A big issue with anything like this is that it could be used against our infrastructure almost as easily as it could be used to protect our infrastructure. Think about what would happen if a foreign power or other malicous agent gained control of this "ban" button - they could then cripple banking and other critical infrastructure in a pseudo-DOS attack; instead of disabling by pounding on a site, they could just disconnect it.
Nobody wants a good but low rated Firefly; they all want a mega-hits like Seinfeld
Seinfield didn't start off as a hit; it struggled for a season or two before it found a solid audience. Fox didn't give Firefly that luxury; they showed the episodes out of order and moved it around and pre-empted it several times, then canceled it before showing all the episodes or giving it a chance to find its audience (or giving its audience a chance to find it). Typical for today's corporations, concerned only for short-term profits.
I know how the system work. Guess what? Its 2009. The tivo has been out for TEN YEARS. Thats an eternity in the electronics world. The current system that gives monopologies for 14-20 years is ridiculous. Tivo had its time.
OK, so you don't agree with the patent system for electronics. How does that make TiVo a patent troll?
IMO if you're trying to collect on an obvious idea, you're a patent troll. I doubt there's a single slashdotter here (except maybe NYCL) who couldn't have made a DVR out of an old laptop, a few roofing nails and a bananna. And most of us could have done it without the nails and bananna.
Ok, then AT&T and Verizon should simply switch to offering standard TV and "On Demand" television shows, and not utilize a DVR in the home. Problem solved.
Or they can wait until TiVo's patent expires or they can pay licensing fees to TiVo. That's the way the patent system is supposed to work!
The idea behind the patent system is that someone can make an investment (in time and money) to invent something and have the opportunity to make that investment back without having someone take the idea behind that invention and undercut the original inventor's pricing without having to make that initial investment. The patent system allows the inventor some time to recoup their investment while making the innovation freely available to others after the patent has expired. Seems like a good system to me!
I get the feeling that the continued paucity of quality TV might be driving away the kinds of people who would otherwise buy it.
Actually, I think it has the reverse affect - it there's lots of good stuff to watch, people have their TV watching schedule filled up and don't need to time-shift stuff around, but when there's only a few good things to watch (and/or several good things on at the same time), folks get a DVR so they can watch that little bit of good stuff on their own schedule. With a DVR, I can record stuff I'm interested in regardless of when it comes on and watch it when there isn't anything on that I'm interested in.
I think TIVO is using the patent system exactly as it was intended. They invented something unique and successfully marketed it, but then various cable and satellite companies decided to not (or to stop) paying the licensing fees and create similar devices. Let's face it, the cable companies aren't all that inovative on their own and they probably wouldn't have come up with the idea for a DVR w/o seeing TIVOs.
Of course, the big question is whether you feel less worthless now that you've over-analyzed my admittedly bad and down-modded joke!
Slightly smaller questions:
o Are you below that bar? o How worthless are you? o And how does your brain tissue compare to Rush's? o And what does the list you composed to measure "worth" say about you?
It is configurable, albeit not through the options dialog. In about:config browser.urlbar.maxRichResults = 1 or 0 1 for firefox 2 style, 0 for no search browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped = true That will turn it off, if it really bothers you
If those options are reset, will sites that you visited while the options were set reappear in the bar? If so, that's just gives a false sense of security!
Ever since the 2007 Sunken-Eyed Lemur was given the scientific name masturbatus furious the scientific community has been tightening the leash on allowing researchers to label their discoveries.
But I thought that was the scientific name for/. readers...
That's nothing. When I was a child, I had to use a built in calculator - had to take off my shoes to count to 20 and drop my pants to count to 21. Of course, my brother could only count to 20 and a half!
I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was disagreeing with you thinking you had a case for taking DirecTV to court for storing your SS#. The quote you provided says its only illegal if they have to have an intent to break (or help someone else break) the law. If it were illegal just to possess someone else's SS#, then there would be a bunch of tax preparers (and parents!) breaking the same law.
Courts aren't there to judge a case's merit on logic or even what's right; they're there to judge a case's merit based on the law.
While I agree that DirecTV shouldn't have their customers' Social Security # (and I'm a customer), I don't believe the quote you provided from the GAO report says that they're doing something illegal per the part I've emphasized below:
In 1998, Congress made identity theft a federal crime when it enacted the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (Identity Theft Act).5 The act made it a criminal offense for a person to "knowingly transfer, possess, or use without lawful authority," another person's means of identification "with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law." Under the act, a name or SSN is considered a "means of identification," and a number of cases have been prosecuted under this law.
DirecTV can simply claim that they have no intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or use the SS# in connection with an unlawful activity.
Slashdot Mirror
And what evidence do you have that the current Administration would have a problem with that?
Yeah! Of course, the previous administration didn't have any problem shutting down the economy without this in place...
A big issue with anything like this is that it could be used against our infrastructure almost as easily as it could be used to protect our infrastructure. Think about what would happen if a foreign power or other malicous agent gained control of this "ban" button - they could then cripple banking and other critical infrastructure in a pseudo-DOS attack; instead of disabling by pounding on a site, they could just disconnect it.
It's like a fistful of sand, the harder you squeeze, the more that slips through your fingers.
More like a fistful of liver - it still slips out, but both the fist and the squeezin's end up all bloody.
My appologies to anyone eating while reading this...
An even trade for all those wooden shoes!
What isn't Obvious in hindsight?
For me? Calculus.
Nobody wants a good but low rated Firefly; they all want a mega-hits like Seinfeld
Seinfield didn't start off as a hit; it struggled for a season or two before it found a solid audience. Fox didn't give Firefly that luxury; they showed the episodes out of order and moved it around and pre-empted it several times, then canceled it before showing all the episodes or giving it a chance to find its audience (or giving its audience a chance to find it). Typical for today's corporations, concerned only for short-term profits.
I know how the system work. Guess what? Its 2009. The tivo has been out for TEN YEARS. Thats an eternity in the electronics world. The current system that gives monopologies for 14-20 years is ridiculous. Tivo had its time.
OK, so you don't agree with the patent system for electronics. How does that make TiVo a patent troll?
IMO if you're trying to collect on an obvious idea, you're a patent troll. I doubt there's a single slashdotter here (except maybe NYCL) who couldn't have made a DVR out of an old laptop, a few roofing nails and a bananna. And most of us could have done it without the nails and bananna.
Interesting, if so why didn't you do?
I was going to, but someone ate my bananna...
Ok, then AT&T and Verizon should simply switch to offering standard TV and "On Demand" television shows, and not utilize a DVR in the home. Problem solved.
Or they can wait until TiVo's patent expires or they can pay licensing fees to TiVo. That's the way the patent system is supposed to work!
The idea behind the patent system is that someone can make an investment (in time and money) to invent something and have the opportunity to make that investment back without having someone take the idea behind that invention and undercut the original inventor's pricing without having to make that initial investment. The patent system allows the inventor some time to recoup their investment while making the innovation freely available to others after the patent has expired. Seems like a good system to me!
I get the feeling that the continued paucity of quality TV might be driving away the kinds of people who would otherwise buy it.
Actually, I think it has the reverse affect - it there's lots of good stuff to watch, people have their TV watching schedule filled up and don't need to time-shift stuff around, but when there's only a few good things to watch (and/or several good things on at the same time), folks get a DVR so they can watch that little bit of good stuff on their own schedule. With a DVR, I can record stuff I'm interested in regardless of when it comes on and watch it when there isn't anything on that I'm interested in.
I think TIVO is using the patent system exactly as it was intended. They invented something unique and successfully marketed it, but then various cable and satellite companies decided to not (or to stop) paying the licensing fees and create similar devices. Let's face it, the cable companies aren't all that inovative on their own and they probably wouldn't have come up with the idea for a DVR w/o seeing TIVOs.
Of course, the big question is whether you feel less worthless now that you've over-analyzed my admittedly bad and down-modded joke!
Slightly smaller questions:
o Are you below that bar?
o How worthless are you?
o And how does your brain tissue compare to Rush's?
o And what does the list you composed to measure "worth" say about you?
So, this finally explains Rush Limbaugh!
It is configurable, albeit not through the options dialog. In about:config browser.urlbar.maxRichResults = 1 or 0 1 for firefox 2 style, 0 for no search browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped = true That will turn it off, if it really bothers you
If those options are reset, will sites that you visited while the options were set reappear in the bar? If so, that's just gives a false sense of security!
there's no reason to think that the internet couldn't be fixed by simply thinking up a compelling, simple, elegant solution.
You're assuming that there is a simple, elegant solution. There may not be one!
And only one man can take them on to save the world!
And, unfortunately, he blew himself up while blowing up an asteroid to save the world a few years back...
Ever since the 2007 Sunken-Eyed Lemur was given the scientific name masturbatus furious the scientific community has been tightening the leash on allowing researchers to label their discoveries.
But I thought that was the scientific name for /. readers...
That's nothing. When I was a child, I had to use a built in calculator - had to take off my shoes to count to 20 and drop my pants to count to 21. Of course, my brother could only count to 20 and a half!
only thing we're missing from most plots is a hive mind!
Don't Rush Limbaugh fans qualify?
Roombas in space! And they could clean up all the junk in orbit!
We need a new tag: "eventualoutbreakofcommonsense"
Unfortunately, those happen far too seldomly to warrant a tag.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was disagreeing with you thinking you had a case for taking DirecTV to court for storing your SS#. The quote you provided says its only illegal if they have to have an intent to break (or help someone else break) the law. If it were illegal just to possess someone else's SS#, then there would be a bunch of tax preparers (and parents!) breaking the same law.
Courts aren't there to judge a case's merit on logic or even what's right; they're there to judge a case's merit based on the law.
In 1998, Congress made identity theft a federal crime when it enacted the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (Identity Theft Act).5 The act made it a criminal offense for a person to "knowingly transfer, possess, or use without lawful authority," another person's means of identification "with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law." Under the act, a name or SSN is considered a "means of identification," and a number of cases have been prosecuted under this law.
DirecTV can simply claim that they have no intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or use the SS# in connection with an unlawful activity.
Somebody needs to call in Cartman - he'll straighten those hippies out!