn't wired for cable so he can't even get it, or...whatever else. Again, local governments are established and empowered by the local residents to do things for the benefit of the local residents...like provide street illumination, police officers, etc.
Do not allow the government to expand simply because it convienences you. If there's something that would benefit a large chunk of people, and would be *considerably* cheaper (pennies instead of dollars) to do it for everyone , then...why shouldn't it be done? Isn't the very purpose of civilization to be increasing efficiency?
Pretty soon you will find you will only have to access to what they want you to and when they want you to. Unless you purchase your own net access seperate from the "free" offering from the local government.
I also believe that they should only provide the services that are required. They are not here to provide luxuries.