I can never tell if people like you are trolls or just stupid... so I'll assume they're both the same and it doesn't matter either way.
Allow me to translate your entire post since you mis "translated" part of mine: "I'm a clueless sod who couldn't figure out how to use my computer if it only had one button to push, so rather than try to respond to this thread with something intelligent, I'll just try to start a totally offtopic flamewar so I can get back to my 1337 game of Solitaire and pat myself on the back about how smart I think I am."
Or, I'm sorry... did you have a point you wanted to argue, much less any evidence or personal experience to back it up? No? I didn't think so.
Skills and marketability in what? If they get locked into Microsoft software and Microsoft's grip continues to loosen, they're not increasing their marketability. In my experience, you don't (usually) get legally bound to Microtwonk Software, you usually get locked into it by some critical peripheral software - frequently 3rd party or in-house custom stuff - that relies on Microsoft Windows or some other proprietary Microsoft system. As it stands, all they're doing is locking a bunch of developing nations into software that relies on Microsoft not blowing it down the road. If Microsoft goes under or something happens to significantly derail the company from its current track, they could be sent right up shit creek and the paddles are nowhere to be seen.
Go ahead Fanboys, say that there's no reason to suspect that will happen, Microsot is still strong, has lots of money, Longhorn or whatever-the-hell-we're-calling-it-at-the-moment will be out "any decade now"... go ahead and say it. I'm going to shoot your high flying bubble down with three letters: IBM. The dart that halped pop it was this little commune full of dirty geek "communist hippies" called "Apple".
I certainly don't think that there's anything wrong with Microsoft giving their software out, but the side-effects could be catastrophic if something goes awry just as some of these companies really start to industrialize or, even, skip that and try to move straight to an information society.
There can be no duplicity between positions when the positions being taken are on issues that are not related in any way, shape, or form. Attacking RFIDs because they present a potential privacy risk and then not defending the legitmate use that CAUSES the potential privacy risk is not anything close to the same as defending the legitmate uses of p2p networks and not attacking the fact those legitimate uses enable illegal behavior in individuals.
Though it may be useful for highlighting an argument against the people that argue these things relating to p2p, it is not useful in any way, shape, or form when attacking people who are attacking RFID.
To clarify the point, imagine if I were to attack people who defended (I know I'll regret bringing this up as an example...) firearms ownership by saying that their hair-brained "hive mind logic" was faulty or duplicitous because they didn't condemn people who shot each other, but instead sweepingly codemned automobiles because they could run people down. Doesn't make much sense, does it? But, it's the same pattern that my original parent poster tried to use: "b people are hypocrites because they condemn y technology but defend z technology without condemning c people". No logic whatsoever, much as it might look reaaalll purty when you first read it if you want to agree with the spirit of the statement.
Like it or not, his/her statement was totally non-sensical.
...immediately defend p2p's legitimate uses, but not RFID.
Yea, that made sense. Way to tie two completely unrelated issues together and mold them into one clear, coherent thought. But, hey, at least you didn't sound like an idiot when you did it... oh, wait.
The amusing part is, up until that, you actually had a good point. Although, I suppose it's in "Privacy" based on the slippery slope, one of Slashdot's favorite sins: "If Wal-Mart pushes for this, it will lower the costs and thus the barriers to wider use, and They(TM) will be RFID'ing baby's bottoms at birth." While that would be a Bad Thing, there is, of course, no evidence to support the conclusion. But hey, that never stopped the Slashdot crowd from jumping anyway.
Ahhh... the irony of a funny comment being modded up Informative, thus making the moderations just as funny as the comment, could only be shown in practice on Slashdot....
No, I'd have to say they were all working together toward a common end or something similar for it to be a conspiracy theory. Each is working toward its own end - monopolize the sector and suck money from people. That really is the ultimate goal of any truly capital-focused organization.
Unfortunately, human bias is, always has been, and always will be alive and well. Yes, yes. Everybody keeps linking to CNN, MSNBC, and MSN as if that meant something. No, it doesn't. If I want an alternative to those three, I have it on the 'net. Not so on the TV. From a marketeering standpoint those brands still have similar pull on the 'net as on the TV and print. However, there's nothing stopping people from grabbing alternative viewpoints on the Network. MSNBC sits two obnoxious blowhards down who became famous writing half-assed, shit-stinking books (Coulter and Moore are two good, polar examples I like to use if you're having trouble envisioning things) and call that "choice". In other words, you get to "choose" between two idiots who probably aren't smart enough to even KNOW there are points of view outside their own, much less what they are.
On the Internet, that's not so. Everything is weighted. Consider Maddox. Maddox is just "some guy". He's not a pundit, an analyst, or an author. He's just a guy. However, he's a guy I can personally relate to. Similar age, work, and education. I value his point of view either for: 1) Insight or, if nothing else: 2) Humour. Why insight? Why should I listen to him? I have a better question: why should YOU listen to Anne Coulter or Mike Moore or Jerry Nachman (yes, I know he died) or Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer? Who the hell are they? Nobody special. At least Nachman had some experience. Blitzer is just a talking head and the other three only have one thing going for them: their big, fat mouths and the never-ending flap of their gums.
And that pisses media moguls off. Some guy out in Utah is getting all this free attention by talking about his giant nuts and how he kicked his elderly neighbor in the throat, and a huge mass of people are more interested in that stupid shit than the stupid shit on the front page of CNN about Michael Jackson sticking his hand up some little kid's butt.
It's all a matter of perspective. Jackson is, from my perspective, less newsworthy than some guy's giant balls, and equally as stupid and pointless. But, guess what? The media doesn't want to write stories about giant balls and they don't want to have different points of view on real subjects that actually say something. The solution is to be as vanilla and generic (CNN) as possible or to go all out for one group (Fox). Don't alienate the consumers or the advertisers walk! Well, on the Internet, if I want to listen to some guy talk about his big balls instead of hover over the TV to get a shot of Paris Hilton coming out of a car - I can do that!
Or, to shorten the whole thing to one executive bullet point: they don't like it because they can't control it.
You've been modded funny, but there's more truth in your jest then the mods might've realized.
I'm sure most people realize it's very difficult to remember most dreams. People who say they "don't dream" are really just dreaming in deep sleeps and not waking up throughout the night. However, if you're startled awake for some reason (whether by the dream or external factors) during or shortly after a dream, your odds of remembering it shoot way up. Hence the advice to keep a notepad by the bed to write things down if you want to recall your dreams. I don't see why this wouldn't extend to dreams that may help solve problems.
One other thing I remember a professor telling us - If you're faced with a difficult problem of some sort, go do something else for awhile. Your brain will continue working out the solution while you do something else (sort of like './programming_problem &' I suppose with optimization for background processes). I do that at work all the time. I don't know if it would be more effective than sleep, but if I'm faced with a tough programming problem, I'll hit Slashdot or go take a walk. I recall working for hours upon hours once on a tough nested data structure for a custom search system. Finally, in total frustration, I got up and stormed out of the cube, went and sat in my car, and turned on a CD. After 15 or 20 minutes, I got up, came back in, sat down, and Hallelujah! I banged out the data structure and supporting code in about 20 minutes more. A few optimizations and tweaks later, and I was done. No clue where it came from. Wasn't thinking about it consciously in the car, but apparently the ol' brain was still churning and took advantage of the lack of stress from overfocus.
The Internet subverts and/or disperses power. This frightens corporations, governments, and megamedia because it allows individual people to be who they want to be and it gives them a voice to express that. Worse, it lets them filter the corps and gubmit critters out. Radio and TV? Best you can do is flip the ads. I got almost all of 'em blocked on my browser no matter where I go.
On the Internet, name brand means nothing. Anything you can think of to force your trashy product down my throat, I can think of a way to step around or destroy it. Any way you can think of to try and control my behavior, I can think of a way to step around or destroy it.
Megamedia like CNN, MSNBC, etc. don't want you to get information from the Internet. On the Internet, information can be dissemented from trusted sources directly to the people who need or want to hear it. I remember talking to a guy in Kuwait during the war who was telling us about how things were. Media doesn't like that. They want to tell you how things are as they see it.
Corporates are screwed on the Internet. They can exert some level of control over the Web with advertising and laws, but, frankly, when it comes right down to it, what fucks them most is that people are free to get the information they want and control its flow from start to finish. If I want to proxy out corporate garbage, so be it. If I want to disseminate something you don't want me to disseminate, too bad (Diebold, anyone).
Subversion at its finest. I welcome it with open arms. It's about time people were given the opportunity to really think and act for themselves.
Uh, yes, you do. The point is they won't prove YOU are the one who downloaded it unless they can prove you have or had it. Just having a list of filenames means nothing. Nothing at all. It would be trivial to show a p2p application with maliciously (or, stupidly) mislabeled files thus showing that a filename on p2p means exactly nada.
Unless you have the content, there's not going to be enough proof for any sensible person to rule in favor of a plaintiff.
I'm not disputing the logs, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and never did. I have no clue what record retention laws might cover that sort of thing and don't care. My point is that I'm disputing your claim that the ISPs could be held responsible in any sane court for the abuses of their users. Whether they can be held responsible for not keeping logs is not something I'm weighing in on.
...here to EMPHASIZE any sort of MISTAKE someone makes...
Touchy touchy. It was a lead-in to the bitch about Yahoo!, but if you think everything has to revolve around you, be my guest.
Not to flame, but that's because IE kicked the shit out of the other browsers (Netscape, in particular), because Microsoft threatened to kick the shit out of any computer maker/distributor that didn't leave IE as the default and, iirc, sometimes even if they just chose to install Netscape side-by-side.
It's not about the product in that case, it's that Microsoft used illegal tactics to force its success rather than just competing fairly. Effectively, SCO is whining to Congress because the product is superior, that's all.
They have a record indicating that an IP belonging to your business downloaded the pirated material.
Except they WON'T have the material. No material, no crime.
And, this is excusing the fact that they're suing UPLOADERS who are offering the files, not DOWNLOADERS who are taking them even though stupid news outlets (news outlet: a group of people who couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight, but have lots of out-of-context statistics that 'prove' otherwise) like Yahoo! keep saying "Suits Against Music Downloaders".
Critical point of failure in your post. It's not your job to "prove you didn't do it". If someone makes an accusation against you or you're charged with a crime, it's THEIR job to prove you DID.
And, no, it would not be like loaning your car to a drunk stranger. It would be more like you renting your car to a total stranger who then uses it to run down schoolchildren. You rent the car in good faith that they'll use it right, knowing only that they appear fit to drive and have a license. The ISP rents time and/or space on their network assuming you'll not abuse it, knowing only that you're old enough and appear fit to use it.
And, IANAL either, but somehow I doubt you could be held responsible for someone else doing bad things in your car just because you loaned it to them. Maybe they could charge you with peripheral items if you were enabling illegal / unsafe behavior (such as giving a drunk person car keys), but I highly doubt they'd be able to stick much on you. Maybe an accomplice charge or aiding and abeiting, but you're not going to be held directly responsible in a criminal court. Civil lawsuits from the victims and their families is a different ballgame.
I just like it because they're not just plain, flat-out qualifying things as "computer viruses" anymore when only Windows users can be infected by them.
So it's really just a case of burnin, though at least he doesn't have to turn the computer on anymore...
No, he's in management. The computer is just a cardboard prop that came with the desk.
He just needs to upgrade the desk.
(With apologies to Scott Adams for stealing his gag)
Re:This is one area the US could get left behind..
on
The State of IPv6
·
· Score: 1
They do when they're not necessary. You think if everyone else wants to move to IPv6 and we stubbornly sit on our asses, they won't just walk right around us? They don't need us to keep the Internet moving, so, yes, they can most certainly leave us behind and I've little doubt they will.
Alternator went bad (~100K) and a valve cracked and burned (~230K). Replaced the water pump at about the 200 grand mark.
Otherwise, no problems. I had more problems than that with the Thunderbird that I only owned for 1 year and 10K miles.
...and they were caused by you not looking after your vehicle.
None of the problems detailed suggest any abuse. The only one that might would be the head blowing up, but given that it was such a high mileage car when it happened.... nope. The burned valve was abuse, but that's thanks to an idiot mechanic putting the timing belt on the wrong mark.
IANAK (Kangaroo), but I've talked to Aussies, and they say the ACCC can really sink its teeth into companies that stir it up.
I think SCO is misunderestimating the tolerance for stupid circus antics from big business overseas. It seems like we'll pander to them for awhile and play along with their stupid games, then frequently let them scurry away, but other countries' governments and court systems aren't so forgiving. Push them, they'll push back. Fortunately, it looks like SCO is the little dorky kid and now he's trying to shove the bullies that are twice as big.
Most breakdowns are caused by the driver/maintainer of the vehicle not looking after it...
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong... but... PROOF?
I drove a Ford Probe to 280K miles and it finally died because the damn head unit blew up from the age. I changed the oil once every 9000 miles or so and only did anything more than that when something went wrong. My brother put TEN... yes, count 'em, TEN quarts of oil in his grand am, didn't change or check it (5 quarts, not the 10 - we drained the extra) for nearly a year, and it still runs just peachy at 130K miles. Looks and smells like shit cuz he beat the hell out of it, but it runs great.
My parent's Taurus just crapped out one day - head blew for no particularly good reason. Current maintenance, treated fairly (as in, no speedracer in the ugly 4 door) and it just crapped out at 90K miles. Owned since something like 2 or 3 thousand miles with no indication anything was wrong until the head gasket blew. My grandmother's car - a Chevy Corsica V6, drives like shit. It never saw any hard driving, and we keep up on the maintenance for her, but it's still dying at 85k miles.
My anecdotal evidence suggests your unsupported conclusion is wrong. Do you have stronger evidence (anecdotal or otherwise), to the contrary?
Yes, sorry. I'm making an example of you. I'm getting tired of people retorting with "this is how things are" without backing it up. Nothing personal and I wouldn't be surprised if you actually were right, and I'm CERTAINLY not saying it's not well worth taking care of your car engine and all.
People die from crack. I don't think anyone ever died because of a junk fax. I could see it now - a fax kicks up, prints out, then launches a sheet of paper across the office and beheads the mail boy across the room... yea, not likely.
There *is* only one side. The side The Law is on.
Does that apply when we bitch about assholes waving the DMCA at people who want to use the tech they bought however they see fit? What about when DirecTV is sending extortion letters all willy nilly without checking to see who they're sending them to?
I have a hard time believing there's any situation with only one side. Of course, the junk faxers are on the WRONG side and the LOSING side and the DARK side... but that's different.
Slashdot Mirror
I can never tell if people like you are trolls or just stupid... so I'll assume they're both the same and it doesn't matter either way.
Allow me to translate your entire post since you mis "translated" part of mine: "I'm a clueless sod who couldn't figure out how to use my computer if it only had one button to push, so rather than try to respond to this thread with something intelligent, I'll just try to start a totally offtopic flamewar so I can get back to my 1337 game of Solitaire and pat myself on the back about how smart I think I am."
Or, I'm sorry... did you have a point you wanted to argue, much less any evidence or personal experience to back it up? No? I didn't think so.
Skills and marketability in what? If they get locked into Microsoft software and Microsoft's grip continues to loosen, they're not increasing their marketability. In my experience, you don't (usually) get legally bound to Microtwonk Software, you usually get locked into it by some critical peripheral software - frequently 3rd party or in-house custom stuff - that relies on Microsoft Windows or some other proprietary Microsoft system. As it stands, all they're doing is locking a bunch of developing nations into software that relies on Microsoft not blowing it down the road. If Microsoft goes under or something happens to significantly derail the company from its current track, they could be sent right up shit creek and the paddles are nowhere to be seen.
Go ahead Fanboys, say that there's no reason to suspect that will happen, Microsot is still strong, has lots of money, Longhorn or whatever-the-hell-we're-calling-it-at-the-moment will be out "any decade now"... go ahead and say it. I'm going to shoot your high flying bubble down with three letters: IBM. The dart that halped pop it was this little commune full of dirty geek "communist hippies" called "Apple".
I certainly don't think that there's anything wrong with Microsoft giving their software out, but the side-effects could be catastrophic if something goes awry just as some of these companies really start to industrialize or, even, skip that and try to move straight to an information society.
There can be no duplicity between positions when the positions being taken are on issues that are not related in any way, shape, or form. Attacking RFIDs because they present a potential privacy risk and then not defending the legitmate use that CAUSES the potential privacy risk is not anything close to the same as defending the legitmate uses of p2p networks and not attacking the fact those legitimate uses enable illegal behavior in individuals.
Though it may be useful for highlighting an argument against the people that argue these things relating to p2p, it is not useful in any way, shape, or form when attacking people who are attacking RFID.
To clarify the point, imagine if I were to attack people who defended (I know I'll regret bringing this up as an example...) firearms ownership by saying that their hair-brained "hive mind logic" was faulty or duplicitous because they didn't condemn people who shot each other, but instead sweepingly codemned automobiles because they could run people down. Doesn't make much sense, does it? But, it's the same pattern that my original parent poster tried to use: "b people are hypocrites because they condemn y technology but defend z technology without condemning c people". No logic whatsoever, much as it might look reaaalll purty when you first read it if you want to agree with the spirit of the statement.
Like it or not, his/her statement was totally non-sensical.
Yea, that made sense. Way to tie two completely unrelated issues together and mold them into one clear, coherent thought. But, hey, at least you didn't sound like an idiot when you did it... oh, wait.
The amusing part is, up until that, you actually had a good point. Although, I suppose it's in "Privacy" based on the slippery slope, one of Slashdot's favorite sins: "If Wal-Mart pushes for this, it will lower the costs and thus the barriers to wider use, and They(TM) will be RFID'ing baby's bottoms at birth." While that would be a Bad Thing, there is, of course, no evidence to support the conclusion. But hey, that never stopped the Slashdot crowd from jumping anyway.
This hesitant behavior is usually characterized by the FSE walking into the machine room, observing the flames coming out of the system cabinets and saying: "AH, HA! This looks like a software problem." -- From: The Six Stages of Field Service Support.
Score:3, Informative
Ahhh... the irony of a funny comment being modded up Informative, thus making the moderations just as funny as the comment, could only be shown in practice on Slashdot....
Nah, it's just X. Someone just needs to fly up there and hit CTRL-ALT-Backspace and we're golden. Can I volunteer?
No, I'd have to say they were all working together toward a common end or something similar for it to be a conspiracy theory. Each is working toward its own end - monopolize the sector and suck money from people. That really is the ultimate goal of any truly capital-focused organization.
Unfortunately, human bias is, always has been, and always will be alive and well. Yes, yes. Everybody keeps linking to CNN, MSNBC, and MSN as if that meant something. No, it doesn't. If I want an alternative to those three, I have it on the 'net. Not so on the TV. From a marketeering standpoint those brands still have similar pull on the 'net as on the TV and print. However, there's nothing stopping people from grabbing alternative viewpoints on the Network. MSNBC sits two obnoxious blowhards down who became famous writing half-assed, shit-stinking books (Coulter and Moore are two good, polar examples I like to use if you're having trouble envisioning things) and call that "choice". In other words, you get to "choose" between two idiots who probably aren't smart enough to even KNOW there are points of view outside their own, much less what they are.
On the Internet, that's not so. Everything is weighted. Consider Maddox. Maddox is just "some guy". He's not a pundit, an analyst, or an author. He's just a guy. However, he's a guy I can personally relate to. Similar age, work, and education. I value his point of view either for: 1) Insight or, if nothing else: 2) Humour. Why insight? Why should I listen to him? I have a better question: why should YOU listen to Anne Coulter or Mike Moore or Jerry Nachman (yes, I know he died) or Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer? Who the hell are they? Nobody special. At least Nachman had some experience. Blitzer is just a talking head and the other three only have one thing going for them: their big, fat mouths and the never-ending flap of their gums.
And that pisses media moguls off. Some guy out in Utah is getting all this free attention by talking about his giant nuts and how he kicked his elderly neighbor in the throat, and a huge mass of people are more interested in that stupid shit than the stupid shit on the front page of CNN about Michael Jackson sticking his hand up some little kid's butt.
It's all a matter of perspective. Jackson is, from my perspective, less newsworthy than some guy's giant balls, and equally as stupid and pointless. But, guess what? The media doesn't want to write stories about giant balls and they don't want to have different points of view on real subjects that actually say something. The solution is to be as vanilla and generic (CNN) as possible or to go all out for one group (Fox). Don't alienate the consumers or the advertisers walk! Well, on the Internet, if I want to listen to some guy talk about his big balls instead of hover over the TV to get a shot of Paris Hilton coming out of a car - I can do that!
Or, to shorten the whole thing to one executive bullet point: they don't like it because they can't control it.
You've been modded funny, but there's more truth in your jest then the mods might've realized.
I'm sure most people realize it's very difficult to remember most dreams. People who say they "don't dream" are really just dreaming in deep sleeps and not waking up throughout the night. However, if you're startled awake for some reason (whether by the dream or external factors) during or shortly after a dream, your odds of remembering it shoot way up. Hence the advice to keep a notepad by the bed to write things down if you want to recall your dreams. I don't see why this wouldn't extend to dreams that may help solve problems.
One other thing I remember a professor telling us - If you're faced with a difficult problem of some sort, go do something else for awhile. Your brain will continue working out the solution while you do something else (sort of like './programming_problem &' I suppose with optimization for background processes). I do that at work all the time. I don't know if it would be more effective than sleep, but if I'm faced with a tough programming problem, I'll hit Slashdot or go take a walk. I recall working for hours upon hours once on a tough nested data structure for a custom search system. Finally, in total frustration, I got up and stormed out of the cube, went and sat in my car, and turned on a CD. After 15 or 20 minutes, I got up, came back in, sat down, and Hallelujah! I banged out the data structure and supporting code in about 20 minutes more. A few optimizations and tweaks later, and I was done. No clue where it came from. Wasn't thinking about it consciously in the car, but apparently the ol' brain was still churning and took advantage of the lack of stress from overfocus.
The Internet subverts and/or disperses power. This frightens corporations, governments, and megamedia because it allows individual people to be who they want to be and it gives them a voice to express that. Worse, it lets them filter the corps and gubmit critters out. Radio and TV? Best you can do is flip the ads. I got almost all of 'em blocked on my browser no matter where I go.
On the Internet, name brand means nothing. Anything you can think of to force your trashy product down my throat, I can think of a way to step around or destroy it. Any way you can think of to try and control my behavior, I can think of a way to step around or destroy it.
Megamedia like CNN, MSNBC, etc. don't want you to get information from the Internet. On the Internet, information can be dissemented from trusted sources directly to the people who need or want to hear it. I remember talking to a guy in Kuwait during the war who was telling us about how things were. Media doesn't like that. They want to tell you how things are as they see it.
Corporates are screwed on the Internet. They can exert some level of control over the Web with advertising and laws, but, frankly, when it comes right down to it, what fucks them most is that people are free to get the information they want and control its flow from start to finish. If I want to proxy out corporate garbage, so be it. If I want to disseminate something you don't want me to disseminate, too bad (Diebold, anyone).
Subversion at its finest. I welcome it with open arms. It's about time people were given the opportunity to really think and act for themselves.
Uh, you don't need that in civil court.
Uh, yes, you do. The point is they won't prove YOU are the one who downloaded it unless they can prove you have or had it. Just having a list of filenames means nothing. Nothing at all. It would be trivial to show a p2p application with maliciously (or, stupidly) mislabeled files thus showing that a filename on p2p means exactly nada.
Unless you have the content, there's not going to be enough proof for any sensible person to rule in favor of a plaintiff.
I'm not disputing the logs, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and never did. I have no clue what record retention laws might cover that sort of thing and don't care. My point is that I'm disputing your claim that the ISPs could be held responsible in any sane court for the abuses of their users. Whether they can be held responsible for not keeping logs is not something I'm weighing in on.
Touchy touchy. It was a lead-in to the bitch about Yahoo!, but if you think everything has to revolve around you, be my guest.
Not to flame, but that's because IE kicked the shit out of the other browsers (Netscape, in particular), because Microsoft threatened to kick the shit out of any computer maker/distributor that didn't leave IE as the default and, iirc, sometimes even if they just chose to install Netscape side-by-side.
It's not about the product in that case, it's that Microsoft used illegal tactics to force its success rather than just competing fairly. Effectively, SCO is whining to Congress because the product is superior, that's all.
They have a record indicating that an IP belonging to your business downloaded the pirated material.
Except they WON'T have the material. No material, no crime.
And, this is excusing the fact that they're suing UPLOADERS who are offering the files, not DOWNLOADERS who are taking them even though stupid news outlets (news outlet: a group of people who couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight, but have lots of out-of-context statistics that 'prove' otherwise) like Yahoo! keep saying "Suits Against Music Downloaders".
Critical point of failure in your post. It's not your job to "prove you didn't do it". If someone makes an accusation against you or you're charged with a crime, it's THEIR job to prove you DID.
And, no, it would not be like loaning your car to a drunk stranger. It would be more like you renting your car to a total stranger who then uses it to run down schoolchildren. You rent the car in good faith that they'll use it right, knowing only that they appear fit to drive and have a license. The ISP rents time and/or space on their network assuming you'll not abuse it, knowing only that you're old enough and appear fit to use it.
And, IANAL either, but somehow I doubt you could be held responsible for someone else doing bad things in your car just because you loaned it to them. Maybe they could charge you with peripheral items if you were enabling illegal / unsafe behavior (such as giving a drunk person car keys), but I highly doubt they'd be able to stick much on you. Maybe an accomplice charge or aiding and abeiting, but you're not going to be held directly responsible in a criminal court. Civil lawsuits from the victims and their families is a different ballgame.
Don't blame me, blame the Post, they said it!
I just like it because they're not just plain, flat-out qualifying things as "computer viruses" anymore when only Windows users can be infected by them.
So it's really just a case of burnin, though at least he doesn't have to turn the computer on anymore...
No, he's in management. The computer is just a cardboard prop that came with the desk.
He just needs to upgrade the desk.
(With apologies to Scott Adams for stealing his gag)
They do when they're not necessary. You think if everyone else wants to move to IPv6 and we stubbornly sit on our asses, they won't just walk right around us? They don't need us to keep the Internet moving, so, yes, they can most certainly leave us behind and I've little doubt they will.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO!!!!!
Excuse me while I become a hermit now...
Alternator went bad (~100K) and a valve cracked and burned (~230K). Replaced the water pump at about the 200 grand mark.
Otherwise, no problems. I had more problems than that with the Thunderbird that I only owned for 1 year and 10K miles.
None of the problems detailed suggest any abuse. The only one that might would be the head blowing up, but given that it was such a high mileage car when it happened.... nope. The burned valve was abuse, but that's thanks to an idiot mechanic putting the timing belt on the wrong mark.
Dear lord... I really need a vacation. I didn't even notice that I'm coining words now...
That's almost as bad (okay okay... it IS as bad) as the people that say "irregardless". Man, that one gets under my freakin' skin.
IANAK (Kangaroo), but I've talked to Aussies, and they say the ACCC can really sink its teeth into companies that stir it up.
I think SCO is misunderestimating the tolerance for stupid circus antics from big business overseas. It seems like we'll pander to them for awhile and play along with their stupid games, then frequently let them scurry away, but other countries' governments and court systems aren't so forgiving. Push them, they'll push back. Fortunately, it looks like SCO is the little dorky kid and now he's trying to shove the bullies that are twice as big.
Le Sigh.
Most breakdowns are caused by the driver/maintainer of the vehicle not looking after it...
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong... but... PROOF?
I drove a Ford Probe to 280K miles and it finally died because the damn head unit blew up from the age. I changed the oil once every 9000 miles or so and only did anything more than that when something went wrong. My brother put TEN... yes, count 'em, TEN quarts of oil in his grand am, didn't change or check it (5 quarts, not the 10 - we drained the extra) for nearly a year, and it still runs just peachy at 130K miles. Looks and smells like shit cuz he beat the hell out of it, but it runs great.
My parent's Taurus just crapped out one day - head blew for no particularly good reason. Current maintenance, treated fairly (as in, no speedracer in the ugly 4 door) and it just crapped out at 90K miles. Owned since something like 2 or 3 thousand miles with no indication anything was wrong until the head gasket blew. My grandmother's car - a Chevy Corsica V6, drives like shit. It never saw any hard driving, and we keep up on the maintenance for her, but it's still dying at 85k miles.
My anecdotal evidence suggests your unsupported conclusion is wrong. Do you have stronger evidence (anecdotal or otherwise), to the contrary?
Yes, sorry. I'm making an example of you. I'm getting tired of people retorting with "this is how things are" without backing it up. Nothing personal and I wouldn't be surprised if you actually were right, and I'm CERTAINLY not saying it's not well worth taking care of your car engine and all.
People die from crack. I don't think anyone ever died because of a junk fax. I could see it now - a fax kicks up, prints out, then launches a sheet of paper across the office and beheads the mail boy across the room... yea, not likely.
There *is* only one side. The side The Law is on.
Does that apply when we bitch about assholes waving the DMCA at people who want to use the tech they bought however they see fit? What about when DirecTV is sending extortion letters all willy nilly without checking to see who they're sending them to?
I have a hard time believing there's any situation with only one side. Of course, the junk faxers are on the WRONG side and the LOSING side and the DARK side... but that's different.
Uh... please tell me what airline you're flying so I can stay away from it.
...if you're assuming that the glasses become the only check in place, the post is right on the money. :p