Finally, cease and desist letters are generally sent out *after* damage has been done
If only that were true... what we're seeing too much of is the use of a C&D when there is no damage under any normal or proper reading of the law, as an attempt to chill discussion, etc.
You also can't argue/negotiate one way in public, then argue the opposite in court, as a matter of public policy, and can argue estoppel in such cases.
Estoppel comes into play if the other party can show that you've created an expectation that a reasonable person would rely upon. For example, if we're contending over an issue, but my actions in the past have led you to reasonably believe that it wouldn't be an issue, you're going to have a problem with your claim. If I have a sign up that says "Parking - $5/day" and for years I let you park there, you can't suddenly claim the back rent.
Stuff like this happens all the time when friends or relatives have a falling out and are looking for ways to "get back" at each other. While they may otherwise have a legal basis for their claim, the understanding at the time prevents them from asserting it in the future.
Similarly, (actual case) if the municipality expropriates land, publicly says "until we develop it, we're going to charge you rent of $x per annum", and doesn't send you a bill for a few years, they can't suddenly bill you for the arrears The lawyers advised one of my former bosses to pay "because you can't fight the government". I told him to tell the government to f* off, with cites. Fortunately, he took my advice, the government backed down, waived all supposedly outstanding amounts, and settled for a much smaller amount going forward than they had been asking, and the neighbors had been paying. Such is life when you get caught over-reaching.
Equitable defenses are fascinating things. While they work differently in different jurisdictions, they have one thing in common - they give the law the flexibility it needs to allow judges to serve up justice in certain situations, rather than just pick the statutes from column a and the consequences from column b.
Unfortunately, while I would like to agree with you, I don't think that advice will work - if the plugin can steal your passwords, it doesn't matter if they're "protected" by a master password or not, right? Either way, it can ask for the information for all sites and passwords, w/o the user going to each (or any) site:-)
And I might be accessing my sites from other computers that don't have it installed. The ideal tool in my mind should be something that is independent of any application, browser, or computer; something that is easily carried, but which if lost poses no risk of compromise. What does the Slashdot crowd like in password tools?"
And for all those other issues, he admits he's going to have to install *something*... so why not just install or run Firefox and be done with it? One simple solution.
If he can't install or run other apps on those computers, then there IS no "ideal tool" that will work for him short of pen and paper, which can also get lost/forgotten/copied/swiped/whatever, and the question becomes nonsensical ("gimme a tool to run for those times that I can't run a tool").
Master password does not protect you from malicious Firefox plugins stealing passwords stored under Master Password, so it shouldn't be used for access to any sensitive information.
Moral: Don't install plugins you're not sure about.
Same as: Don't run programs you're not sure about.
Or: Don't reply to too-good-to-be-true emails.
And: Ignore web sites that say "Your computer has a virus. Download Free Antivirus2009 to clean it up."
The user has to take some responsibility. It's the same as going outside in 40 below weather... if you don't dress appropriately, don't start complaining that you're cold. Or bitching that your car doesn't start when you haven't put gas in it (Don't laugh - I've seen the same guy have his car towed - twice - to get a supposedly "defective" fuel pump changed. turns out the gas tank was empty both times. "It can't be! I put $5 in it a couple of days ago!" This when gas prices were $1.34/litre, or more than $5 a gallon. Not to be too worried, though. He lost his drivers' license - too many moving violations - then lost his restricted license, so problem solved:-)
I've been issued a speeding ticket for going 75 in a 65 zone, in a car that was not able to go above 60 (and barely that.)
Try this hypothesis: If the car was in that bad a state of repair, maybe your speedometer was off? A single broken tooth on one of the gears will do that. It'll still function, but your indicated speed will be significantly under your real speed. I had a brand-new truck that had that exact problem, so it can certainly happen with an older car.
As to having to go to court to contest an invalid ticket, we all have to do that at one time or another. It's part of the "paying your dues" as a driver. I know, it sucks, but it is what it is, and I place the blame squarely on people who are too lazy to go to court to contest invalid tickets. Congratulations for standing up for yourself and helping make the world a better place If *everyone* did that rather than just blowing it off, or saying "it's not worth my time and the system's fixed anyway", cops would have to be less careless.
Did you know that HALF of all tickets that are contested are dismissed? Half! Considering the impact that demerit points can have on your insurance, etc., I'm surprised that the majority of people don't bother to contest a ticket when they're in the right, or have some sort of reasonable defense.
Now, to answer your question about what does it have to do with getting a speeding ticket - most of the people who complain about their tickets aren't in the same situation you were in. They want to know how they can get out of a speeding ticket when they were speeding, but "going with the flow of traffic" or some other non-defense. Their attitude is "it's not fair." I point out that their "going with the flow of traffic" helps keep the flow of traffic over the speed limit, and that if they were to drive at or under the limit, the "flow of traffic" would be slower. In other words, they're part of the problem, not part of the solution, they gambled, they lost, pay the fine because a judge won't buy it.
Now if they were going over the limit or breaking another rule because of a valid emergency, I would again contest it. Been there, done that.
Because clearly you have no understanding of police officers or the law.
Look, I've spent well over 1,000 hours in courtrooms, both arguing cases, defending cases, as a witness in other cases, and as a juror. Including such mundane things like tickets. Got one ticket dismissed as unconstitutional - the judge thought it was a novel defense, was intrigued enough to actually check the literal wording of the bylaw, and agreed. The case right after mine, exact same offense, exact same intersection, the guy had already pled guilty, the judge reversed the plea and found him not guilty. Some judges respect the law, and I don't expect either the cops or town councils to really understand what's constitutional and what's not.
Forced another city to redo ALL their signs rather than pay a $10 parking ticket - and as I pointed out to the judge, it wasn't the $10, it was costing me more than that just in gas for the multiple court appearances. Had another one dismissed, again on constitutional issues, after pleading not guilty but before making the actual defense (judge looked at me, looked at his notes, quickly and quietly read off the reason why the ticket was in this "exceptional" case unconstitutional, dismissed, next case please:-). Other, more serious cases, same thing. If you know your constitutional rights, you'll find that many local laws and bylaws are actually either illegal or simply ultra vires (beyond the competency of the particular administrative body - they "don't have authority to do that").
What we really need is the right for people who are NOT lawyers to routinely plead cases for people who are intimidated by the legal process and can't afford to spend the $$$ for a mouthpiece. Seems to me that there could be a constitutional argument in favour of that somewhere... any feedback on that would be more than welcome:-)
Look, what part of "Most people won't be aware that they have a parasite " don't you understand?
Did I mention cod worm specifically there? No. Did I go on to mention another worm (pinworm) in that context? Yes. Do between 30% and 80% of people have pinworm? Yes. Do most know it? No.
The fact is that people are hosts to many parasites at any one time; some of them, over time, we've evolved a symbiotic relationship with (the flora and fauna in your gut are a good example, and if you go back far enough in time, mitachondria). People can go around for a LONG time with a tapeworm. And idiots obviously DO eat fresh-water fish undercooked. That's why we call them idiots:-)
The basic problem is that we're resorting to things like salmon farming because we've seriously impacted the natural resource. Unfortunately, the fish farms also impact the local environment in a negative way.
or the other way around: if you use Firefox without a master password, you should be worried because it's very easy to go to the menu and see all your user/passwd combinations.
This is true, but if you DO use the master password feature, being able to see your usr/pw combos is VERY handy when you want to copy your account info between your laptop and desktop, or write it all down (and store in a secure place, natch) for future reference.
Better than trying to guess it and being IP-banned after n number of failed attempts.
That doesn't seem to solve his worry about using computers without Firefox installed. Also, even assuming every machine he wants to use has Firefox installed, does this allow him to easily use a password file stored on, say, a thumb drive? I've never tried to use an external password file with Firefox (i.e., one I did not create with Firefox.
I know people don't read the F*** Articles, but could you at lead read the F*** Summary?
"Lately I've been rethinking my personal security practices. Should my laptop be stolen, having Firefox 'fill in' passwords automatically for me when I go to my bank's site seems sub-optimal
He's referring to his laptop, which has firefox.
Thanks for playing, no fish today, better luck next time.
In Soviet Russia, Firefox Master Password STILL protects YOU!
Fair enough, but take a look at his gut reaction to actions at a distance - both by derisively calling them "spooky actions at a distance" and saying "God does not play dice with the universe."
That second phrase clearly expresses a dichotomy between "god" and "universe" that is a contradiction to the statement you quote, and leads me to believe that, wrt god, Einstein had a nice case of cognitive dissonance going.
I mean, why reject a thesis on the basis of "god".
Also, (and as aside note) the descriptions of human behavior in the bible (god-endorsed genocide, rape (kill the men and take their wives as your own), mysogeny, racism, theft, fraud, scheming, the continual condoning of slavery, cruelty to kids, etc) can hardly be called "honourable"; this would lead me tu suspect Einstein of being a bit politically correct in that particular instance.
Firefox has a "master password" feature. Use it, and remember just one password. It'll prompt you for the master password the first time it visits a site that has a saved password.
He also refused to believe in strange effects at a distance, and said that "God doesn't play dice with the universe." and 'Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."
IOW, Einstein's religious thinking was a product of his time; he wasn't a hardline atheist. Just goes to show that even a genius can be f*ing stupid where they have a blind spot.
Speak for yourself. Cybersex requires a computer. But computers do not require cybersex
My computer is salient and lonely - it NEEDS cybersex, you ignorant clod!
Inferior genes aren't necessarily selected out out in the evolutionary model. As long as it doesn't prevent reproduction and the host themselves surviving long enough to reproduce, it's going to stay in the gene pool. Example - if there was a gene that caused the host to drop dead at 50 in 100% of cases- that's not going to be weeded out. Heck, in certain scenarios, it could be helpful by reducing competitive pressure for resources wrt the next generation.
People with blue eyes are more often nearsighted, which put them at a competitive disadvantage, but we still see blue-eyed people.
My point is twofold: that the definition of "inferior gene" is plastic and can change wrt circumstances, and that the evolutionary process doesn't select out all types of genes - just those that affect the odds of successfully breeding another generation.
As for eugenics, we practice it all the time. We choose our mating partners based in part on how desirable we perceive them to be. Given a choice, most people want someone who they are attracted to; their kids will probably look better than the ugly people who hooked up because of the beer-bottom goggles.
Either way, unless you can provide cited numbers which indicate that illness due to fish consumption is on the rise, I think it's more reasonable to assume that those linked articles are simply alarmist.
Most people won't be aware that they have a parasite (just like the 30% to 80% of kids who have pinworm - yuck!!! Get the Vermox, STAT!), but I would tend to think that fish that's sold locally is relatively safe to begin with compared to some countries...
What's alarmist is the H1N1 scare. The initial "152 reported deaths" turning out to be 7 after they tested properly, the current practice of counting ALL flu-like cases because "it's too time-consuming and expensive to test", and the "death toll" (which is overwhelmingly what are known as "feebs", defectives, and the morbidly obese - or as one doctor put it, "if this didn't kill them, something else would have in the next 6 months").
Some of the places that have already been caught have removed the red-light cameras because they're no longer profitable (they can't "catch" enough people if the yellow light is on for at least the legal minimum).
Don't speed, you won't get a speeding ticket. What's so hard to understand about that?
Lugging the engine (driving one gear too high" invariably increases gas mileage, despite your claims. The engine is operating at better overall thermal efficiency (extracting more energy from each stroke). Contrary to popular belief, as long as the car isn't otherwise overloaded, it also doesn't result in extra wear on the engine. It's the same overall effect as going to a higher-ratio differential.
Hmm, looks like this Glen Beck is not on my local radio. Could be the reason I had no idea who he was.
Hint: He's the guy who, when asked, wouldn't deny that he raped and killed a 10-year-old in 1990. He also hasn't publicly denied the latest rumors wrt. him being a scientologist, and being "into furries".
... or you could just stop speeding... and not only laugh at everyone who's being pulled over to pay the "speed tax", but also save on fuel. You know, instead of whining like a spoiled brat.
try loading the page without the final "/" then the link is good.
What can you do with dopes*Wpeople that want to make everything look like xml, including trying to make a url look like it has a closing slash before the angle_bracket ( a "/>" ).
You couldn't fix a sink with telepresence; the robot would have to be in the house. If you have to transport the robot you might as well transport the plumber.
And what's the problem with that? A plumber could fix 3 sinks in the time it takes to travel to one, bill by the job, and PROFIT. The robots' rate in transit is lower.
Domeing (sic) a building is useless. It is just putting a building in a building.
Why? If the question is to save on heating costs, it'll work. It may also be cheaper than completely gutting the interior (which may not even be feasible - historic sites, older construction, etc). So how is it "better" to dome a whole city than to dome just the buildings that are losing heat?
Also, the cooling bills for doming an entire city will be huge. You can't just cool the buildings, because the heat is trapped in the dome.
The idea stinks. If you want to dome an individual building or a shopping mall, that's one thing, but doming a whole city is out of the question.
If you have a glaring vulnerability that lets people defraud your customers out of arbitrary amounts of money, the only sane thing to do is immediately disable the feature. Not wait for a solution. Not cover up the issue. You make coverage of the issue irrelevant. If one person figured it out and wrote about it, 100 other people also figured it out and are using it for personal gain.
In Soviet Russia, there are more than 100 people with computers, comrade.
If google doesn't carry his news, then Murdoch can scream discrimination and sue.
Not if he's asking them NOT to carry his news. Fox wasn't going around telling the cable cos "Don't carry our news channel!" You can't go around asking someone to do (or stop doing) something, and then complain when they comply with your wishes.
If Murdoch sues to prevent google from indexing any of his content because such indexing is injurious to him, he is estoppeled from making a contrary claim that he is somehow injured when google does stop indexing.
Why do you think Murdoch hasn't sent a Cease & Desist? The moment he does, he can no longer claim any damages if google blocks him off.
Slashdot Mirror
If only that were true ... what we're seeing too much of is the use of a C&D when there is no damage under any normal or proper reading of the law, as an attempt to chill discussion, etc.
You also can't argue/negotiate one way in public, then argue the opposite in court, as a matter of public policy, and can argue estoppel in such cases.
Estoppel comes into play if the other party can show that you've created an expectation that a reasonable person would rely upon. For example, if we're contending over an issue, but my actions in the past have led you to reasonably believe that it wouldn't be an issue, you're going to have a problem with your claim. If I have a sign up that says "Parking - $5/day" and for years I let you park there, you can't suddenly claim the back rent.
Stuff like this happens all the time when friends or relatives have a falling out and are looking for ways to "get back" at each other. While they may otherwise have a legal basis for their claim, the understanding at the time prevents them from asserting it in the future.
Similarly, (actual case) if the municipality expropriates land, publicly says "until we develop it, we're going to charge you rent of $x per annum", and doesn't send you a bill for a few years, they can't suddenly bill you for the arrears The lawyers advised one of my former bosses to pay "because you can't fight the government". I told him to tell the government to f* off, with cites. Fortunately, he took my advice, the government backed down, waived all supposedly outstanding amounts, and settled for a much smaller amount going forward than they had been asking, and the neighbors had been paying. Such is life when you get caught over-reaching.
Equitable defenses are fascinating things. While they work differently in different jurisdictions, they have one thing in common - they give the law the flexibility it needs to allow judges to serve up justice in certain situations, rather than just pick the statutes from column a and the consequences from column b.
Unfortunately, while I would like to agree with you, I don't think that advice will work - if the plugin can steal your passwords, it doesn't matter if they're "protected" by a master password or not, right? Either way, it can ask for the information for all sites and passwords, w/o the user going to each (or any) site :-)
Nice logic error you've got going there :-)
And for all those other issues, he admits he's going to have to install *something* ... so why not just install or run Firefox and be done with it? One simple solution.
If he can't install or run other apps on those computers, then there IS no "ideal tool" that will work for him short of pen and paper, which can also get lost/forgotten/copied/swiped/whatever, and the question becomes nonsensical ("gimme a tool to run for those times that I can't run a tool").
Moral: Don't install plugins you're not sure about.
Same as: Don't run programs you're not sure about.
Or: Don't reply to too-good-to-be-true emails.
And: Ignore web sites that say "Your computer has a virus. Download Free Antivirus2009 to clean it up."
The user has to take some responsibility. It's the same as going outside in 40 below weather ... if you don't dress appropriately, don't start complaining that you're cold. Or bitching that your car doesn't start when you haven't put gas in it (Don't laugh - I've seen the same guy have his car towed - twice - to get a supposedly "defective" fuel pump changed. turns out the gas tank was empty both times. "It can't be! I put $5 in it a couple of days ago!" This when gas prices were $1.34/litre, or more than $5 a gallon. Not to be too worried, though. He lost his drivers' license - too many moving violations - then lost his restricted license, so problem solved :-)
Try this hypothesis: If the car was in that bad a state of repair, maybe your speedometer was off? A single broken tooth on one of the gears will do that. It'll still function, but your indicated speed will be significantly under your real speed. I had a brand-new truck that had that exact problem, so it can certainly happen with an older car.
As to having to go to court to contest an invalid ticket, we all have to do that at one time or another. It's part of the "paying your dues" as a driver. I know, it sucks, but it is what it is, and I place the blame squarely on people who are too lazy to go to court to contest invalid tickets. Congratulations for standing up for yourself and helping make the world a better place If *everyone* did that rather than just blowing it off, or saying "it's not worth my time and the system's fixed anyway", cops would have to be less careless.
Did you know that HALF of all tickets that are contested are dismissed? Half! Considering the impact that demerit points can have on your insurance, etc., I'm surprised that the majority of people don't bother to contest a ticket when they're in the right, or have some sort of reasonable defense.
Now, to answer your question about what does it have to do with getting a speeding ticket - most of the people who complain about their tickets aren't in the same situation you were in. They want to know how they can get out of a speeding ticket when they were speeding, but "going with the flow of traffic" or some other non-defense. Their attitude is "it's not fair." I point out that their "going with the flow of traffic" helps keep the flow of traffic over the speed limit, and that if they were to drive at or under the limit, the "flow of traffic" would be slower. In other words, they're part of the problem, not part of the solution, they gambled, they lost, pay the fine because a judge won't buy it.
Now if they were going over the limit or breaking another rule because of a valid emergency, I would again contest it. Been there, done that.
Look, I've spent well over 1,000 hours in courtrooms, both arguing cases, defending cases, as a witness in other cases, and as a juror. Including such mundane things like tickets. Got one ticket dismissed as unconstitutional - the judge thought it was a novel defense, was intrigued enough to actually check the literal wording of the bylaw, and agreed. The case right after mine, exact same offense, exact same intersection, the guy had already pled guilty, the judge reversed the plea and found him not guilty. Some judges respect the law, and I don't expect either the cops or town councils to really understand what's constitutional and what's not.
Forced another city to redo ALL their signs rather than pay a $10 parking ticket - and as I pointed out to the judge, it wasn't the $10, it was costing me more than that just in gas for the multiple court appearances. Had another one dismissed, again on constitutional issues, after pleading not guilty but before making the actual defense (judge looked at me, looked at his notes, quickly and quietly read off the reason why the ticket was in this "exceptional" case unconstitutional, dismissed, next case please :-). Other, more serious cases, same thing. If you know your constitutional rights, you'll find that many local laws and bylaws are actually either illegal or simply ultra vires (beyond the competency of the particular administrative body - they "don't have authority to do that").
What we really need is the right for people who are NOT lawyers to routinely plead cases for people who are intimidated by the legal process and can't afford to spend the $$$ for a mouthpiece. Seems to me that there could be a constitutional argument in favour of that somewhere ... any feedback on that would be more than welcome :-)
Look, what part of "Most people won't be aware that they have a parasite " don't you understand?
Did I mention cod worm specifically there? No. Did I go on to mention another worm (pinworm) in that context? Yes. Do between 30% and 80% of people have pinworm? Yes. Do most know it? No.
The fact is that people are hosts to many parasites at any one time; some of them, over time, we've evolved a symbiotic relationship with (the flora and fauna in your gut are a good example, and if you go back far enough in time, mitachondria). People can go around for a LONG time with a tapeworm. And idiots obviously DO eat fresh-water fish undercooked. That's why we call them idiots :-)
The basic problem is that we're resorting to things like salmon farming because we've seriously impacted the natural resource. Unfortunately, the fish farms also impact the local environment in a negative way.
This is true, but if you DO use the master password feature, being able to see your usr/pw combos is VERY handy when you want to copy your account info between your laptop and desktop, or write it all down (and store in a secure place, natch) for future reference.
Better than trying to guess it and being IP-banned after n number of failed attempts.
internic (parent poster) wrote:
I know people don't read the F*** Articles, but could you at lead read the F*** Summary?
He's referring to his laptop, which has firefox.
Thanks for playing, no fish today, better luck next time.
In Soviet Russia, Firefox Master Password STILL protects YOU!
Fair enough, but take a look at his gut reaction to actions at a distance - both by derisively calling them "spooky actions at a distance" and saying "God does not play dice with the universe."
That second phrase clearly expresses a dichotomy between "god" and "universe" that is a contradiction to the statement you quote, and leads me to believe that, wrt god, Einstein had a nice case of cognitive dissonance going.
I mean, why reject a thesis on the basis of "god".
Also, (and as aside note) the descriptions of human behavior in the bible (god-endorsed genocide, rape (kill the men and take their wives as your own), mysogeny, racism, theft, fraud, scheming, the continual condoning of slavery, cruelty to kids, etc) can hardly be called "honourable"; this would lead me tu suspect Einstein of being a bit politically correct in that particular instance.
Firefox has a "master password" feature. Use it, and remember just one password. It'll prompt you for the master password the first time it visits a site that has a saved password.
He also refused to believe in strange effects at a distance, and said that "God doesn't play dice with the universe." and 'Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."
IOW, Einstein's religious thinking was a product of his time; he wasn't a hardline atheist. Just goes to show that even a genius can be f*ing stupid where they have a blind spot.
My computer is salient and lonely - it NEEDS cybersex, you ignorant clod!
Inferior genes aren't necessarily selected out out in the evolutionary model. As long as it doesn't prevent reproduction and the host themselves surviving long enough to reproduce, it's going to stay in the gene pool. Example - if there was a gene that caused the host to drop dead at 50 in 100% of cases- that's not going to be weeded out. Heck, in certain scenarios, it could be helpful by reducing competitive pressure for resources wrt the next generation.
People with blue eyes are more often nearsighted, which put them at a competitive disadvantage, but we still see blue-eyed people.
My point is twofold: that the definition of "inferior gene" is plastic and can change wrt circumstances, and that the evolutionary process doesn't select out all types of genes - just those that affect the odds of successfully breeding another generation.
As for eugenics, we practice it all the time. We choose our mating partners based in part on how desirable we perceive them to be. Given a choice, most people want someone who they are attracted to; their kids will probably look better than the ugly people who hooked up because of the beer-bottom goggles.
Most people won't be aware that they have a parasite (just like the 30% to 80% of kids who have pinworm - yuck!!! Get the Vermox, STAT!), but I would tend to think that fish that's sold locally is relatively safe to begin with compared to some countries ...
What's alarmist is the H1N1 scare. The initial "152 reported deaths" turning out to be 7 after they tested properly, the current practice of counting ALL flu-like cases because "it's too time-consuming and expensive to test", and the "death toll" (which is overwhelmingly what are known as "feebs", defectives, and the morbidly obese - or as one doctor put it, "if this didn't kill them, something else would have in the next 6 months").
And if they lower the yellow light below state legal minimum, they can be fined, plus refund the tickets.
Some of the places that have already been caught have removed the red-light cameras because they're no longer profitable (they can't "catch" enough people if the yellow light is on for at least the legal minimum).
Don't speed, you won't get a speeding ticket. What's so hard to understand about that?
Lugging the engine (driving one gear too high" invariably increases gas mileage, despite your claims. The engine is operating at better overall thermal efficiency (extracting more energy from each stroke). Contrary to popular belief, as long as the car isn't otherwise overloaded, it also doesn't result in extra wear on the engine. It's the same overall effect as going to a higher-ratio differential.
There are specifications and laws for minimum yellow light duration. Cities that have gone below that can and have been forced to give back the money.
You might want to ask your pharmacist how sales of Vermox and its' ilk are doing (it's not just for pinworm).
People who get parasites from fish aren't going to go running around announcing it to all and sundry.
Also, sushi isn't all that widely consumed. I know people who have never eaten it, and others who have only eaten it once or twice.
In fact, I don't know anyone who eats it more than once a year, tops.
Hint: He's the guy who, when asked, wouldn't deny that he raped and killed a 10-year-old in 1990. He also hasn't publicly denied the latest rumors wrt. him being a scientologist, and being "into furries".
What can you do with dopes*Wpeople that want to make everything look like xml, including trying to make a url look like it has a closing slash before the angle_bracket ( a "/>" ).
And what's the problem with that? A plumber could fix 3 sinks in the time it takes to travel to one, bill by the job, and PROFIT. The robots' rate in transit is lower.
In Soviet Russia, there are more than 100 people with computers, comrade.
Search for "Streisand Effect" Barbra Streisand sued to prevent publication of some pictures; as a result, it became newsworthy.
Not if he's asking them NOT to carry his news. Fox wasn't going around telling the cable cos "Don't carry our news channel!" You can't go around asking someone to do (or stop doing) something, and then complain when they comply with your wishes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
If Murdoch sues to prevent google from indexing any of his content because such indexing is injurious to him, he is estoppeled from making a contrary claim that he is somehow injured when google does stop indexing.
Why do you think Murdoch hasn't sent a Cease & Desist? The moment he does, he can no longer claim any damages if google blocks him off.