And even once it all shakes out it'll still be good for churning out a few rounds of wistful "what ifs" to cover the need to write articles during slow weeks in 2008. "Ah, if only X had done Y, then we'd all be running Xerox OS 10.0 on our Amiga hardware!"
...and that one paragraph states matters and makes its point much more clearly and effectively than the somewhat aimless article. It may be obvious, true, but if it needs to be stated for some reason you've nailed it.
I know that in Pennsylvania, at least, a lot of current-day highway construction is still in concrete.
Is the paper even the same thing?
on
Google TrustRank
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Given that one of the authors of the referenced paper is an employee of Yahoo, I have to wonder if whatever Google has in mind has anything whatsoever to do with the trustrank scheme we're talking about here. I mean, all we know is they trademarked the word, nothing more.
Why? Because HL7 is only part of the picture here. I wouldn't be at/all/ suprised if they will use HL7, but there are many more layers to consider that HL7 specifically says it doesn't want to address (hence the '7' in its name).
Agreed. All browsers have bugs. The real problem, I think, is ActiveX. If the browser was just a/browser/, not a potential means of installing independent software, spoofing would be about the worst that could happen.
"Microsoft has 120 days to comply with an EU sanction compelling it to disclose Windows code that will make it easier for server manufacturers to work with Windows."
Hasn't it been 120 days already, or do they get to start the clock now? (again)
One way would be to turn these limitations into a profit center. I doubt the car manufacturers are too happy about the fact that you buy the car from them, but the gas from any ol' idiot with a 'fillin station'. Now, if we go with the 'swap out the battery' model rather than the 'recharge' model there is possibly an opportunity for the manufacturers to get in on these sweet, sweet, per mile profits. This may sound evil according to slashdot thinking, and it could turn out to be a bad deal, but it might provide an incentive for someone to move forward...to be the first to cut out the (also-evil) oil companies from the car equation.
I don't know...it seems almost to be increasing their liability.
'If Vonage...believes that you have violated the above restrictions, Vonage may forward the objectionable material...to the appropriate authorities for investigation
It seems to arguably create an expectation that they would do so. Now what if they fail to forward something they should have? It seems to go against the whole idea of 'commmon carrier' status that telcos normally use.
Except there is no such line by default. So, in about_config, right click to get a context menu, select 'new', select 'boolean' as the value type, name it as specified above, and give it a value of false. Restart Moz. Type about:config again and verify that the shell line is in there with vbs and the rest of them.
Or just run the xpi, although it's nice to know how to check it even if you run the xpi.
In theory, then, such a system may behave unpredictably and could potentially damage the database.
But you do concede that there are backups of the data. And the point of a backup is of course to reload the database if something "bad" happens. They're acting as if somehow irreparable harm could be done by simply running a report that crashes the system. This makes No Sense. Unless they have no backups. And, as you imply, there seems to be no reason to presume that level of insanity.
Alternately, they need to licesnse this magical Unstable Data Technology to the RIAA, who would LOVE to have something that somehow simultaneously corrupts all copies of the data if a single copy is accessed too often.
Step one: copy to 'fresh' tape. The end. I mean, given this Ye Olde Tape scenario the data is useless to anyone, including themselves, unless and until they have a go at copying it. I guess the only argument then would be that they're waiting for development of better brittle-tape-reading-technology before trying to access it. Which is not an argument that I would put past this gang.
In any case they talk about it being in "a database" which would seem to imply something on disk.
So true. And whenever there's something about a hydrogen-powered vehicle, the same folks all trundle out their "Whoa...don't these foolish engineers know teh hydogren will go kaboom? I'm not driving no Hindenberg!!!" remarks.
Did you see the Southpark movie? The one where Bill Gates is ranting to general about how great the next version will be even though this version is crap? And then the general shoots him in the head? When I saw the movie, this scene got one of the biggest laughs from the audience.
The most scary thing is that they also store your position, the police can ask for your (cellphones) movements 2 months ago and the phone companies will willingly deliver this information.
At least for premeditated crimes this is utterly pointless, as even the most minimally clueful criminal would just have his henchman take the phone to "alibi location du jour" whilst perpetrating his nefarious acts. Can one use their phone's location as evidence in one's own defense, or is this a form of evidence only useful to the prosecution?
Ah well, even if so I'm sure the clever criminal could use it to frame someone else.
Most games explicitly state that whatever virtual items you 'own' aren't really yours. They claim you can't (or at least have no right to) 'sell' virtual items for real money. Of course, people will pay money for virtual items, so they end up with a black market. I think a large part of the reason why most companies take the "it's not really yours, it's ours" stance to forestall any claims against them should they shut down the game or change it in such a way that item X, with ebay value of $100, is now worthless. BUT, SL is not taking this approach, has a convertible currency, etc., so they're somewhat acting as custodians of real value for the players. Would claims against this hold up in court? Well, maybe, maybe not. The possibility seems to worry companies like Blizzard though.
I suppose there must be some sort of process to appeal to someone (who...the zoning board?) about obnoxious properties, or the spammers would turn the whole place into a forest of idiotic billboards.
Are there any 'safeguards' against company insiders giving themselves land? What if a game change 'devalues' certain land (by blocking the view, for instance). I can see lots of potential for RL legal proceedings based on this.
Slashdot Mirror
Just be sure to print your whistleblower memos on a black-and-white laser, not a color one.
Yes, probably. But we can dream, can't we?
And even once it all shakes out it'll still be good for churning out a few rounds of wistful "what ifs" to cover the need to write articles during slow weeks in 2008. "Ah, if only X had done Y, then we'd all be running Xerox OS 10.0 on our Amiga hardware!"
I know that in Pennsylvania, at least, a lot of current-day highway construction is still in concrete.
Given that one of the authors of the referenced paper is an employee of Yahoo, I have to wonder if whatever Google has in mind has anything whatsoever to do with the trustrank scheme we're talking about here. I mean, all we know is they trademarked the word, nothing more.
Wow, never heard of them. Like White Castle, eh? My condolonces.
Why? Because HL7 is only part of the picture here. I wouldn't be at /all/ suprised if they will use HL7, but there are many more layers to consider that HL7 specifically says it doesn't want to address (hence the '7' in its name).
Agreed. All browsers have bugs. The real problem, I think, is ActiveX. If the browser was just a /browser/, not a potential means of installing independent software, spoofing would be about the worst that could happen.
Hasn't it been 120 days already, or do they get to start the clock now? (again)
Clicky
One way would be to turn these limitations into a profit center. I doubt the car manufacturers are too happy about the fact that you buy the car from them, but the gas from any ol' idiot with a 'fillin station'. Now, if we go with the 'swap out the battery' model rather than the 'recharge' model there is possibly an opportunity for the manufacturers to get in on these sweet, sweet, per mile profits. This may sound evil according to slashdot thinking, and it could turn out to be a bad deal, but it might provide an incentive for someone to move forward...to be the first to cut out the (also-evil) oil companies from the car equation.
That is the best line I've read all day!
'If Vonage...believes that you have violated the above restrictions, Vonage may forward the objectionable material...to the appropriate authorities for investigation
It seems to arguably create an expectation that they would do so. Now what if they fail to forward something they should have? It seems to go against the whole idea of 'commmon carrier' status that telcos normally use.
Yeah, um, we're working on that...
You missed every.
Or just run the xpi, although it's nice to know how to check it even if you run the xpi.
But you do concede that there are backups of the data. And the point of a backup is of course to reload the database if something "bad" happens. They're acting as if somehow irreparable harm could be done by simply running a report that crashes the system. This makes No Sense. Unless they have no backups. And, as you imply, there seems to be no reason to presume that level of insanity.
Alternately, they need to licesnse this magical Unstable Data Technology to the RIAA, who would LOVE to have something that somehow simultaneously corrupts all copies of the data if a single copy is accessed too often.
In any case they talk about it being in "a database" which would seem to imply something on disk.
So true. And whenever there's something about a hydrogen-powered vehicle, the same folks all trundle out their "Whoa...don't these foolish engineers know teh hydogren will go kaboom? I'm not driving no Hindenberg!!!" remarks.
Yeah, it's not just us.
At least for premeditated crimes this is utterly pointless, as even the most minimally clueful criminal would just have his henchman take the phone to "alibi location du jour" whilst perpetrating his nefarious acts. Can one use their phone's location as evidence in one's own defense, or is this a form of evidence only useful to the prosecution?
Ah well, even if so I'm sure the clever criminal could use it to frame someone else.
Most games explicitly state that whatever virtual items you 'own' aren't really yours. They claim you can't (or at least have no right to) 'sell' virtual items for real money. Of course, people will pay money for virtual items, so they end up with a black market. I think a large part of the reason why most companies take the "it's not really yours, it's ours" stance to forestall any claims against them should they shut down the game or change it in such a way that item X, with ebay value of $100, is now worthless. BUT, SL is not taking this approach, has a convertible currency, etc., so they're somewhat acting as custodians of real value for the players. Would claims against this hold up in court? Well, maybe, maybe not. The possibility seems to worry companies like Blizzard though.
I suppose there must be some sort of process to appeal to someone (who...the zoning board?) about obnoxious properties, or the spammers would turn the whole place into a forest of idiotic billboards.
Are there any 'safeguards' against company insiders giving themselves land? What if a game change 'devalues' certain land (by blocking the view, for instance). I can see lots of potential for RL legal proceedings based on this.