I think it's hard to say Google's decline was due solely to the DoJ inquiry and their refusal to cooperate. The market dropped 213 points yesterday on other fears.
The problem with an wet lubricant is that it will hold any dust and debris that comes in contact with it. Get enough dust, and the axle will start to bind, which would be a bad thing.
Of course, if a dry lubricant gets wet, you'll have the same problem.
The problem I have isn't that this.kids.us domain exists, but the government want to limit children to sites in that domain.
I see nothing in that article that states that children would be limited, by the government, to sites in that domain. What this does is give parents, schools, libraries, etc. a way to identify those sites that would be "kid-friendly." It's up to them to determine what to do with that information.
I imagine schools and libraries may very well limit to sites in that domain, in order to avoid more heavy-handed tactics, such as filters. But, at this point, I don't see a government requirement to do so. If those institutions do impose limits, I would hope that they would only apply to specific systems that are labelled accordingly. Other systems could be left without the restrictions, and marked for use by adults only. Parents could limit their children to only those domains at home, if they choose to do so and have the ability to set that up.
The point is, this gives people more information, without resorting to questionable systems, such as filters.
a) a Boycott on buying music, buying movies (or renting them), for a period of time (The NoBuy Winter?)
While I love the idea of a boycott, wouldn't that just work to the favor MPAA and RIAA? After all, they can claim that sales were down substantially from the past, and "it's all the fault of file-sharing." I would imagine sales are down now, but not because of filesharing. Rather, the current economic climate has people considering their purchases more carefully. (Not counting the amount of crap that's being produced right now).
I think for a boycott on purchasing music, movies, etc. to work, there would have to also be a provable decline in the amount of music downloaded via the P2P networks. Unfortunately, that would be VERY hard to pull off.
I think they implemented the restriction on POP3 access a week or so ago. I emailed their support people and got a canned response. I replied to that, as directed, for more assistance. I got the same canned reply. Then I saw that they were going to start charging.
I use this as my "junk" account, anyway, so it doesn't bother me too much. But it's annoying that they can (and will) change my preferences for me. What else are they changing (or monitoring) without my consent?
I'd actually prefer the ring-bound version. That way, I can fold the book in half, which takes up less of my (limited) desk space. The only drawback I can see to ring-bound books is that fact that pages would probably tear out more easily than in regular books.
I'm not saying we nuke anyone, and I don't think the author is either. However, if the attack was from 'Patriotic Freedom Loving Amuricans', then they should be put on trial and punished accordingly (ie, McVeigh). In that case, I think you'll see an insane increase of the oversight of militia groups.
I think it would also be highly likely that you may see a return of Old West lynch mobs.
I think one thing we need to think about as a country is what have we (our leaders) done to piss people off so much that they are willing to do something like this? While I'd hate to think that something like this might help a group get what they want, I think we need to evaluate a lot of our policies and maybe make some changes, in order to hopefully prevent something like this from happening again.
America spends way to much time throwing its weight around. People on/. (for the most part) hate Microsoft. Consider that a lot of countries look upon the USA the same way.
The article was written about 1 hour after the attacks on the World Trade Center. I think the last paragraph sums things up very well:
"Let nobody think that Americans are incapable of facing this foe and
defeating him. Let nobody think that this country is any less able to
"face the naked days" than she was in 1861, in 1917, in 1941 and 1950.
We shall rise to this. We shall take our revenge. We shall absorb
these blows, and strike back a hundred times harder. Let America's
enemies crow today: Tomorrow they will tremble, and weep."
While I don't remember the title of the book, I also thought of the Tom Clancy book.
They are reporting now that there's is a fire at the heliport at the Pentagon. Apparently, an airplane was crashed there, as well.
I don't think any reasonable person can claim these were accidents. It was clear in NYC, so I doubt the second pilot would have missed the smoke.
I hope that people don't jump to conclusions about who might have been responsible for this. The knee-jerk reaction is going to be to blame any Middle Eastern group people can think of. Remember Oklahoma? The immediate reaction was it must have been a Middle Eastern terrorist group. And we know how that turned out. I've got some good friends from that region who as devastated by this as anyone. Let's let the investigators do their thing and determine what happened and who was responsible.
I love it. A company takes a database that they didn't create, resells access to it, and then complain when someone tries to create a competing product. Can we sue them for taking info that is provided by the users and reselling it without our permission?
I would also stress this point heavily. DeCSS, in and of itself, does nothing to encourage or facilitate copying of material. A duplicate of a DVD can be made without using DeCSS. As someone else pointed out, what DeCSS really does is takes away control of who can create DVD players.
QSpace.com allows you to purchase your credit report online and view it immediately. It's about $8. For $4 more, you can also view your credit score, with tips and help in understanding everything.
I've used it a couple times, and it works well. The initial report is from one of the CRA's. For $30, you can get a "merged" report that includes the info from the three major CRA's.
So, ISP's should examine a site's content and determine what's appropriate or not? Doesn't that go counter to a lot of what gets discussed here? On one hand people claim censorship is bad. On the other hand, it seems that you want ISPs to effectively censor their customers.
In general, I think the RBL is a good idea. However, stories over the last 6-12 months have me thinking that maybe they're starting to get a little overzealous in their policies and actions.
Actually, Al Gore never said that. He said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Several people, including Vint Cerf, have aggressively backed Gore's involvement in the creation of the Internet.
Here's an interesting article on media distortions of various quotes by both candidates:
Just goes to show you just how evil marketing as an institution is. Marketers don't care about being intrusive, they aren't concerned about privacy or convienience. Their perfect world is one where they can restrain you and force you to listen to their pitch.
What amazes me is they don't seem to realize that whatever they're doing to customers is being done to them as customers somewhere else. So, in a sense, they're perpetuating the violation of their own privacy. ("I have to do this because Company X is doing it, and we can't let them beat us.") I think too often people don't look beyond their own little world and don't really understand (or care) what the larger impact might be.
I know I've gotten into the habit, on my Win9x system, of using either PGP Wipe or Norton Utilities' WipeInfo to delete files that I have even the slightest concern about. Both also give you the ability to "securely" wipe free space on your drive, which I also do occasionally. I hate the fact that I even have to worry about it. But there have been enough incidents of little things coming back to haunt people that I'm not going to chance anything. I particularly do it at work, since so many companies have the potential to track what you do. I'm not going to give them anymore info than I have to.:)
True. But it indicates that the initial leaning is to approve the merger if certain conditions are accepted.
I think this merger is a bad idea. AOL already wants it's users to think that *it's* the Internet. I can only imagine what would happen when the new company also owns all the content. I'm afraid AOL/TW users would only see what AOL/TW wants them to. I don't know that other sites would be blocked, but I imagine it would certainly be harder to get to them.
I realize this is late, but I had posted this question to the Ask the Headhunter board at the Motley Fool site. (Here's the thread). I also noticed today that it made the front page of his primary WWW site. Basically, he agreed with a number of other people - be careful. I thought others here might be interested in knowing what a headhunter thought about this.
mcdonalds.com is the only choice for McDonald's Food Corp, and for McDonald's Plumbing and for old McDonald's Farm. With a.farm,.food, and.services TLDs, McDonald's Food Corp would have no worries about trademark confusion with the others.
But do you really think McDonald's will look at it that way? I would imagine that McDonald's would jump on registering any possible variation on mcdonalds.whatever, simply to "protect" their interests. Most companies don't seem to think people would be smart enough to figure it out.
I personally think some additional TLD's are a good idea. I'd like to see some more discretion used in assigning them, though. It used to be that.org was for non-profit type organizations,.net was for providers, and.com was for commercial. Now, anyone can get a domain name in any of the TLDs. If new TLDs are introduced, I'd like to see some sort of process put in place to ensure that any name in a TLD is registered to an entity that fits that category. I'm saying it would be easy (or popular), but I'd like to see it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's hard to say Google's decline was due solely to the DoJ inquiry and their refusal to cooperate. The market dropped 213 points yesterday on other fears.
You realize, of course, that should this take off and do well, Compaq will be after you, due to the similarity of the name to iPAQ.
The problem with an wet lubricant is that it will hold any dust and debris that comes in contact with it. Get enough dust, and the axle will start to bind, which would be a bad thing.
Of course, if a dry lubricant gets wet, you'll have the same problem.
The problem I have isn't that this .kids.us domain exists, but the government want to limit children to sites in that domain.
I see nothing in that article that states that children would be limited, by the government, to sites in that domain. What this does is give parents, schools, libraries, etc. a way to identify those sites that would be "kid-friendly." It's up to them to determine what to do with that information.
I imagine schools and libraries may very well limit to sites in that domain, in order to avoid more heavy-handed tactics, such as filters. But, at this point, I don't see a government requirement to do so. If those institutions do impose limits, I would hope that they would only apply to specific systems that are labelled accordingly. Other systems could be left without the restrictions, and marked for use by adults only. Parents could limit their children to only those domains at home, if they choose to do so and have the ability to set that up.
The point is, this gives people more information, without resorting to questionable systems, such as filters.
a) a Boycott on buying music, buying movies (or renting them), for a period of time (The NoBuy Winter?)
While I love the idea of a boycott, wouldn't that just work to the favor MPAA and RIAA? After all, they can claim that sales were down substantially from the past, and "it's all the fault of file-sharing." I would imagine sales are down now, but not because of filesharing. Rather, the current economic climate has people considering their purchases more carefully. (Not counting the amount of crap that's being produced right now).
I think for a boycott on purchasing music, movies, etc. to work, there would have to also be a provable decline in the amount of music downloaded via the P2P networks. Unfortunately, that would be VERY hard to pull off.
I think they implemented the restriction on POP3 access a week or so ago. I emailed their support people and got a canned response. I replied to that, as directed, for more assistance. I got the same canned reply. Then I saw that they were going to start charging.
I use this as my "junk" account, anyway, so it doesn't bother me too much. But it's annoying that they can (and will) change my preferences for me. What else are they changing (or monitoring) without my consent?
I'd actually prefer the ring-bound version. That way, I can fold the book in half, which takes up less of my (limited) desk space. The only drawback I can see to ring-bound books is that fact that pages would probably tear out more easily than in regular books.
I'm not saying we nuke anyone, and I don't think the author is either. However, if the attack was from 'Patriotic Freedom Loving Amuricans', then they should be put on trial and punished accordingly (ie, McVeigh). In that case, I think you'll see an insane increase of the oversight of militia groups.
I think it would also be highly likely that you may see a return of Old West lynch mobs.
I think one thing we need to think about as a country is what have we (our leaders) done to piss people off so much that they are willing to do something like this? While I'd hate to think that something like this might help a group get what they want, I think we need to evaluate a lot of our policies and maybe make some changes, in order to hopefully prevent something like this from happening again. /. (for the most part) hate Microsoft. Consider that a lot of countries look upon the USA the same way.
America spends way to much time throwing its weight around. People on
A colleague sent me this link.
The article was written about 1 hour after the attacks on the World Trade Center. I think the last paragraph sums things up very well:
"Let nobody think that Americans are incapable of facing this foe and
defeating him. Let nobody think that this country is any less able to
"face the naked days" than she was in 1861, in 1917, in 1941 and 1950.
We shall rise to this. We shall take our revenge. We shall absorb
these blows, and strike back a hundred times harder. Let America's
enemies crow today: Tomorrow they will tremble, and weep."
While I don't remember the title of the book, I also thought of the Tom Clancy book.
They are reporting now that there's is a fire at the heliport at the Pentagon. Apparently, an airplane was crashed there, as well.
I don't think any reasonable person can claim these were accidents. It was clear in NYC, so I doubt the second pilot would have missed the smoke.
I hope that people don't jump to conclusions about who might have been responsible for this. The knee-jerk reaction is going to be to blame any Middle Eastern group people can think of. Remember Oklahoma? The immediate reaction was it must have been a Middle Eastern terrorist group. And we know how that turned out. I've got some good friends from that region who as devastated by this as anyone. Let's let the investigators do their thing and determine what happened and who was responsible.
Then let's blast the s*&% out of them.
I love it. A company takes a database that they didn't create, resells access to it, and then complain when someone tries to create a competing product. Can we sue them for taking info that is provided by the users and reselling it without our permission?
I would also stress this point heavily. DeCSS, in and of itself, does nothing to encourage or facilitate copying of material. A duplicate of a DVD can be made without using DeCSS. As someone else pointed out, what DeCSS really does is takes away control of who can create DVD players.
QSpace.com allows you to purchase your credit report online and view it immediately. It's about $8. For $4 more, you can also view your credit score, with tips and help in understanding everything.
I've used it a couple times, and it works well. The initial report is from one of the CRA's. For $30, you can get a "merged" report that includes the info from the three major CRA's.
So, ISP's should examine a site's content and determine what's appropriate or not? Doesn't that go counter to a lot of what gets discussed here? On one hand people claim censorship is bad. On the other hand, it seems that you want ISPs to effectively censor their customers.
In general, I think the RBL is a good idea. However, stories over the last 6-12 months have me thinking that maybe they're starting to get a little overzealous in their policies and actions.
Actually, Al Gore never said that. He said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Several people, including Vint Cerf, have aggressively backed Gore's involvement in the creation of the Internet.
Here's an interesting article on media distortions of various quotes by both candidates:
Al Gore and the Internet
Just goes to show you just how evil marketing as an institution is. Marketers don't care about being intrusive, they aren't concerned about privacy or convienience. Their perfect world is one where they can restrain you and force you to listen to their pitch.
What amazes me is they don't seem to realize that whatever they're doing to customers is being done to them as customers somewhere else. So, in a sense, they're perpetuating the violation of their own privacy. ("I have to do this because Company X is doing it, and we can't let them beat us.") I think too often people don't look beyond their own little world and don't really understand (or care) what the larger impact might be.
I know I've gotten into the habit, on my Win9x system, of using either PGP Wipe or Norton Utilities' WipeInfo to delete files that I have even the slightest concern about. Both also give you the ability to "securely" wipe free space on your drive, which I also do occasionally. I hate the fact that I even have to worry about it. But there have been enough incidents of little things coming back to haunt people that I'm not going to chance anything. I particularly do it at work, since so many companies have the potential to track what you do. I'm not going to give them anymore info than I have to. :)
True. But it indicates that the initial leaning is to approve the merger if certain conditions are accepted.
I think this merger is a bad idea. AOL already wants it's users to think that *it's* the Internet. I can only imagine what would happen when the new company also owns all the content. I'm afraid AOL/TW users would only see what AOL/TW wants them to. I don't know that other sites would be blocked, but I imagine it would certainly be harder to get to them.
I realize this is late, but I had posted this question to the Ask the Headhunter board at the Motley Fool site. (Here's the thread). I also noticed today that it made the front page of his primary WWW site. Basically, he agreed with a number of other people - be careful. I thought others here might be interested in knowing what a headhunter thought about this.
mcdonalds.com is the only choice for McDonald's Food Corp, and for McDonald's Plumbing and for old McDonald's Farm. With a .farm, .food, and .services TLDs, McDonald's Food Corp would have no worries about trademark confusion with the others.
.org was for non-profit type organizations, .net was for providers, and .com was for commercial. Now, anyone can get a domain name in any of the TLDs. If new TLDs are introduced, I'd like to see some sort of process put in place to ensure that any name in a TLD is registered to an entity that fits that category. I'm saying it would be easy (or popular), but I'd like to see it.
But do you really think McDonald's will look at it that way? I would imagine that McDonald's would jump on registering any possible variation on mcdonalds.whatever, simply to "protect" their interests. Most companies don't seem to think people would be smart enough to figure it out.
I personally think some additional TLD's are a good idea. I'd like to see some more discretion used in assigning them, though. It used to be that
This article appeared on the front page of the Columbus, OH newspaper this morning.
The article raises some interesting points. While I think the general privacy concerns are overblown, I'm glad people are at least considering it.