I approvied the Pluribo extension for being pushed to public. All I can say is that it gets most of its data from the Pluribo server, and does very little client-cide besides display the data. At the moment it is *extremely* limited, literally to a handful of products. Apparently their system doesn't do the scanning of comments automatically otherwise it would work for everything, whereas it actually has to query the Pluribo server to get results.
Presumably, legal discovery is usually limited to the domain in which the lawsuit is operating. In a case like this, is it really appropriate for Google to provide such vast quantities of information, 99.9% of which is almost certainly irrelevant to the case? Shouldn't there be an appeals process Google can use that basically says "that judge doesn't know what (s)he's talking about, Viacom don't need this information"?
Your 'Netflix' or whatever is one regular payment for one service. You may have 20 or 30 significant pieces of software installed on your PC. Maybe if this kind of payment covered all that software, people would find it more reasonable. They're talking about this JUST for MS Office. What if you had to pay $5 for each piece of software on your machine, per month? Starts to seem a little ridiculous now, doesn't it?
The first is that the US had significant cell phone use back when they were really expensive. If it's 1980 and I'm calling Mr. Hotshot on his carphone at a buck-fifty a minute, who should pay? Me, or Mr. Hotshot?
You. Otherwise get Mr. Hotshot to call you, do a reverse-charges call, or just don't call his damn carphone so much. But, you get to choose.
The second is that I don't need to know whether I'm calling a cell phone or not. It costs me the same either way. No need to memorize which numbers are mobile and which aren't. If I know what kind of phone I'm using, I know what my rate structure is. The recipient of my call knows what kind of phone he's using, and he knows what his rates are. We don't have to care about each other, we just talk.
Well, I guess this is an inferior aspect of the US telephone system, because it's very easy to know whether you're calling a mobile or not over here; mobile numbers start 07.
The third (yes I said there were two) is that it's just fucking common sense. Remember, it's not "called party pays", it's "mobile party pays". Pays for what? Mobile service. You mean... the person with the cell phone pays to use the cell phone? Why, yes!
You said two reasons... anyway, wtf are you talking about here? It *IS* 'called party pays'... that's the whole point. I don't understand you. The cellphone user pays a regular fee for their service, *AND* to receive calls and txts.
In the US, they usually have to pay to receive a txt or phone call on a mobile. It's hilariously stupid that they put up with it. Poor guys; I think their government just lets big telco get away with a lot of shit, this included.
I don't get why US people put up with the receiver of a call or txt paying. It's absurd to me. Does the receiver of a letter pay? No. So why does the receiver of a call or txt pay??
I figured out a really good system for stopping spam. My server immediately drops ANY incoming SMTP connection. It's dropped my spam to zero, and checking my logs, it really does seem to have stopped an awful lot.
Rod and Todd watch a religious kid's cartoon program.
Father sheep: What's wrong, Jeremiah? Jeremiah: It's not fair. My brother Joseph has a sin to confess. I wish I had one too. Father sheep: Oh, don't you see? You _do_ have a sin to confess -- the sin of envy. [sheep baa their laughter] Todd: It's all well and good for sheep, but what are we to do? Homer: Boring! Let's watch something else. Rod+Todd: Aw... Ned: Now, boys, Mr. Simpson is the guest. He gets to decide what to watch. Homer: Yeah... [Homer flips through channels which all seem to be blank] Hey, what gives? I thought you had a satellite dish. Ned: Sure doodily-do. Over 230 channels locked out!
Yet another reason the wife and I would love to move there
Be prepared to be surveilled a lot, especially if you live near London. Don't try and speed, there are speed cameras everywhere. You have to pay for a TV licence to watch broadcast TV, put up with a very socialist authoritarian government... and those gun thingies you Slashdotters are always on about? Seriously illegal for virtually anyone to own over here. Carrying a knife in the street may also lead to a 4 year prison sentence.
If the computer industry ever intends to routinely get software that doesn't suck right out of the box without figuring out how to clone Linus Torvalds, it had better start taking defect prevention and detection seriously
Hey, I like that idea. Maybe the guys who're working on the hybrid human-pig embryo could help with the cloning.
If QA people regularly had a hand in design, then I think the field would be quite different.
"Hello Dear sir I am your helper paperclip and i an here to help you our Valuable customer, please giving me your question and you will be help in the window on the rightleft."
I know this was modded funny, but it's a genuine problem. They should try to increment the revision, not the minor version number, because most extensions are compatible with FF 3.0.* - revision increments are supposed to not break the APIs - whereas a minor version increment will suddenly cause all non-updated extensions to get disabled once again. Not good. Especially with Firefox's overly-aggressive update mechanism, ensuring virtually everyone will quickly switch to 3.1.
Slashdot Mirror
I approvied the Pluribo extension for being pushed to public. All I can say is that it gets most of its data from the Pluribo server, and does very little client-cide besides display the data. At the moment it is *extremely* limited, literally to a handful of products. Apparently their system doesn't do the scanning of comments automatically otherwise it would work for everything, whereas it actually has to query the Pluribo server to get results.
Presumably, legal discovery is usually limited to the domain in which the lawsuit is operating. In a case like this, is it really appropriate for Google to provide such vast quantities of information, 99.9% of which is almost certainly irrelevant to the case? Shouldn't there be an appeals process Google can use that basically says "that judge doesn't know what (s)he's talking about, Viacom don't need this information"?
Your 'Netflix' or whatever is one regular payment for one service. You may have 20 or 30 significant pieces of software installed on your PC. Maybe if this kind of payment covered all that software, people would find it more reasonable. They're talking about this JUST for MS Office. What if you had to pay $5 for each piece of software on your machine, per month? Starts to seem a little ridiculous now, doesn't it?
At our office, we still you Office '97 because it does everything we need.
Did you use Word 97's grammar check whilst writing this post? :-)
How is it possible to get a good, responsive end-user e-mail experience with a mere 64 cores?
How about the companies make an arrangement between each other to share the profits from senders' payments?
The first is that the US had significant cell phone use back when they were really expensive. If it's 1980 and I'm calling Mr. Hotshot on his carphone at a buck-fifty a minute, who should pay? Me, or Mr. Hotshot?
You. Otherwise get Mr. Hotshot to call you, do a reverse-charges call, or just don't call his damn carphone so much. But, you get to choose.
The second is that I don't need to know whether I'm calling a cell phone or not. It costs me the same either way. No need to memorize which numbers are mobile and which aren't. If I know what kind of phone I'm using, I know what my rate structure is. The recipient of my call knows what kind of phone he's using, and he knows what his rates are. We don't have to care about each other, we just talk.
Well, I guess this is an inferior aspect of the US telephone system, because it's very easy to know whether you're calling a mobile or not over here; mobile numbers start 07.
The third (yes I said there were two) is that it's just fucking common sense. Remember, it's not "called party pays", it's "mobile party pays". Pays for what? Mobile service. You mean... the person with the cell phone pays to use the cell phone? Why, yes!
You said two reasons... anyway, wtf are you talking about here? It *IS* 'called party pays'... that's the whole point. I don't understand you. The cellphone user pays a regular fee for their service, *AND* to receive calls and txts.
Calculate it in litres, actually, because there is a difference between US and imperial gallons that will distort the calculation.
They were just quoting MP3 prices taking into account added RIAA fees.
actually, with the new plan from AT&T with the 3G IPhone
If you paid for an iPhone, I don't think you really care about price.
In the US, they usually have to pay to receive a txt or phone call on a mobile. It's hilariously stupid that they put up with it. Poor guys; I think their government just lets big telco get away with a lot of shit, this included.
I don't get why US people put up with the receiver of a call or txt paying. It's absurd to me. Does the receiver of a letter pay? No. So why does the receiver of a call or txt pay??
I figured out a really good system for stopping spam. My server immediately drops ANY incoming SMTP connection. It's dropped my spam to zero, and checking my logs, it really does seem to have stopped an awful lot.
In other words, move along there's nothing to see here.
Certainly not if you're watching broadcast TV.
Yet another reason the wife and I would love to move there
Be prepared to be surveilled a lot, especially if you live near London. Don't try and speed, there are speed cameras everywhere. You have to pay for a TV licence to watch broadcast TV, put up with a very socialist authoritarian government... and those gun thingies you Slashdotters are always on about? Seriously illegal for virtually anyone to own over here. Carrying a knife in the street may also lead to a 4 year prison sentence.
If the computer industry ever intends to routinely get software that doesn't suck right out of the box without figuring out how to clone Linus Torvalds, it had better start taking defect prevention and detection seriously
Hey, I like that idea. Maybe the guys who're working on the hybrid human-pig embryo could help with the cloning.
If QA people regularly had a hand in design, then I think the field would be quite different.
"Hello Dear sir I am your helper paperclip and i an here to help you our Valuable customer, please giving me your question and you will be help in the window on the rightleft ."
sometimes we would deliver
There's your problem.
and being a Slashdot regular, finding myself in the presence of 'teh hotness', I found that she indeed did do something.
You're nooooooo Slashdot regular.
So are lawyers, doesn't stop them getting rights.
Way to demonstrate your ignorance of the difference between nouns and adjectives.
Microsoft uses sex [...] to generate new products ... not to mention to sell its existing ones!
I know this was modded funny, but it's a genuine problem. They should try to increment the revision, not the minor version number, because most extensions are compatible with FF 3.0.* - revision increments are supposed to not break the APIs - whereas a minor version increment will suddenly cause all non-updated extensions to get disabled once again. Not good. Especially with Firefox's overly-aggressive update mechanism, ensuring virtually everyone will quickly switch to 3.1.
He's using Linux. OSS always works better in Windows. :-P