> Is not "worry about the content, not the presentation" the mantra around > here? If we are supposed to follow that for the web-pages we produce, why > should the resumes be different?
Resumes have to get past HR drones and PHBs in order to reach anyone who can comprehend the content.
> Unless it involves real evidence that relates to the alleged crime, I can't > image why the courts would have any opinion at all.
That's why I wrote "might". Parties to the case would be well advised to refrain from destroying any records for fear of being accused of destroying evidence (justifiably or not) but they have every right to remove stuff from public display. Third parties such as LinkedIn are free to do as they will unless the prosecutors present them with court orders demanding preservation (but no court is going to require them to keep the stuff up on the Web).
This is all most likely moot: I'm sure the SEC and the prosecutors have long since downloaded anything that might possibly be of interest.
The next thing in "social networking": link your "SenseCam" to your 'pod and upload an image to lifeblog.com (already registered) every time you move your head. It will surely soon eclipse FaceSpace.
Such a program would need to be administered, of course, and who's better qualified to do so than "security" companies? A billion or so Internet licenses at maybe $5/year with a buck or two in "adminstrative expenses": do we see a financial interest here? Naw. I'm sure he has only the best interests of the Internet community at heart. No CEO would ever be influenced by the prospect of increased revenue for his company.
These are not exactly "new" either, the Russkies have been using them for decades. Only recently has the western world begun to develop them, so it's new only in that sense.
> Personally, I gave up on casinos when I realized that they couldn't afford > all that glitz and glamor unless they were winning a whole lot more than > they were losing.
Amazing. Gambling is a zero sum game. I never would have guessed it.
> How long till I see one of these chasing me down a dark alley?
Carry a tennis racket. Or just throw a rock.
Much more effective.
> ...you're going to have to endure brain numbing meetings where your boss will
> ask you...
The summary speaks of "meetings" in the context of Free Software development. Does not compute.
> ...you'd better get used to it sooner rather than later.
Oh, I spent many hours in meetings (I even "led" some). But that was long ago and far away, and definitely had nothing to do with Free Software.
> Please tell us so we know what we're getting.
You are getting what you see. Are you incapable of judging it on its merits?
> Is not "worry about the content, not the presentation" the mantra around
> here? If we are supposed to follow that for the web-pages we produce, why
> should the resumes be different?
Resumes have to get past HR drones and PHBs in order to reach anyone who can comprehend the content.
Because they are PHBs. They are not interested in what you actually did (and couldn't understand it anyway).
> Did you lead meetings?
What are these "meetings" you speak of?
The domain is already registered.
> Not only will you look like a twat...
Only until Apple comes out with their immensely cool version.
I don't recall using the word patent.
> Unless it involves real evidence that relates to the alleged crime, I can't
> image why the courts would have any opinion at all.
That's why I wrote "might". Parties to the case would be well advised to refrain from destroying any records for fear of being accused of destroying evidence (justifiably or not) but they have every right to remove stuff from public display. Third parties such as LinkedIn are free to do as they will unless the prosecutors present them with court orders demanding preservation (but no court is going to require them to keep the stuff up on the Web).
This is all most likely moot: I'm sure the SEC and the prosecutors have long since downloaded anything that might possibly be of interest.
The next thing in "social networking": link your "SenseCam" to your 'pod and upload an image to lifeblog.com (already registered) every time you move your head. It will surely soon eclipse FaceSpace.
The technology involved is bloody well obvious.
> Do you need approval from the Feds before tidying up after someone who's
> under investigation?
While the courts might frown on destroying records relating to such a person there is no requirement that they remain on public display.
Such a program would need to be administered, of course, and who's better qualified to do so than "security" companies? A billion or so Internet licenses at maybe $5/year with a buck or two in "adminstrative expenses": do we see a financial interest here? Naw. I'm sure he has only the best interests of the Internet community at heart. No CEO would ever be influenced by the prospect of increased revenue for his company.
> Would Google allow this?
It might be interesting to watch Google's lawyers argue that driving a camera truck involves creative expression...
> It's European, not Nigerian.
Ok, 26.800.000,00 (TWENTY SIX MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND EUROS)
> Eventually, there could be trail photos for all the National Parks, at least
> for the most major routes.
That will be sad.
> Google Street View Wants You to Direct New Tricycle...
No, they don't...
Not quite. SERT
> Personally, I gave up on casinos when I realized that they couldn't afford
> all that glitz and glamor unless they were winning a whole lot more than
> they were losing.
Amazing. Gambling is a zero sum game. I never would have guessed it.
> ...their cell phones strapped to the outside of their waists...
You strap yours to the inside of your waist? I'm trying not to visualize that...
I'm just asleep, you insensitive clod! (or does it detect snoring?)
...and then try to sell it. A provisional patent is good for a year.
BTW Patenting is publishing.
> I truly hope it stays that way.
At "tens of thousands" of Tor users out of a population of over a billion? I'm sure the Chinese government agrees with you.