Actually, I read that the proceedings were _ex-parte_... No-IP wasn't even informed that there were any proceedings. Consequently they had zero chance to defend against this forfeiture. And that's exactly how Microsoft wanted it.
There's more going on here than malware. My guess is that Microsoft's big media buddies want to use Microsoft as a front for domain seizures under cover of "protecting the public", without having to get their hands dirty or take any PR hits.
Ripples occur when there are rapid stops. A very gradual slowing down should really minimize the downstream effects, providing other drivers are paying attention and not following so closely that they have to slam on their brakes when the speed of the car in front of them decreases even the slightest.
Everyone seems to believe that, but it's not really true. Here's what some Japanese researchers found (watch the video):
It's the idiots who accelerate to the last possible moment to close the gap with the guy slowing down in front of them who are causing the ripples.
A common misconception. Some Japanese scientists demonstrated, using several cars on a closed track, that even when people are trying their best to maintain a constant speed and distance... they simply can't. Those "ripples" occur regardless of driver behavior when there is sufficient traffic.
None of this is a problem. There is a paint available that makes it very hard to photograph your license plate and as far as I can tell, this is a great thing.
This paint is designed to overexpose photos from cameras that use a flash to illuminate the license plate (i.e. most redlight cameras). It's doubtful that these cameras are using a powerful flash to illuminate each passing car or they wouldn't be so stealthy.
There are a few of those flash types around where I live. Damned irritating, especially at night where I get my retinas blasted on the way to the grocery store.
Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".
Maybe not. But we still have to right to know where the Hell our tax dollars are going. The police may have the "right" to put up those cameras (and that is debatable) but to deny knowledge of the things, or who or what is monitoring them... well. That simply should not be allowed. Having no expectation of privacy does _not_ mean that anyone can put up a camera on public property.
As I recall, they DID fess up in the first place, and that's what led to all these investigations. If they'd just quietly stopped, nobody would've ever known. Wanna bet what choice they make next time?
I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.
They're not, and you're right... they just ban stuff because a lawyer makes a convincing argument to a bureaucrat who hasn't the slightest idea of what the subject matter is, or how it relates to the product class in question. This will still go to court, and ultimately I suspect the ban will be lifted. The ITC is where everyone goes to get fast action without any court time.
Google has a long history of trying to weasel out of agreements and payments just because they're 'Google'. In turn, Microsoft spends billions an year towards their R&D (Microsoft Research). They also work with the pioneer in the industry, Nokia, which has developed pretty much all the technology we base mobile phones today on. They deserve to be paid.
Not only do I see victory for justice, but a long term crackdown on Google's illicit business practices. It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.
Troll, do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?
I dunno. The only products which have really made my jaw drop in the last decade have come directly from Google (Earth, Street View,...etc)
Everything else has been pretty much evolutionary.
Actually, this comparison to Dropbox is largely irrelevant. Google has long had the stated intent to move everyone into the "cloud" (whatever that is at any given time.) If anything, this is another piece to their plan to unseat Microsoft as the dominant operating system supplier, and you do that by eliminating the very need for Windows and Office. Logically, if you want people to use your Web-based operating system and practice ubiquitous computing, you have to permit them to store their data online as well their applications. "The Network is the Computer." Oh wait... that was Sun. But where Sun Microsystems failed, Google is succeeding.
This isn't so much competition to Dropbox as it is a logical and necessary step along the path they've been on for some time now. Now, whether you agree with where they're going, and whether it will ultimately be good for society is another issue entirely. But this is not Google being like Microsoft and deliberately stepping on a smaller competitor (although that may be the result), but rather Google being entirely consistent with their long-stated goals. It just took them a while to get here.
Keep in mind that there's already plenty of competition to Dropbox, besides Google Drive you have Box, SkyDrive, Amazon's CloudDrive, and a host of other similar services, both free and paid. Google isn't even giving away the most free storage, either... I got a 50 Gb. Box account awhile ago. It has certain limitations, but it's free and it's ten times bigger than what Google is offering.
Ultimately, though, the key to Google's approach is not how many gigabytes their giving away, but the integration with their other services. If all you want is free online storage, there are many better options to Google Drive right now, Dropbox being one of them (functionally Dropbox is about the best of them, I'd say.)
This is Google going head-to-head with Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon for as big a piece of the online pie as they can manage to convince us to give to them.
Yes, only Chernobyl was run by not for profit communists.
You and I must be thinking of different communists.
That's because none of us are actually thinking of communists, but of totalitarians. Regardless, the issue is not one of profit motive but of competence and solid regulation.
So we either accept the risks, doing what is possible to mitigate the worst of them, or declare the whole civilization thing a big mistake and go back into the trees.
Yes. As Cecil Adams once said, "It would be of great comfort to me if the Teeming Millions could learn to think rationally about such things."
I'm not so good at climbing, myself, so I think I'll just revert to the caveman lifestyle.
won't mind placing their testicles in a vice operated by me.
So long as that vise is remotely-operated via a magic packet transmitted over the Internet.
If I have to worry about my private information being spread around at any moment, they should have to worry about their privates being spread around as well... at any moment.
On balance folks have more rights here, even if none of them are written down.
It does not matter if they are "written down" (e.g., codified into law) or not, if the people themselves aren't actively involved in policing their government and its policies. That's ultimately is what this is about: Americans need to start becoming political again, start paying attention, and make our politicians pay for what they've done.
I'm terrified by people who use multiple punctuation marks. Mostly because it indicates that they're probably a 13-year-old girl, an incredibly dangerous group of people to be talking to on the internet.
That's not a troll, it's true (as well as being funny) because you never know when one of those thirteen-year-olds will turn out to be a 57-year-old FBI agent.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I read that the proceedings were _ex-parte_ ... No-IP wasn't even informed that there were any proceedings. Consequently they had zero chance to defend against this forfeiture. And that's exactly how Microsoft wanted it.
There's more going on here than malware. My guess is that Microsoft's big media buddies want to use Microsoft as a front for domain seizures under cover of "protecting the public", without having to get their hands dirty or take any PR hits.
Ripples occur when there are rapid stops. A very gradual slowing down should really minimize the downstream effects, providing other drivers are paying attention and not following so closely that they have to slam on their brakes when the speed of the car in front of them decreases even the slightest.
Everyone seems to believe that, but it's not really true. Here's what some Japanese researchers found (watch the video):
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/those-inexplicable-traffic-jams/
It's the idiots who accelerate to the last possible moment to close the gap with the guy slowing down in front of them who are causing the ripples.
... they simply can't. Those "ripples" occur regardless of driver behavior when there is sufficient traffic.
A common misconception. Some Japanese scientists demonstrated, using several cars on a closed track, that even when people are trying their best to maintain a constant speed and distance
Can human apply the earth laws, such as copyrights, into other corners in the universe?
Yes, but only until the Psychlo space probe happens across Voyager I. At which point copyright will rapidly become irrelevant.
None of this is a problem. There is a paint available that makes it very hard to photograph your license plate and as far as I can tell, this is a great thing.
This paint is designed to overexpose photos from cameras that use a flash to illuminate the license plate (i.e. most redlight cameras). It's doubtful that these cameras are using a powerful flash to illuminate each passing car or they wouldn't be so stealthy.
There are a few of those flash types around where I live. Damned irritating, especially at night where I get my retinas blasted on the way to the grocery store.
Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".
Maybe not. But we still have to right to know where the Hell our tax dollars are going. The police may have the "right" to put up those cameras (and that is debatable) but to deny knowledge of the things, or who or what is monitoring them ... well. That simply should not be allowed. Having no expectation of privacy does _not_ mean that anyone can put up a camera on public property.
We all got mod-bombed on this one. Interesting.
As I recall, they DID fess up in the first place, and that's what led to all these investigations. If they'd just quietly stopped, nobody would've ever known. Wanna bet what choice they make next time?
Yes. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ...
See ALEC
I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.
They're not, and you're right ... they just ban stuff because a lawyer makes a convincing argument to a bureaucrat who hasn't the slightest idea of what the subject matter is, or how it relates to the product class in question. This will still go to court, and ultimately I suspect the ban will be lifted. The ITC is where everyone goes to get fast action without any court time.
Google has a long history of trying to weasel out of agreements and payments just because they're 'Google'. In turn, Microsoft spends billions an year towards their R&D (Microsoft Research). They also work with the pioneer in the industry, Nokia, which has developed pretty much all the technology we base mobile phones today on. They deserve to be paid. Not only do I see victory for justice, but a long term crackdown on Google's illicit business practices. It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.
Troll, do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?
No?
Well, okay then.
It's not hacking...it's optimization.
Actually ... it's cheating.
They certainly didn't invent it, not least because their service is a shell for Amazon S3.
Which is interesting, as Amazon now offers their own (currently much less functional) competition to Dropbox, called CloudDrive.
I dunno. The only products which have really made my jaw drop in the last decade have come directly from Google (Earth, Street View, ...etc)
Everything else has been pretty much evolutionary.
Actually, this comparison to Dropbox is largely irrelevant. Google has long had the stated intent to move everyone into the "cloud" (whatever that is at any given time.) If anything, this is another piece to their plan to unseat Microsoft as the dominant operating system supplier, and you do that by eliminating the very need for Windows and Office. Logically, if you want people to use your Web-based operating system and practice ubiquitous computing, you have to permit them to store their data online as well their applications. "The Network is the Computer." Oh wait ... that was Sun. But where Sun Microsystems failed, Google is succeeding.
... I got a 50 Gb. Box account awhile ago. It has certain limitations, but it's free and it's ten times bigger than what Google is offering.
This isn't so much competition to Dropbox as it is a logical and necessary step along the path they've been on for some time now. Now, whether you agree with where they're going, and whether it will ultimately be good for society is another issue entirely. But this is not Google being like Microsoft and deliberately stepping on a smaller competitor (although that may be the result), but rather Google being entirely consistent with their long-stated goals. It just took them a while to get here.
Keep in mind that there's already plenty of competition to Dropbox, besides Google Drive you have Box, SkyDrive, Amazon's CloudDrive, and a host of other similar services, both free and paid. Google isn't even giving away the most free storage, either
Ultimately, though, the key to Google's approach is not how many gigabytes their giving away, but the integration with their other services. If all you want is free online storage, there are many better options to Google Drive right now, Dropbox being one of them (functionally Dropbox is about the best of them, I'd say.)
This is Google going head-to-head with Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon for as big a piece of the online pie as they can manage to convince us to give to them.
There's an enormous intersection. In fact, I'd be very suspicious of someone that claimed to be a programmer but wasn't musical or otherwise creative.
I'm a programmer and I'm writing a sci-fi novel. Does that count?
They should have renamed ado.net as Db.net.
Really, this is all much ado about nothing.
"This 'gifting' of which you speak ... is that anything like 'squirting'"? -- Steve Ballmer
Yes, only Chernobyl was run by not for profit communists.
You and I must be thinking of different communists.
That's because none of us are actually thinking of communists, but of totalitarians. Regardless, the issue is not one of profit motive but of competence and solid regulation.
So we either accept the risks, doing what is possible to mitigate the worst of them, or declare the whole civilization thing a big mistake and go back into the trees.
Yes. As Cecil Adams once said, "It would be of great comfort to me if the Teeming Millions could learn to think rationally about such things."
I'm not so good at climbing, myself, so I think I'll just revert to the caveman lifestyle.
Is it time to begin a mass exodus of Facebook?
"I'm afraid that time has come and gone my friend." -- Professor Rapson, "The Day After Tomorrow"
won't mind placing their testicles in a vice operated by me.
So long as that vise is remotely-operated via a magic packet transmitted over the Internet.
... at any moment.
If I have to worry about my private information being spread around at any moment, they should have to worry about their privates being spread around as well
Agreed,
intentions ain't worth nothing in law. Intentions can turn at any time. Rather just let not happen such a law in the first place.
You are being generous. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions ... but you get there faster if there are no good intentions.
It's not "our version" of the MPAA and RIAA. AFACT is a front for the MPAA and that's a fact.
That's probably true, As Far As Anyone Can Tell.
On balance folks have more rights here, even if none of them are written down.
It does not matter if they are "written down" (e.g., codified into law) or not, if the people themselves aren't actively involved in policing their government and its policies. That's ultimately is what this is about: Americans need to start becoming political again, start paying attention, and make our politicians pay for what they've done.
I'm terrified by people who use multiple punctuation marks. Mostly because it indicates that they're probably a 13-year-old girl, an incredibly dangerous group of people to be talking to on the internet.
That's not a troll, it's true (as well as being funny) because you never know when one of those thirteen-year-olds will turn out to be a 57-year-old FBI agent.