I'm kind of tired of hearing these riots being compared to Vendetta. The shit going on in England has about as much to do with Vendetta as the War on Iraq had to do with WMDs. In this case we have gangs targeting shops for personal gain, probably because they are being incited to do so by organized crime or worse, clandestine government officials from other countries. Bottom line, if you're a kid and you think it's smart to post your riot exploits on Facebook, or encourage others to riot -- you are stupid and therefore the rules of evolution do tend to take over the situation.
Chaos cannot crystallize, so therefore chaos dissipates. Seriously watch SLC Punk! and you'll see what I mean. The guy figures it out. It's all bullshit.
But in all honesty, there are far more notable problems in the world than what these kids are usually making a fuss about, or probably even aware about.
Like how the fuck we're supposed to stop an asteroid from slamming into our planet when all of our resources are going to global oil wars, diverted away from space exploration and preparation against world-ending events?
The oil wars are world-ending events themselves. We have the technology now to power cars in a way that won't cost us a dime. We have the technology now to power entire cities without ever having to lift a finger. Solar energy is the way to do it, but you can't operate a solar power station with a bunch of fucking anarchists running around fucking shit up.
I mean if you look up at the sky and see the vast resources out there, you kinda just have to ask what the fuck we're doing here with this narrow minded anti-purpose.
What is the balance between Anonymous and the Fascists, and is that perhaps a better solution? Can there be a balance between anarchy and fascism?
Here is why I like Anonymous. I like the way they can latch onto something and tear it apart, and that 2/3 times the thing they are tearing down is some Fascist organization. The reason Anon attacked Scientology is because they are Fascists, not because of Tom Cruise.
I think Fascist organizations in general are bad, so I like Anonymous for this purpose, but I don't see anyone contributing to making the world better, I just see that these guys are good at destroying things and destroying people and that's not positive. There aren't many other effective things a group of hackers can do except disrupt the fascist agenda. So when the fascist agenda is tied closely to the American economy, which it is, we see S&P downgrading the US credit score again. This downgrade is a direct result of efforts of the fascists to forcing the US towards a global police state situation. It's exactly what they want.
I recommend SLC Punk! because it does kind of touch on some of the early ideas about what Anonymous wants to be as a whole, but why it can't be that because it can't be anything if it's not developed as anti-structure and that the whole idea of a structured or purposed Anonymous is one that is Fascist itself.
Isn't Anonymous kind of synonymous with progressive anarchy? Here are ten things Anonymous could do if they wanted to really be recognized as a positive force for all of humanity:
1. Develop a manner where a person could support themselves legitimately anywhere in the world. (ie: generate legit income from fair labour)
2. Develop a manner where a person could know what organizations to support and which to avoid.
3. Help inform people about what they do that is positive.
4. Cultivate talent.
5. Grow numbers.
6. Maintain their own security.
7. Shun asshats.
8. Give and get some lulz that are positive. Remember sometimes the lulz are funny
9. Create some technologies and give them away to the planet.
10. Develop a future for Anonymous. What is Anonymous in 20yrs? Is it still an underground group of loosely affiliated people? Is it every human being on the planet? What are the goals of this group? What should the goals be? What shouldn't the goals be?
Was my idea but they didn't allow comma characters in the usernames when I made my account. I'm suing you for exactly the amount of money you win from your previous case plus damages.
Does anyone have a suggestion as to where we could land this thing? It's kinda heavy and sure to crush anything in its path. I mean we COULD land it in the ocean but wouldn't it be better to land it on someone's house that we don't like?
Okay we all know you're not really Ken Boldt. That guy is a super star! But if you want to buy stock, I have some housing market futures for sale really cheap worth approximately* $500/share and I would be willing to part with them for as low as $500/share, if you buy all of them. Don't mind the COPY stamp on each one. It's a legit deal!
Oracle has yet to show any proof that google ever used the test-suite.
My guess here is that Oracle will prove this or at least attempt to do so, or they wouldn't go after Google. Google is worried by this so there is a possibility that some of the people that left Google for other corporations (like arch-rival Facebook) may have brought with them some proof that they might have shared with Oracle. As of right now I would not want to be one of those people who left Google around the time this patent suit started because there is gonna be some scrutiny.
I find one thing from this far more disturbing: google claims that real damages should be based on android value only, and since android is zero-cost that damages must be zero-cost as well. The judge declared that zero-cost is not applicable as their other income (ad-revenue) must be considered as tied in with this.
The judge may have left a huge opening for Google to reverse any decision here. IANAL, but I'll tell you I'd be looking at this zero-cost issue very carefully if I was on both Google and Oracle's team. During an appeal the appellate judge(s) may decide that this judge muddied the waters. Google's advertizing company may very well be distinct enough to have legal umbrella protection from Google's other arms. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out.
includes a clause which essentially says that you're meant to take reasonable steps to minimise the risk of a claim happening in the first place.
The judge in order to exercise due diligence is going to need to see records where the insurer took steps to monitor compliance. IANAL but I have seen this in my own business where the insurer has no case if they didn't try to check up and see if Sony was being compliant. Can you guess where that's gonna go?
Of course if Sony's legal team is as competent as their programming teams, then this will be open/shut for the insurer.
Forget all the laws, the rules, the years of training... they only help you clerk. The single most effective tool in a lawyer's warchest is being able to deadpan better than Al Pacino.
You'll have to wait for the judge for that citation but my best guess here is that Google either approached Sun or Sun approached Google, and the two companies couldn't work out a deal. Google wanted to partner to save money, but Sun wanted $100mil and I'm pretty sure Google didn't want to invest that much so they decided not to. But Google used the code anyway and that's where they are in the wrong.
People have known about Google being in the wrong for about a year. It's pretty obvious they knew about these patents but ignored them so that puts them in the wrong. Oracle being greedy though is going to get the short end of the stick here but yeah... Google screwed up and played this a little too close to the line.
They are so incompetent. I would say, if I was a major stockholder at Sony, that it was time to fire everyone and start over. Rebrand, reimage and retool everything.
They have no enforced information policy, or if they do there is no accountability.
I only wish "arrogance" were enough cause to raise insurance rates... but then again, insurance companies would all be uninsurable.
No judge is going to throw out legally binding coverage. If Sony violated their insurance coverage that would be amazing. They have lost reputation here and that's invaluable. Not many people would trust them after this. They are seen everywhere as being largely incompetent.
This changes their business model. No longer are they going to be capable of running online shops, for example. Nobody is gonna shop there and they won't get insurance so it's gonna be a done deal.
Sony will be stuck manufacturing products for sale to resellers and that's going to be their limitation now. No more networking stuff for them. Just watch!:)
This move could trigger a Streisand_effect, much like how Coke acknowledged Pepsi during the cola wars. Zuckerberg's first mistake was to sign into G+ because it obviously becomes embarrassing when he emerges as the most popular G+ user, as if he is acknowledging how wonderful G+ is when it's going to inevitably replace FB. Now the next mistake was to tighten his privacy controls to make him disappear from the leader-board. That is the kind of thing that draws a lot of attention to the fact he was even on G+. Until this morning I had no idea he was even on there. Now I know. And I'm laughing at him for it.
Consultants looooove these kinds of metrics because they can spend a half-hour with a customer bombing them with intelligent-looking numbers and then go have lunch. At no point during this exchange will anything business related have transpired, apart from the consultant's bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Ronald Regan is sought for questioning.
So that answers the recruitment question!
I'm kind of tired of hearing these riots being compared to Vendetta. The shit going on in England has about as much to do with Vendetta as the War on Iraq had to do with WMDs. In this case we have gangs targeting shops for personal gain, probably because they are being incited to do so by organized crime or worse, clandestine government officials from other countries. Bottom line, if you're a kid and you think it's smart to post your riot exploits on Facebook, or encourage others to riot -- you are stupid and therefore the rules of evolution do tend to take over the situation.
This is exactly what I meant. I love how you **understand** me!
Now can you please, just stand on the side-walk. That's why we made side-walks you know, so people wouldn't stand on lawns.
Chaos cannot crystallize, so therefore chaos dissipates. Seriously watch SLC Punk! and you'll see what I mean. The guy figures it out. It's all bullshit.
Like how the fuck we're supposed to stop an asteroid from slamming into our planet when all of our resources are going to global oil wars, diverted away from space exploration and preparation against world-ending events?
The oil wars are world-ending events themselves. We have the technology now to power cars in a way that won't cost us a dime. We have the technology now to power entire cities without ever having to lift a finger. Solar energy is the way to do it, but you can't operate a solar power station with a bunch of fucking anarchists running around fucking shit up.
I mean if you look up at the sky and see the vast resources out there, you kinda just have to ask what the fuck we're doing here with this narrow minded anti-purpose.
What is the balance between Anonymous and the Fascists, and is that perhaps a better solution? Can there be a balance between anarchy and fascism?
Here is why I like Anonymous. I like the way they can latch onto something and tear it apart, and that 2/3 times the thing they are tearing down is some Fascist organization. The reason Anon attacked Scientology is because they are Fascists, not because of Tom Cruise.
I think Fascist organizations in general are bad, so I like Anonymous for this purpose, but I don't see anyone contributing to making the world better, I just see that these guys are good at destroying things and destroying people and that's not positive. There aren't many other effective things a group of hackers can do except disrupt the fascist agenda. So when the fascist agenda is tied closely to the American economy, which it is, we see S&P downgrading the US credit score again. This downgrade is a direct result of efforts of the fascists to forcing the US towards a global police state situation. It's exactly what they want.
I recommend SLC Punk! because it does kind of touch on some of the early ideas about what Anonymous wants to be as a whole, but why it can't be that because it can't be anything if it's not developed as anti-structure and that the whole idea of a structured or purposed Anonymous is one that is Fascist itself.
Isn't Anonymous kind of synonymous with progressive anarchy? Here are ten things Anonymous could do if they wanted to really be recognized as a positive force for all of humanity:
1. Develop a manner where a person could support themselves legitimately anywhere in the world. (ie: generate legit income from fair labour)
2. Develop a manner where a person could know what organizations to support and which to avoid.
3. Help inform people about what they do that is positive.
4. Cultivate talent.
5. Grow numbers.
6. Maintain their own security.
7. Shun asshats.
8. Give and get some lulz that are positive. Remember sometimes the lulz are funny
9. Create some technologies and give them away to the planet.
10. Develop a future for Anonymous. What is Anonymous in 20yrs? Is it still an underground group of loosely affiliated people? Is it every human being on the planet? What are the goals of this group? What should the goals be? What shouldn't the goals be?
Dammit jefe, you got a point here. Now where do I send money to?
That's okay when I'm done suing you for your username you can sue me for your love of the number 56. :D
Not getting ugly. Just remarking on how stupid patent lawsuits are!!
I love you.
Was my idea but they didn't allow comma characters in the usernames when I made my account. I'm suing you for exactly the amount of money you win from your previous case plus damages.
Anything that is a regime is absurd!
Just make things free and democratic okay? Otherwise it's gonna be regime-change time!
What exactly would that be in wow gold?
Does anyone have a suggestion as to where we could land this thing? It's kinda heavy and sure to crush anything in its path. I mean we COULD land it in the ocean but wouldn't it be better to land it on someone's house that we don't like?
Okay we all know you're not really Ken Boldt. That guy is a super star! But if you want to buy stock, I have some housing market futures for sale really cheap worth approximately* $500/share and I would be willing to part with them for as low as $500/share, if you buy all of them. Don't mind the COPY stamp on each one. It's a legit deal!
Salient points! Thanks for clearing this up.
My guess here is that Oracle will prove this or at least attempt to do so, or they wouldn't go after Google. Google is worried by this so there is a possibility that some of the people that left Google for other corporations (like arch-rival Facebook) may have brought with them some proof that they might have shared with Oracle. As of right now I would not want to be one of those people who left Google around the time this patent suit started because there is gonna be some scrutiny.
The judge may have left a huge opening for Google to reverse any decision here. IANAL, but I'll tell you I'd be looking at this zero-cost issue very carefully if I was on both Google and Oracle's team. During an appeal the appellate judge(s) may decide that this judge muddied the waters. Google's advertizing company may very well be distinct enough to have legal umbrella protection from Google's other arms. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out.
If people hate your business, you are going to be out of business.
The judge in order to exercise due diligence is going to need to see records where the insurer took steps to monitor compliance. IANAL but I have seen this in my own business where the insurer has no case if they didn't try to check up and see if Sony was being compliant. Can you guess where that's gonna go?
Of course if Sony's legal team is as competent as their programming teams, then this will be open/shut for the insurer.
Forget all the laws, the rules, the years of training... they only help you clerk. The single most effective tool in a lawyer's warchest is being able to deadpan better than Al Pacino.
You'll have to wait for the judge for that citation but my best guess here is that Google either approached Sun or Sun approached Google, and the two companies couldn't work out a deal. Google wanted to partner to save money, but Sun wanted $100mil and I'm pretty sure Google didn't want to invest that much so they decided not to. But Google used the code anyway and that's where they are in the wrong.
People have known about Google being in the wrong for about a year. It's pretty obvious they knew about these patents but ignored them so that puts them in the wrong. Oracle being greedy though is going to get the short end of the stick here but yeah... Google screwed up and played this a little too close to the line.
They are so incompetent. I would say, if I was a major stockholder at Sony, that it was time to fire everyone and start over. Rebrand, reimage and retool everything.
They have no enforced information policy, or if they do there is no accountability.
No judge is going to throw out legally binding coverage. If Sony violated their insurance coverage that would be amazing. They have lost reputation here and that's invaluable. Not many people would trust them after this. They are seen everywhere as being largely incompetent.
This changes their business model. No longer are they going to be capable of running online shops, for example. Nobody is gonna shop there and they won't get insurance so it's gonna be a done deal.
Sony will be stuck manufacturing products for sale to resellers and that's going to be their limitation now. No more networking stuff for them. Just watch! :)
Google is in the wrong here but because Oracle is getting greedy, Google will get off with a slap on the wrist. Good for them!
This move could trigger a Streisand_effect, much like how Coke acknowledged Pepsi during the cola wars. Zuckerberg's first mistake was to sign into G+ because it obviously becomes embarrassing when he emerges as the most popular G+ user, as if he is acknowledging how wonderful G+ is when it's going to inevitably replace FB. Now the next mistake was to tighten his privacy controls to make him disappear from the leader-board. That is the kind of thing that draws a lot of attention to the fact he was even on G+. Until this morning I had no idea he was even on there. Now I know. And I'm laughing at him for it.
Your anonymity here proves my previous assertions and derails your own.
You hit the nail on the head!
Consultants looooove these kinds of metrics because they can spend a half-hour with a customer bombing them with intelligent-looking numbers and then go have lunch. At no point during this exchange will anything business related have transpired, apart from the consultant's bill.