So your point is that maybe he's just afraid of being rich, for a reason? But it's too late! The money is already his, and half of the stuff you described is already happening.
He needs to accept that there's a world full of people out there, and guess what, he's in it. And however sad that may be, saying "leave me alone" is sometimes not enough. People sometimes get to you anyway. Of course, publishing a life-changing mathematical proof doesn't help.
Now that he's already in the spotlight, and especially if he wants to be left alone, he needs to take a stand regarding the prize. Either he takes it, or he calls Millennium and get them to withdraw/donate/whatever, or he refuses and tells the media why... something. The money is already in his porch, and he needs to deal with it. Doing nothing is only making it worse.
Will: Oh, come on! What? Why is it always this? I mean, I fuckin' owe it to myself to do this or that. What if I don't want to? Chuckie: No. No, no no no. Fuck you, you don't owe it to yourself man, you owe it to me. Cuz tomorrow I'm gonna wake up and I'll be 50, and I'll still be doin' this shit. And that's all right. That's fine. I mean, you're sittin' on a winnin' lottery ticket. And you're too much of a pussy to cash it in, and that's bullshit. 'Cause I'd do fuckin' anything to have what you got. So would any of these fuckin' guys. It'd be an insult to us if you're still here in 20 years. Hangin' around here is a fuckin' waste of your time.
- BEFORE the merger, Youtube was intentionally lax about video copyright; - Google knew it.
That can be easily downplayed in court by Google, by saying "yes we knew but that's why we bought it, so we could fix that part". Plus, Google's got plenty of evidence of their effort to remove copyrighted stuff AFTER the merger.
Now, about countering "your evidence of infringement was uploaded by yourself"...
2. You don't have the right to know all indisputable facts. I don't have the right to know your sexual orientation, what medication you may or may not use, who you voted for in the presidential election, where you live, your social security number or your bank account PIN.
True, but while no one's claiming to have the right to know, Wikipedia is claiming to be unbiased. And bias towards noble intentions is still bias. WP should have stuck to its encyclopedia roots, and allowed any edit backed by reliable sources. Of which there were a few.
And on that "noble intentions" bit, there was no way to be absolutely sure that suppressing the news about the kidnapping would help. Maybe that could have caused the guy to die. And WP, by taking the same side of other media outlets who complied with the blackout, would be accountable. Instead, if they had just reflected what's been reported elsewhere, they could have kept their distance from whatever outcome.
NOOOOOO IT'S REAL IT'S REAL. Posted 22 Hours Ago Church of Scientology Clearwater, FL
Given that this is the same author of the original post, and that there is no link to a CoS website source anywhere, I guess that's not really Mr. Miscarriage's opinion. Not that it would surprise me if it were.
ESPN is just trying to stick to their classic business model.
When the only way to get ESPN was cable TV, they lobbied the cable companies to make sure ESPN was included on as many channel packages as possible, even if it meant ignoring consumer requests. That way more people paid their fee, even if they were not watching the shows. And they made money off people who never watched their channel.
This is just an attempt to repeat that model. Now cable TV is the net, cable companies are ISPs, but even though ESPN is on all packages by default, they're not making money off non-watchers anymore.
Guess what ESPN, proxies and offshore ISPs will not go away. So I guess you're gonna have to depend on the quality of your shows in order to make money. Bummer...
I can't understand why this was moderated "+5 Insightful". It's really that much of a consensus that the election period wore you out? Or it was annoying or boring?
I thought it was AWESOME! This has got to be the most interesting election ever. You've got candidates who are diametrically opposite in a lot of aspects, funny VP buddies, and enough discussions and arguments to satisfy all possible tastes. There were smart, dumb, biased, impartial, shallow, deep, all kinds of arguments about what would happen if this or that guy won.
And the jokes - oh my! I've yet to be so grateful to a candidate for providing so many jokes like some in this election. I swear, normal entertainment took a step aside during the past few months, so funny were the stuff the candidates would say or the media would come up with.
Seriously, I wish it would last longer. If only we could be sure to have this much fun every few years...
Key point here is intent. Problem is there is no way to tell what the kid's intent was. There's not enough info to tell for sure, but I'd guess he had the best intent, but the worst delivery. His choice of words, his medium, to who he addressed it, etc.
If someone leaves me an anonymous note on my front door saying "your house can be easily broken into by doing X, without leaving a trace", as you said, I'd be almost sure that someone has already been inside, and I'd put some effort into finding who it was and calling the cops. Now if someone (anyone) approaches me politely, looks minimally decent, identifies themselves, and proceeds to explain how they saw the opportunities to break into my house from a distance, then wish me a good day and leave - then I'd still check if someone had been inside, but I'd be much less inclined to call the cops. Plus, from then on, if the same person has a flat tire and I see him on the road, I'm more inclined to stop.
I know, no way to tell for sure the intent on that second case either. But good or bad messenger, my house is vulnerable anyway, and being paranoid about absolutely everyone comes at too high a cost. I might have a flat tire someday.
One way to put this in perspective is to follow the same argument used with the open-Wi-Fi-is-not-public debate. She knows glass is transparent. She knows people may look without her knowing, and that this is actually a feature (not a bug) of a glass window in many situations. It's common to have people hang signs and other seasonal stuff on the inside of glass windows. Heck, some people would actually like to show off their cats. She needs to show she's done her part in protecting her private life. Even if it's not perfect, putting up blinds clearly states "this is my house and I don't want anybody looking in".
Now, there may be a difference between me accidentally getting her cat in a corner of a personal pic, and google publishing her cat in a public website, but that's another story.
Liking a particular artist, CD or song is definitely not the same as not disliking it. I find a whole bunch of musicians OK, tolerable, or even nice-but-nothing-special. But that group (of the ones I don't dislike) is definitely not the same as those that I actually like. There's a huge gap there.
I say that because after using both Pandora (less) and last.fm (more) for a while, I found out that although last.fm fails (gives me music I dislike) much less, Pandora's successes are more intense, even if less common. Last.fm finds a whole lot of stuff that's OK, but Pandora finds some stuff that's awesome.
To me, one new artist I really like is worth hundreds of ones I don't care about.
Appellants could not have obtained a copy of Battle.net or made use of the literal elements of Battle.net mode without acts of reverse engineering
Wait, I got kinda stuck at this one. IANAL, but is reading the data flowing through my own network, and drawing conclusions from it, really reverse engineering? Wouldn't that make all firewall, NAT and similar application-level gateway software illegal too, at least when made by third parties?
If the game is good I'll buy it, unless I see it was made by Electronic Arts. The leverage afforded to workers is mostly gone, and the only force affecting EA anymore is the power of consumers- which is largely ineffective anyway.
You just have to be kidding, seriously. You really think what we read here reaches the slightest fraction of the general public? Even if it did, do you think people would really not buy the next Madden? The whole Nike issue went big on news channels all over the globe, yet no one stopped buying. And how can power of consumers be ineffective? They're the ones bringing in the money!
Take off your rose colored glasses.
Mmm, there's definitely some subtlety here, but your view seems to be the tainted one. The goal is money, revenue, and the only thing stopping companies from doing whatever it takes to reduce product cost is law. No ethics, no human rights, not even religion. Now if EA manages to avoid being caught in their nastiness, the only thing an employee can do is quit. If working there is such slavery, then there must be some other better place. If there is not, well, fit in or go do something else. They will only change when they begin losing money. If Chinese prisons are doing it cheaply and legally, nothing wrong there.
The labor market for educated and technical people is in the process of a major deterioration (...)
True, and guess what, you're to blame. That's what happens when too many people get jiggy about IT startups, with their high paychecks and wonderland workplaces, and think there'll be room for everybody. Hit the history books, you'll see there's always some industry segment overcrowded.
It always boils down to what you can do. If you dislike their methods and can't find work elsewhere, either become someone they'd have to treat better, or go learn something else. Remember, even if government action were fast enough, they fund your government and will probably get far more politician support than you.
Don't you think of Waterworld when you read that? I mean, not the Dennis Hopper and the pig-man with a machinegun part, but the caring about long-term consequences one. I'm not a coral specialist, but if Will Smith is gonna go "sugar" about AI and laws of robotics, I might as well take my chances on biology. Hasn't everybody been extra-fussy about genetically-enhanced food?
Slashdot Mirror
So your point is that maybe he's just afraid of being rich, for a reason? But it's too late! The money is already his, and half of the stuff you described is already happening.
He needs to accept that there's a world full of people out there, and guess what, he's in it. And however sad that may be, saying "leave me alone" is sometimes not enough. People sometimes get to you anyway. Of course, publishing a life-changing mathematical proof doesn't help.
Now that he's already in the spotlight, and especially if he wants to be left alone, he needs to take a stand regarding the prize. Either he takes it, or he calls Millennium and get them to withdraw/donate/whatever, or he refuses and tells the media why... something. The money is already in his porch, and he needs to deal with it. Doing nothing is only making it worse.
Will: Oh, come on! What? Why is it always this? I mean, I fuckin' owe it to myself to do this or that. What if I don't want to?
Chuckie: No. No, no no no. Fuck you, you don't owe it to yourself man, you owe it to me. Cuz tomorrow I'm gonna wake up and I'll be 50, and I'll still be doin' this shit. And that's all right. That's fine. I mean, you're sittin' on a winnin' lottery ticket. And you're too much of a pussy to cash it in, and that's bullshit. 'Cause I'd do fuckin' anything to have what you got. So would any of these fuckin' guys. It'd be an insult to us if you're still here in 20 years. Hangin' around here is a fuckin' waste of your time.
<b> mine.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but TFA only shows that:
- BEFORE the merger, Youtube was intentionally lax about video copyright;
- Google knew it.
That can be easily downplayed in court by Google, by saying "yes we knew but that's why we bought it, so we could fix that part". Plus, Google's got plenty of evidence of their effort to remove copyrighted stuff AFTER the merger.
Now, about countering "your evidence of infringement was uploaded by yourself"...
2. You don't have the right to know all indisputable facts. I don't have the right to know your sexual orientation, what medication you may or may not use, who you voted for in the presidential election, where you live, your social security number or your bank account PIN.
True, but while no one's claiming to have the right to know, Wikipedia is claiming to be unbiased. And bias towards noble intentions is still bias. WP should have stuck to its encyclopedia roots, and allowed any edit backed by reliable sources. Of which there were a few.
And on that "noble intentions" bit, there was no way to be absolutely sure that suppressing the news about the kidnapping would help. Maybe that could have caused the guy to die. And WP, by taking the same side of other media outlets who complied with the blackout, would be accountable. Instead, if they had just reflected what's been reported elsewhere, they could have kept their distance from whatever outcome.
From TFA:
NOOOOOO IT'S REAL IT'S REAL.
Posted 22 Hours Ago
Church of Scientology
Clearwater, FL
Given that this is the same author of the original post, and that there is no link to a CoS website source anywhere, I guess that's not really Mr. Miscarriage's opinion. Not that it would surprise me if it were.
ESPN is just trying to stick to their classic business model.
When the only way to get ESPN was cable TV, they lobbied the cable companies to make sure ESPN was included on as many channel packages as possible, even if it meant ignoring consumer requests. That way more people paid their fee, even if they were not watching the shows. And they made money off people who never watched their channel.
This is just an attempt to repeat that model. Now cable TV is the net, cable companies are ISPs, but even though ESPN is on all packages by default, they're not making money off non-watchers anymore.
Guess what ESPN, proxies and offshore ISPs will not go away. So I guess you're gonna have to depend on the quality of your shows in order to make money. Bummer...
I can't understand why this was moderated "+5 Insightful". It's really that much of a consensus that the election period wore you out? Or it was annoying or boring?
I thought it was AWESOME! This has got to be the most interesting election ever. You've got candidates who are diametrically opposite in a lot of aspects, funny VP buddies, and enough discussions and arguments to satisfy all possible tastes. There were smart, dumb, biased, impartial, shallow, deep, all kinds of arguments about what would happen if this or that guy won.
And the jokes - oh my! I've yet to be so grateful to a candidate for providing so many jokes like some in this election. I swear, normal entertainment took a step aside during the past few months, so funny were the stuff the candidates would say or the media would come up with.
Seriously, I wish it would last longer. If only we could be sure to have this much fun every few years...
Key point here is intent. Problem is there is no way to tell what the kid's intent was. There's not enough info to tell for sure, but I'd guess he had the best intent, but the worst delivery. His choice of words, his medium, to who he addressed it, etc.
If someone leaves me an anonymous note on my front door saying "your house can be easily broken into by doing X, without leaving a trace", as you said, I'd be almost sure that someone has already been inside, and I'd put some effort into finding who it was and calling the cops. Now if someone (anyone) approaches me politely, looks minimally decent, identifies themselves, and proceeds to explain how they saw the opportunities to break into my house from a distance, then wish me a good day and leave - then I'd still check if someone had been inside, but I'd be much less inclined to call the cops. Plus, from then on, if the same person has a flat tire and I see him on the road, I'm more inclined to stop.
I know, no way to tell for sure the intent on that second case either. But good or bad messenger, my house is vulnerable anyway, and being paranoid about absolutely everyone comes at too high a cost. I might have a flat tire someday.
Seconded - mod parent up.
One way to put this in perspective is to follow the same argument used with the open-Wi-Fi-is-not-public debate.
She knows glass is transparent. She knows people may look without her knowing, and that this is actually a feature (not a bug) of a glass window in many situations. It's common to have people hang signs and other seasonal stuff on the inside of glass windows. Heck, some people would actually like to show off their cats.
She needs to show she's done her part in protecting her private life. Even if it's not perfect, putting up blinds clearly states "this is my house and I don't want anybody looking in".
Now, there may be a difference between me accidentally getting her cat in a corner of a personal pic, and google publishing her cat in a public website, but that's another story.
Liking a particular artist, CD or song is definitely not the same as not disliking it. I find a whole bunch of musicians OK, tolerable, or even nice-but-nothing-special. But that group (of the ones I don't dislike) is definitely not the same as those that I actually like. There's a huge gap there.
I say that because after using both Pandora (less) and last.fm (more) for a while, I found out that although last.fm fails (gives me music I dislike) much less, Pandora's successes are more intense, even if less common. Last.fm finds a whole lot of stuff that's OK, but Pandora finds some stuff that's awesome.
To me, one new artist I really like is worth hundreds of ones I don't care about.
Wait, I got kinda stuck at this one. IANAL, but is reading the data flowing through my own network, and drawing conclusions from it, really reverse engineering? Wouldn't that make all firewall, NAT and similar application-level gateway software illegal too, at least when made by third parties?
If the game is good I'll buy it, unless I see it was made by Electronic Arts. The leverage afforded to workers is mostly gone, and the only force affecting EA anymore is the power of consumers- which is largely ineffective anyway.
You just have to be kidding, seriously. You really think what we read here reaches the slightest fraction of the general public? Even if it did, do you think people would really not buy the next Madden? The whole Nike issue went big on news channels all over the globe, yet no one stopped buying.
And how can power of consumers be ineffective? They're the ones bringing in the money!
Take off your rose colored glasses.
Mmm, there's definitely some subtlety here, but your view seems to be the tainted one. The goal is money, revenue, and the only thing stopping companies from doing whatever it takes to reduce product cost is law. No ethics, no human rights, not even religion. Now if EA manages to avoid being caught in their nastiness, the only thing an employee can do is quit. If working there is such slavery, then there must be some other better place. If there is not, well, fit in or go do something else. They will only change when they begin losing money. If Chinese prisons are doing it cheaply and legally, nothing wrong there.
The labor market for educated and technical people is in the process of a major deterioration (...)
True, and guess what, you're to blame. That's what happens when too many people get jiggy about IT startups, with their high paychecks and wonderland workplaces, and think there'll be room for everybody. Hit the history books, you'll see there's always some industry segment overcrowded.
It always boils down to what you can do. If you dislike their methods and can't find work elsewhere, either become someone they'd have to treat better, or go learn something else. Remember, even if government action were fast enough, they fund your government and will probably get far more politician support than you.
Don't you think of Waterworld when you read that? I mean, not the Dennis Hopper and the pig-man with a machinegun part, but the caring about long-term consequences one. I'm not a coral specialist, but if Will Smith is gonna go "sugar" about AI and laws of robotics, I might as well take my chances on biology. Hasn't everybody been extra-fussy about genetically-enhanced food?