'On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative.'"
Were that true then this could *not possibly happen*: The reporter concludes that Google is unlikely to revise its Chinese censorship policy any time soon.
Why? Because Google is publically traded. The shareholders could sue the pants off him and the the Google executive team. "Net Negative" meant *losing* money, which means something that, as a business, they would want to fix ASAP.
So, what did they guy REALLY mean when he says that? Here is the quote from Mr. Brin as heard from inside his own head:
"We are making butt-loads of money, but we'd rather not look like the assholes that we are, so I am going to 'fake apologize', make sure that NOTHING changes in terms of censorship policies in China that bring in the cash... The great part about it is, in the future, should someone ever complain about what fuckheads we are, I can point them to the direct quote that shows we've 'seen the error of our ways', and thus be able to make sure that little ray of truth doesn't spoil the meeting until after I've already got the deal signed... score! Oh, and yes, yes I do like to fuck children, thanks for asking."
There is no possibility, for example, that a couple of these creatures will escape, breed like rabbits, and become a countryside plauge that ravages what little crop harvests remain after years and years of droughts causing mass starvation on a scale that even North Korea is unfamiliar with. Not possibility at all.
That their copyright has been violated, because it has. The downloader is making a copy, without authorization.
How could authorization to copy be MORE explicit than putting a torrent of material that they own up for free download to the world. If that's not authorization then slashdot could sue each and every member right now for "unauthorized" copying of this very page!
Or they might just be motivated by vague fears stemming from environmental factors, just as the cat was motivated by hunger.
Trust me on this, a cat does NOT need to be hungry to kill every bird in three mile radius... They do it simply because things smaller than themselves that move quickly are insulting, an AFFRONT to cathood everywhere, merely by existing. They kill things out of spite for their smallness. And they are right to do so.
If humans have greater moral rights than other animals based on having "advanced" brains, then it follows that humans with more "advanced" brains have greater moral rights than simpletons.
Do you believe that I should get to, for example, kill and eat people less intelligent than me? Or perform painful experiments on them? Or wipe them them because I want to build and sell houses on the land where they're living now?
Well clearly not YOU. We are talking *advanced* brains here. So, steven hawking is free to kill and eat people. But not you.
"Lately there has been a HUGE push by Certified Microsoft Professionals and their companies to call clients and warn them of the dangers of open source. This week I received calls from 4 different customers that they were warned that they are dangerously insecure because they run Open Source Operating systems or Software because 'anyone can read the code and hack you with ease' they are being told."
Look, these people can clearly be influenced by the words from complete strangers with no proof or justification. They are NOT the kind of people you need to spend a lot of time convincing of ANYTHING. All you need to do is come up with something impressive sounding and your problem is solved. You can just tell them that they are going to be fine because they are running "bash shells", which will keep hackers locked down in little software eggs while they get beaten by waves of scripting code. No human is fast enough to hack that, it's a physical impossibility.
...because if they used deceit to GET the information, then you've got a good case that they used deceit to CREATE the information in the first place. I mean, if they can pretend to be me to get my phone record then who is to say they didn't pretend to be me in order to plant dummy evidence of wrong doing?
And second, if it's ok to lie to obtain private records, why can;t one just lie and pretend to be a copyright holder as well?
Basically, once your enemies start using clearly immoral weapons, they don't have a chance when it comes to a jury.
It's easier than that... Just ask them to provide proof of how much the "artist" made from the song vs how much the record company made. A jury will not feel kind when they discover that 99.99% of the money goes to the giant corporation who's claiming artist starvation.
Because as soon as the technology is available terrorists will start using them against the very political and military leaders who created them... DUH!
"Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you'."
Sounds about right to me... When a new laws are passed that mandate life in prison or the death penalty (for countries that do that) for taking political bribes, THEN I'll start looking at them more objectivly. It *should* be next to impossible for those in power to abuse that power to the detriment of the people who elect them... But the way the system works now, it's almost impossible NOT to become corrupt.
Run several month long compute jobs on a plus-thousand node cluster (with the same data set) and get back to me when you discover exact reproducibility every time. There's always error. Always.
The law is out of date. It was written at a time when the possibility of an individual sharing several copies of hundreds of songs was inconceivable.
By that logic, I'd say that the law protecting the songs is out of date as well. There is no reason why a single entity should be able to control a bit of information for more than 70 years, that's just crazy. She should get off scott free!
Now, lets enter US law: American with Disabilities Act.
So? Just put a phone number on the site with a "If you are disabled and can't use our captcha, please call our tech support and we'll set up an account."
Slashdot Mirror
It is a world class city with all the "modern" things you'd want and a touch of class that makes it a true gem.
A very large population of indentured slaves, for example.
How could the voting machines hurt their image? Are you telling me they do something *other* than help people subvert democracy?
'On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative.'"
Were that true then this could *not possibly happen*: The reporter concludes that Google is unlikely to revise its Chinese censorship policy any time soon.
Why? Because Google is publically traded. The shareholders could sue the pants off him and the the Google executive team. "Net Negative" meant *losing* money, which means something that, as a business, they would want to fix ASAP.
So, what did they guy REALLY mean when he says that? Here is the quote from Mr. Brin as heard from inside his own head:
"We are making butt-loads of money, but we'd rather not look like the assholes that we are, so I am going to 'fake apologize', make sure that NOTHING changes in terms of censorship policies in China that bring in the cash... The great part about it is, in the future, should someone ever complain about what fuckheads we are, I can point them to the direct quote that shows we've 'seen the error of our ways', and thus be able to make sure that little ray of truth doesn't spoil the meeting until after I've already got the deal signed... score! Oh, and yes, yes I do like to fuck children, thanks for asking."
You mistakenly put a link to Outkast in your 2% talent.
There is no possibility, for example, that a couple of these creatures will escape, breed like rabbits, and become a countryside plauge that ravages what little crop harvests remain after years and years of droughts causing mass starvation on a scale that even North Korea is unfamiliar with. Not possibility at all.
That their copyright has been violated, because it has. The downloader is making a copy, without authorization.
How could authorization to copy be MORE explicit than putting a torrent of material that they own up for free download to the world. If that's not authorization then slashdot could sue each and every member right now for "unauthorized" copying of this very page!
Or they might just be motivated by vague fears stemming from environmental factors, just as the cat was motivated by hunger.
Trust me on this, a cat does NOT need to be hungry to kill every bird in three mile radius... They do it simply because things smaller than themselves that move quickly are insulting, an AFFRONT to cathood everywhere, merely by existing. They kill things out of spite for their smallness. And they are right to do so.
If humans have greater moral rights than other animals based on having "advanced" brains, then it follows that humans with more "advanced" brains have greater moral rights than simpletons.
Do you believe that I should get to, for example, kill and eat people less intelligent than me? Or perform painful experiments on them? Or wipe them them because I want to build and sell houses on the land where they're living now?
Well clearly not YOU. We are talking *advanced* brains here. So, steven hawking is free to kill and eat people. But not you.
I am a bit pissed myself, I mean we know that Bong Hits got 4 points, but what was Jesus's score? Now, suing might be a bit extreme, though.
Did anybody ever think that the social security number would become a national ID number used for everything from employment to taxes to security?
You mean other than everybody?
"Lately there has been a HUGE push by Certified Microsoft Professionals and their companies to call clients and warn them of the dangers of open source. This week I received calls from 4 different customers that they were warned that they are dangerously insecure because they run Open Source Operating systems or Software because 'anyone can read the code and hack you with ease' they are being told."
Look, these people can clearly be influenced by the words from complete strangers with no proof or justification. They are NOT the kind of people you need to spend a lot of time convincing of ANYTHING. All you need to do is come up with something impressive sounding and your problem is solved. You can just tell them that they are going to be fine because they are running "bash shells", which will keep hackers locked down in little software eggs while they get beaten by waves of scripting code. No human is fast enough to hack that, it's a physical impossibility.
...because if they used deceit to GET the information, then you've got a good case that they used deceit to CREATE the information in the first place. I mean, if they can pretend to be me to get my phone record then who is to say they didn't pretend to be me in order to plant dummy evidence of wrong doing?
And second, if it's ok to lie to obtain private records, why can;t one just lie and pretend to be a copyright holder as well?
Basically, once your enemies start using clearly immoral weapons, they don't have a chance when it comes to a jury.
Make a documentary about it!
Some might view internet pornography as morally wrong but I wouldn't think it to warrant a lifetime sentence.
So, you think the judge shouldn't have been so lienient?
No, they're my bitter enemies whom I cant yet kill because they still serve a purpose.
But one day... their uppance will come!
Will this be when postgres puts out 8.2.final with built-in repliaction? Oh wait, you DON'T want to get rid of oracle?
It's easier than that... Just ask them to provide proof of how much the "artist" made from the song vs how much the record company made. A jury will not feel kind when they discover that 99.99% of the money goes to the giant corporation who's claiming artist starvation.
Because as soon as the technology is available terrorists will start using them against the very political and military leaders who created them... DUH!
"Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you'."
Sounds about right to me... When a new laws are passed that mandate life in prison or the death penalty (for countries that do that) for taking political bribes, THEN I'll start looking at them more objectivly. It *should* be next to impossible for those in power to abuse that power to the detriment of the people who elect them... But the way the system works now, it's almost impossible NOT to become corrupt.
No. One can use a car without understanding how the engine works- one can use the force without understanding how the force became a part of humanity.
Glad that's cleared up. I can't sleep at night unless I know exactly how elements in fantasy/sci-fi stories operate.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
That's a totally different geek genre, get your movies straight!
The rats are killed by being placed into a box with CO2 (from a dry-ice chamber).
All of the rat researchers I know (one) kills them with a mini rat guillotine.
But can it tell the difference between trees and... aliens?
Run several month long compute jobs on a plus-thousand node cluster (with the same data set) and get back to me when you discover exact reproducibility every time. There's always error. Always.
Not if the last thing computed is always: * 0
The law is out of date. It was written at a time when the possibility of an individual sharing several copies of hundreds of songs was inconceivable.
By that logic, I'd say that the law protecting the songs is out of date as well. There is no reason why a single entity should be able to control a bit of information for more than 70 years, that's just crazy. She should get off scott free!
Now, lets enter US law: American with Disabilities Act.
So? Just put a phone number on the site with a "If you are disabled and can't use our captcha, please call our tech support and we'll set up an account."