The current system sucks, but "loser pays" is even worse because it assumes that the person who is "wrong" is the person who always loses, and that simply is not the case.
Actually this really is non-news. For as long as I can remember, . . at least back to the early 90s . . . HP has regularly announced big layoffs. Every few years they announce that they are getting rid of 10,000-15,000 people, and yet, the total number of people working for HP doesn't go down. The truth is, while all these alleged layoffs are going on, HP continues to hire people.
It used to be that layoffs were bad. it meant that your business wasn't doing well. But now, everyone does The Dance of the Big Business. Stock price is down? Announce big layoffs. Wall Street loves that and your stock will go up. And then you just quietly hire more.
They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
Wrong.
In the days before the World Wide Web existed I bought Computer Shopper magazine for the ads (the whole magazine was 95% ads). But that's the rare exception. People DO NOT want ads and they especially do not want the annoying, obnoxious ads that have become so prevalent.
OK, so "there has been no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks".
Am I the only one thinking things might have been much worse if no terrorist leaders had been taken out at all?
If there is no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks, then, no, things wouldn't be worse. It would be the same.
The bigger issue that no one wants to admit is that we are dealing lunatics and engaging them, is a mistake. During World War II, both Germany and Japan eventually admitted defeat and gave up. But that's because you were dealing with people who were somewhat rational. The people we are dealing with today are literally insane. No amount of military action will ever convince them to quit. As a result, You only have 2 choices:
Saving the common people several billions a year would send nothing but good vibrations up the economic chain. Yeah, some cops may lose their jobs, but the billions extra that people would have every year means other jobs get created elsewhere.
There is no reason for any police to lose their job. Now the police can go back to doing what they are supposed to be doing. Traffic tickets aren't supposed to be a source of revenue. Every police office operating a radar gun and giving out traffic tickets is one less police officer available to go after real criminals.
The original court decision was twofold 1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story 2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.
This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.
How are those two things not exactly the same?
A fact is a fact. If a newspaper reports a fact and a Google search returns articles which state that same fact, how is there a difference? Why can Goolge be forced to remove reference to a fact, but not the newspaper.
While I don't particularly think they should have been fired in the first place (businesses should not be concerned with the beliefs of individuals)... these people were fired by their organizations/companies, not the government. It was totally legal and legitimate.
It's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Technically, the first Amendment only prevents the government from restricting free speech. That restriction should apply to every one.
If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.
When Disney plunked down $4 billion at the end of 2012 for the Star Wars franchise, it didn’t actually get everything, because Lucasfilm didn’t actually have everything to sell. Disney can release whatever new movies it wants, or dress Mickey Mouse up in Jedi robes and have him wave a light saber at guests in the Magic Kingdom, or hand-wave away the entire Star Wars Expanded Universe—it paid for the rights to do all of those things.
Turns out, what it can’t do is sell you new copies of the six Star Wars movies (aka Episodes 1 thru VI). "Fox owns distribution rights to the original Star Wars, No. 4 in the series, in perpetuity in all media worldwide. And as for the five subsequent movies, Fox has theatrical, nontheatrical, and home video rights worldwide through May 2020."
When George Lucas filmed Star Wars in the late 1970s, he had to turn to 20th Century Fox to both finance and distribute the film; the success of the first film enabled Lucasfilm to finance the other five movies itself (though Lucas did require some additional assistance from Fox in fully funding The Empire Strikes Back’s production). Lucas continued to use Fox as a distributor for all of the six existing Star Wars films—and Fox retains those distribution rights under the Disney sale.
I be willing to spend a few bucks a station to only get what I want. Could spend maybe $20 and get what I want and saved like $60
People want ala-carte pricing because they think it will save them money Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
For example, if you are paying $100 a month for 200 channels that works out to 50 cents per channel. So people think they could just pick 20 channels and only pay $10 a month. But, there's nothing that says the cable would have to charge the same price for all channels. They could charge higher prices for the more popular channels and your total cost would remain approximately the same.
They should re-tool all of their factories, embrace the inevitable, and minimize (or prevent) losses by marketing it for storage and reducing the price of the discs and drives. The only thing that can save Blu-Ray now is to re-purpose it.
Reducing the price of media and drives just means less money for them. Ultimately it won't do any good.
I used to buy blank DVDs in bulk. But I haven't burned more than 3 or 4 DVDs in the last 2 years. Everything is on a couple of 3TD hard drives with backup copies a two more drives. Why would I want to storing and spend time shuffling around a hundred disks?
The future of the iPad is not to be a better Mac. That may happen by accident, just as the Mac eventually superseded the Apple II, but to pursue that explicitly would be to sacrifice what the iPad might become, and, more importantly, what it already is.'"
What the iPad "already is" is an inferior computer. It's great for niche applications. When I hired a plumber he pulled out his iPad, used it to process my credit card payment, tapped a couple of buttons and emailed me a copied of the bill.
But it's not a general purpose computer. The small screen, no keyboard and no external ports make it useless for doing any real work. Except for niche applications, it's strictly a content consumption device.
First, they want to provide a personalized web-browsing experience, which isn't possible using do-not-track.
But the user clearly does not want a personalised web-browsing experience.
Nobody can give me a "personalized" experience unless they can somehow read my mind.
Do I want to constantly see ads for XYZ just because I once searched for XYZ or once visited the XYZ website? Fuck You Yahoo, Google and anyone else talking about a "personalized web-browsing experience"
That's not how it works, it's not a list unless they make a list. Not to mention they championed the idea and were early adopters.
Yahoo pretended to support Do Not Track only because they figured anyone stupid enough to actually use Yahoo for anything was too stupid to figure out how to turn it on.
Then Microsoft made it on by default in Internet Explorer, still the most widely used browser and probably used by 98% of the people stupid enough to use Yahoo for anything. All of a sudden, Yahoo didn't think Do Not Track was such a good idea any more.
Horrible decision, a standard isn't being honored "EVERYWHERE" so you decide to undermine it entirely without replacement? What's the REAL reason, money?
Sell your assets and gtfo!
As far as I know Google doesn't honor it either on their services, but Microsoft do, which is an interesting situation
That's because Microsoft, despite whatever flaws they may have, makes all their money selling actual products -- Windows, Office, Games for Xbox, etc.......
Companies like Google and Yahoo, on the other hand, have no actual products. Their revenue depends entirely on advertising. YOU are the product and you are being sold to advertisers.
Nothing surprising at all about Google and Yahoo not honoring Do Not Track.
And here's a man trying to BUY THEM BACK. Get off your asses and HELP HIM.
But that's the problem. This isn't happening in a vacuum.
At the same time Lessig is trying to buy politicians, a few other organizations who have far more money than Lessig could ever hope to raise, are also buying politicians to do what THEY want.
Episode VII is the movie they should have made years ago. Instead, we got the godawful prequels and now all the original cast is a hundred years old and will be lucky to get through filming without needing paramedics standing by at all times.
It's a fork of FF engine with the older interface (from around version 26 I believe).
I think Palemoon is based on version 24 which is the latest Extended Service Release, and he is selectively patching in bug fixes and security updates but leaving out the big UI changes. I've been using it for a couple of months now and it works fine.
Slashdot Mirror
All it lacks is the blinking font.
It's there. But newer browsers ignore the blink tag.
So this is just like all the other stories on Slasdot -- nothing actually happened.
Why not make the losing plaintiffs the lesser of the 2 legal bills? Big corp sues small guy. Small guy wins. Big corp pays his costs.
Small guy sues big corp. Small guy loses. Small guy pays the equivalent of his legal bills to the big corp.
That way, overspending isn't covered.
So, BigMegaCorp fucks you over and you sue them. They can afford to throw more lawyers at you and you lose. This happens. A lot.
It isn't bad enough that BigMegaCorp fucked you, now you get to pay extra for getting fucked.
The current system sucks, but "loser pays" is even worse because it assumes that the person who is "wrong" is the person who always loses, and that simply is not the case.
I have to give them credit. Haiku is even more irrelevant than BeOS.
That's not easy to do.
R#
Actually this really is non-news. For as long as I can remember, . . at least back to the early 90s . . . HP has regularly announced big layoffs. Every few years they announce that they are getting rid of 10,000-15,000 people, and yet, the total number of people working for HP doesn't go down. The truth is, while all these alleged layoffs are going on, HP continues to hire people.
It used to be that layoffs were bad. it meant that your business wasn't doing well. But now, everyone does The Dance of the Big Business. Stock price is down? Announce big layoffs. Wall Street loves that and your stock will go up. And then you just quietly hire more.
They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
Wrong.
In the days before the World Wide Web existed I bought Computer Shopper magazine for the ads (the whole magazine was 95% ads). But that's the rare exception. People DO NOT want ads and they especially do not want the annoying, obnoxious ads that have become so prevalent.
OK, so "there has been no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks".
Am I the only one thinking things might have been much worse if no terrorist leaders had been taken out at all?
If there is no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks, then, no, things wouldn't be worse. It would be the same.
The bigger issue that no one wants to admit is that we are dealing lunatics and engaging them, is a mistake. During World War II, both Germany and Japan eventually admitted defeat and gave up. But that's because you were dealing with people who were somewhat rational. The people we are dealing with today are literally insane. No amount of military action will ever convince them to quit. As a result, You only have 2 choices:
Kill every last one of them
Contain and isolate them
Good. Browsers should have stopped adding "features" 5 years ago. Display web pages and shut the fuck up.
Saving the common people several billions a year would send nothing but good vibrations up the economic chain. Yeah, some cops may lose their jobs, but the billions extra that people would have every year means other jobs get created elsewhere.
There is no reason for any police to lose their job. Now the police can go back to doing what they are supposed to be doing. Traffic tickets aren't supposed to be a source of revenue. Every police office operating a radar gun and giving out traffic tickets is one less police officer available to go after real criminals.
How are those two things not exactly the same?
A fact is a fact. If a newspaper reports a fact and a Google search returns articles which state that same fact, how is there a difference? Why can Goolge be forced to remove reference to a fact, but not the newspaper.
While I don't particularly think they should have been fired in the first place (businesses should not be concerned with the beliefs of individuals)... these people were fired by their organizations/companies, not the government. It was totally legal and legitimate.
It's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Technically, the first Amendment only prevents the government from restricting free speech. That restriction should apply to every one.
If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.
From TFA:
When Disney plunked down $4 billion at the end of 2012 for the Star Wars franchise, it didn’t actually get everything, because Lucasfilm didn’t actually have everything to sell. Disney can release whatever new movies it wants, or dress Mickey Mouse up in Jedi robes and have him wave a light saber at guests in the Magic Kingdom, or hand-wave away the entire Star Wars Expanded Universe—it paid for the rights to do all of those things.
Turns out, what it can’t do is sell you new copies of the six Star Wars movies (aka Episodes 1 thru VI). "Fox owns distribution rights to the original Star Wars, No. 4 in the series, in perpetuity in all media worldwide. And as for the five subsequent movies, Fox has theatrical, nontheatrical, and home video rights worldwide through May 2020."
When George Lucas filmed Star Wars in the late 1970s, he had to turn to 20th Century Fox to both finance and distribute the film; the success of the first film enabled Lucasfilm to finance the other five movies itself (though Lucas did require some additional assistance from Fox in fully funding The Empire Strikes Back’s production). Lucas continued to use Fox as a distributor for all of the six existing Star Wars films—and Fox retains those distribution rights under the Disney sale.
I be willing to spend a few bucks a station to only get what I want. Could spend maybe $20 and get what I want and saved like $60
People want ala-carte pricing because they think it will save them money Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
For example, if you are paying $100 a month for 200 channels that works out to 50 cents per channel. So people think they could just pick 20 channels and only pay $10 a month. But, there's nothing that says the cable would have to charge the same price for all channels. They could charge higher prices for the more popular channels and your total cost would remain approximately the same.
They should re-tool all of their factories, embrace the inevitable, and minimize (or prevent) losses by marketing it for storage and reducing the price of the discs and drives. The only thing that can save Blu-Ray now is to re-purpose it.
Reducing the price of media and drives just means less money for them. Ultimately it won't do any good.
I used to buy blank DVDs in bulk. But I haven't burned more than 3 or 4 DVDs in the last 2 years. Everything is on a couple of 3TD hard drives with backup copies a two more drives. Why would I want to storing and spend time shuffling around a hundred disks?
What the iPad "already is" is an inferior computer. It's great for niche applications. When I hired a plumber he pulled out his iPad, used it to process my credit card payment, tapped a couple of buttons and emailed me a copied of the bill.
But it's not a general purpose computer. The small screen, no keyboard and no external ports make it useless for doing any real work. Except for niche applications, it's strictly a content consumption device.
First, they want to provide a personalized web-browsing experience, which isn't possible using do-not-track.
But the user clearly does not want a personalised web-browsing experience.
Nobody can give me a "personalized" experience unless they can somehow read my mind.
Do I want to constantly see ads for XYZ just because I once searched for XYZ or once visited the XYZ website? Fuck You Yahoo, Google and anyone else talking about a "personalized web-browsing experience"
That's not how it works, it's not a list unless they make a list. Not to mention they championed the idea and were early adopters.
Yahoo pretended to support Do Not Track only because they figured anyone stupid enough to actually use Yahoo for anything was too stupid to figure out how to turn it on.
Then Microsoft made it on by default in Internet Explorer, still the most widely used browser and probably used by 98% of the people stupid enough to use Yahoo for anything. All of a sudden, Yahoo didn't think Do Not Track was such a good idea any more.
Horrible decision, a standard isn't being honored "EVERYWHERE" so you decide to undermine it entirely without replacement? What's the REAL reason, money?
Sell your assets and gtfo!
As far as I know Google doesn't honor it either on their services, but Microsoft do, which is an interesting situation
That's because Microsoft, despite whatever flaws they may have, makes all their money selling actual products -- Windows, Office, Games for Xbox, etc.......
Companies like Google and Yahoo, on the other hand, have no actual products. Their revenue depends entirely on advertising. YOU are the product and you are being sold to advertisers.
Nothing surprising at all about Google and Yahoo not honoring Do Not Track.
185TB
How many Library of Congresses full of porn is that?
And here's a man trying to BUY THEM BACK. Get off your asses and HELP HIM.
But that's the problem. This isn't happening in a vacuum.
At the same time Lessig is trying to buy politicians, a few other organizations who have far more money than Lessig could ever hope to raise, are also buying politicians to do what THEY want.
Microsoft lost a few hundred million on the Surface tablet. Twitter has never made money lost $500 Million in the most recent quarter.
So what?
Episode VII is the movie they should have made years ago. Instead, we got the godawful prequels and now all the original cast is a hundred years old and will be lucky to get through filming without needing paramedics standing by at all times.
It's a fork of FF engine with the older interface (from around version 26 I believe).
I think Palemoon is based on version 24 which is the latest Extended Service Release, and he is selectively patching in bug fixes and security updates but leaving out the big UI changes. I've been using it for a couple of months now and it works fine.