This has nothing to do with cookies. It's a simple image used to find out how many people use non-javascript-enabled browsers. It's that simple. Take off your tinfoil hats, people. Besides, a federal policy is not a "ban", nor is it a law. The executive branch (which the FTC and FCC are a part of) passes no laws. They have policies and regulations. I also assume that the head of the FTC has given implied consent to any logging they need to do.
Especially the FOP. Is it just me, or is it wrong for a UNION (the police union) to pose as a CHARITY when they call my house at 6:30pm, interrupting not only my dinner, but The Simpsons as well?
If they want officers to have a better retirement, they need a better contract negotiator, not a better telemarketer!
Moreover, one would hope that if an american company hired a korean spammer, the american company would be subject to the spam laws even though they acted through a foreign agent. Is this accurate?
17529.2.(b) Initiate or advertise in an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement to a California electronic mail address, or advertise in an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement sent to a California electronic mail address.
Hence, the advertising part. That way, it's not only the ones sending it, but the ones whose products are advertised in it.
True, the RIAA doesn't OWN the copyrights, but it has been appointed by the copyright holders to represent them. It's the same with the MPAA or any IP lawyer.
The problem with your logic is that when the bands get more popular, they run off to the big labels and get fistfuls of cash and then you have to find another band cuz the first one sold out. It's a vicious cycle, just as that was a vicious run-on sentence.
Similarly you catch a glimpse of someone that looks like your co-worker *and* you're at work chances are your brain will make the ID much more faithfully then say you were at a Mets game or something...
It'd actually be easier to catch a terrorist at a Mets game than at an airport - at a mets game, you only have to pick him out of about 1000 people!
You're forgetting why AOL blocks spam in the first place. They don't block spam exclusively for customer benfit, as according to their spin. AOL, like many ISPs, want to block spam because it eats up their bandwith like nothing else. (Well, maybe pr0n.) AOL is more concerned about the bottom line than whether grandma's email is mistaken for a viagra-alternative spam.
So, even though you would filter your own mail, it would still travel through AOL's network before reaching your filter, and that's where AOL's problem lies.
>>Simpsons came out of nowhere and hit them between the eyes in the early '90s, and they don't want to risk that happening again
Now that's just a dumb, ignorant statement. Why would FOX want to sabotage its own shows? Ratings = higher ad retes (especially during sweeps month) = more $$ for Rupert Murdoch.
I would imagine a system sort of like what's now used in medical research. Teams would make grant proposals to federal agencies (and foundations) and the agencies would award money to research/development they felt was most important/most useful/most likely to be successful.
The thing with that system is that in order to receive a grant from the big boys (NIH, etc.) you really almost are required to have a professional grant writer on staff. That's why it's usually universities and large research centers that get most of the NIH money. This is a Good Thing, in my view. The most organized get the best chance at funding their projects and the crackpots (like the raelians, or theiir tech industry counterparts the FSF*) are forced to fend for themselves.
Wasn't Robie the Robot a toy put out by RadioShack in the late 80's that you would put a coin on his tray, push it down, and it would "eat" the coin? I remember playing with that thing at my grandmother's house everytime I went over there. It was pretty amusing for an 8-9 year old.
On the Bob and Tom Show this morning, Chick mentioned this story, and the wire report said it was the first flying crosing of the Channel without a plane. Bob then said, "He didn't fly, he FELL!" Just a funny comment I wanted to share.
No, you're misunderstanding. The RIAA claimed to represent Usher, the alleged singer (true) and that the "infringing" mp3 was an usher song (false, but not perjurous.)
The RIAA assumed that the mp3 was a song by an artist they represent. They did not claim to represent the real author, an (astrophysics?) professor. Simply being mistaken does not imply perjury.
Notice that most "under penalty of perjury" clauses in notices state something like "true to the best of my knowledge". That means that even if it isn't true, if it's true as far as you know, then you aren't committing perjury.
Oh please. Joe Blow, who bought one copy of Windows for his PC, was never in danger of prosecution in the first place. It's not worth the time and effort to prosecute individual end users -- a single count of violation, each requiring a separate court case (sorry, class action suits do not work in reverse) in different jurisdictions? Yeah, right. Your lawyer fees will far eclipse any money you could hope to recoup.
So Microsoft will protect VOLUME licensees. That helps Joe Blow how?
They upped their warranty to 12 months? Why is it only 12 months? Why shouldn't I be able to trust that the software will run correctly on the intended setup five years down the road? It's not like my car, where it degrades over time.
Even the analyst News.com.com interviewed had questions on whether this event is monumental.
Plus, MS is just using this to spread FUD over Linux. "If you get sued for our products, we'll protect you. Linux can't do that."
Slashdot Mirror
Credit cards are horrible insecure as well, but the CC companies take responsibility.
Of course. Unlike banks, it's their money that's spent until you pay the bill.
This has nothing to do with cookies. It's a simple image used to find out how many people use non-javascript-enabled browsers. It's that simple. Take off your tinfoil hats, people. Besides, a federal policy is not a "ban", nor is it a law. The executive branch (which the FTC and FCC are a part of) passes no laws. They have policies and regulations. I also assume that the head of the FTC has given implied consent to any logging they need to do.
Especially the FOP. Is it just me, or is it wrong for a UNION (the police union) to pose as a CHARITY when they call my house at 6:30pm, interrupting not only my dinner, but The Simpsons as well?
If they want officers to have a better retirement, they need a better contract negotiator, not a better telemarketer!
Moreover, one would hope that if an american company hired a korean spammer, the american company would be subject to the spam laws even though they acted through a foreign agent. Is this accurate?
17529.2.(b) Initiate or advertise in an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement to a California electronic mail address, or advertise in an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement sent to a California electronic mail address.
Hence, the advertising part. That way, it's not only the ones sending it, but the ones whose products are advertised in it.
psst... I was making a joke.
Anyone who watches Real Time w/ Bill Maher on HBO knows that he already does this. BFD!
They're here in Indy? Looks like someone's about to get some "unsolicited" pizza. How about 10 large pepperoni?
Yeah, and what the hell kinda title screen is boot:
I mean, I knew that other languages were more popular, but I didn't think Coldfusion was that bad, expecially MX :)
True, the RIAA doesn't OWN the copyrights, but it has been appointed by the copyright holders to represent them. It's the same with the MPAA or any IP lawyer.
The problem with your logic is that when the bands get more popular, they run off to the big labels and get fistfuls of cash and then you have to find another band cuz the first one sold out. It's a vicious cycle, just as that was a vicious run-on sentence.
Oh yeah, no one's EVER sunk a submarine.
That guy was just in here about an hour ago fscking with the laser printer down the hall!
I've spent the last few years rebuilding my grunge collection that got lost in a fire in 2000.
Similarly you catch a glimpse of someone that looks like your co-worker *and* you're at work chances are your brain will make the ID much more faithfully then say you were at a Mets game or something...
It'd actually be easier to catch a terrorist at a Mets game than at an airport - at a mets game, you only have to pick him out of about 1000 people!
*rimshot*
You're forgetting why AOL blocks spam in the first place. They don't block spam exclusively for customer benfit, as according to their spin. AOL, like many ISPs, want to block spam because it eats up their bandwith like nothing else. (Well, maybe pr0n.) AOL is more concerned about the bottom line than whether grandma's email is mistaken for a viagra-alternative spam.
So, even though you would filter your own mail, it would still travel through AOL's network before reaching your filter, and that's where AOL's problem lies.
Also, SCO has declared that IBM is NOT in control of the airport, stating "They cannot even control themselves."
>Why he hadn't fixed it already is a mystery, especially since slashdot.org is his homepage.
/. makes you smart? Apparently, you never read comments below 5.
You actually believe that reading
>>Simpsons came out of nowhere and hit them between the eyes in the early '90s, and they don't want to risk that happening again
Now that's just a dumb, ignorant statement. Why would FOX want to sabotage its own shows? Ratings = higher ad retes (especially during sweeps month) = more $$ for Rupert Murdoch.
I would imagine a system sort of like what's now used in medical research. Teams would make grant proposals to federal agencies (and foundations) and the agencies would award money to research/development they felt was most important/most useful/most likely to be successful.
The thing with that system is that in order to receive a grant from the big boys (NIH, etc.) you really almost are required to have a professional grant writer on staff. That's why it's usually universities and large research centers that get most of the NIH money. This is a Good Thing, in my view. The most organized get the best chance at funding their projects and the crackpots (like the raelians, or theiir tech industry counterparts the FSF*) are forced to fend for themselves.
* - just kidding!
Wasn't Robie the Robot a toy put out by RadioShack in the late 80's that you would put a coin on his tray, push it down, and it would "eat" the coin? I remember playing with that thing at my grandmother's house everytime I went over there. It was pretty amusing for an 8-9 year old.
Does Microsoft's robot eat coins, too?
On the Bob and Tom Show this morning, Chick mentioned this story, and the wire report said it was the first flying crosing of the Channel without a plane. Bob then said, "He didn't fly, he FELL!" Just a funny comment I wanted to share.
No, you're misunderstanding. The RIAA claimed to represent Usher, the alleged singer (true) and that the "infringing" mp3 was an usher song (false, but not perjurous.)
:o)
The RIAA assumed that the mp3 was a song by an artist they represent. They did not claim to represent the real author, an (astrophysics?) professor. Simply being mistaken does not imply perjury.
Notice that most "under penalty of perjury" clauses in notices state something like "true to the best of my knowledge". That means that even if it isn't true, if it's true as far as you know, then you aren't committing perjury.
But really, "truth" is such a subjective word.
Oh please. Joe Blow, who bought one copy of Windows for his PC, was never in danger of prosecution in the first place. It's not worth the time and effort to prosecute individual end users -- a single count of violation, each requiring a separate court case (sorry, class action suits do not work in reverse) in different jurisdictions? Yeah, right. Your lawyer fees will far eclipse any money you could hope to recoup.
Try telling that to the RIAASo Microsoft will protect VOLUME licensees. That helps Joe Blow how?
They upped their warranty to 12 months? Why is it only 12 months? Why shouldn't I be able to trust that the software will run correctly on the intended setup five years down the road? It's not like my car, where it degrades over time.
Even the analyst News.com.com interviewed had questions on whether this event is monumental.
Plus, MS is just using this to spread FUD over Linux. "If you get sued for our products, we'll protect you. Linux can't do that."