The first sentence was misleading and wrong. BBC said something like this-
More than 300 bloggers attended the conference.
Yining corrected the BBC woman."No. you are wrong, the meeting participants are less than 200."
According Chinese law, any assembles by more than 200 people should be approved officially.If not, it's illegal.
Clever clever boy Yining... he caught the BBC in a lie. However, the Chinese "Law" he mentioned, interestingly, says waves more than anything he could've said in any interview. I don't know if he did it on purpose, but that by itself should give the BBC enough to write about. Right of association anyone?http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/ amendment01/12.html
The beauty of Yining's comment is that he takes such laws as accepted truths, and uses it to disprove the BBC's claim the same way a physicist would disprove a certain claim using Newton's or Einstein's theories.
According to Wikipedia:
Predatory pricing is the practice of a dominant firm selling a product at a loss in order to drive some or all competitors out of the market, or create a barrier to entry into the market for potential new competitors [...] In many countries, including the United States, predatory pricing is considered an anti-competitive practice and is illegal under antitrust laws.
Well since: Microsoft Loses $126 Per Unit on XBox 360"
can't Microsoft be sued by Sony et al. on the basis that they are selling a product at a loss? This is definitely predatory pricing, but I could be wrong... Anyone with a degree in law care to explain how this is actually justified ?
1- Great ! At least they bothered to try out something new...
2- Yes... Let's push music further and further away from its artistic origins and relegate it even deeper in the "yet another consumer goods" category.
I don't know, next thing you know you'll be getting free MP3s with every 6-pack of beer, box of cereals, oil change... Or maybe I'm just too old-fashioned to appreciate the new way of doing things.
Oh, and I almost forgot 3:
-At least it doesn't come with a r00tkit for free too!
"The MediaMax software also installs files on users' computers even if they decline to accept SunnComm's terms in a licensing agreement. That software allows the company to track customers' listening habits despite denials the company collects such data."
So basically, the rootkit would install itself on your PC even if you clicked NO on the popup that appears after inserting the disk? Wow... Now re-read this (different article, posted on Slashdot earlier):
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" the head of Sony BMG's global digital business, Thomas Hesse, told National Public Radio.
I don't know... So they are counting on tricking gullible PC users into installing something which will ultimately harm their PC, which is heinous in itself, but somewhat legally "murky" enough for them to get away with it. But when your answer to the EULA actually has no effect whatsoever on whether the r00tkit is installed or not, that is beyond words. It shows how much these corporations disrespect their customers. We are sheep. With cash they gave us for working for them... and they want it back.
"And for generations, students have spent their hard-earned dollars on the music they love in the local college record store. How many of those stores are left now? Makes you realize just what the impact of illegal downloading can be, and why we've taken the actions we have."
Causal fallacy.
It's not like he doesn't know it, but why bother building proper arguments when you can get away with absolute b*llshit and still be quoted as a respectable source? I couldn't finish reading the whole article, and to compare file-sharers to bank robbers and shoplifters was just insulting.
Cary Sherman: Obviously, anyone who has stopped downloading (or uploading) illegally will not get sued.
Thank you, Cary Sherman, for your infinite compassion towards us petty thieves, we are not worthy of such.
Apparently we all had the same problem!
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 1
I too had an IQ of 120+n ( n ranging between 25 and 65) when I was 5/6/7/8 !!! But obviously my teachers/friends didn't recognize my genius and hated me so I started smoking pot at age 9... And I pity this world that lost yet another genius because of the educational system/born-again christians/ hippies/ Bush.
Seriously, do you guys realize that getting a 140 on an IQ test at age 5 merely means that you are smarter than you should be, i.e you think like a 7 year old instead of of a 5 year old (I don't know if the 7-5 ratio is correct, it's something like that though so don't quote me on it). This doesn't mean that at age 18 you will be smarter than any other person, just that you had a head-start, which could fritter away very easily by wasting two years of your adolescence doing things that don't help your intellectual development (depression due to social issues, pot, alohol, pick yer poison). Having an IQ of 195 after you're 20 though, that's something...
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" the head of Sony BMG's global digital business, Thomas Hesse, told National Public Radio.
Why should they care? Besides the obvious invasion of privacy issue and compromised security? People care when they have cookies that register more information than they should. You'd think they'd care if you installed a friggin' trojan horse, especially one that also cripples people using your product legally (i.e the 3 copy limit on CDs for people transferring songs from the CD to their iPods).
I still can't believe he was quoted saying that... the Head of Sony BMG's global digital business. It just shows how completely off these people when it comes to understanding piracy, and how to "fight" it...
"So in effect, you're proposing regulating a corporation that has yet to do wrong, while far more potent opinion shapers...are let off scott free."
It is BECAUSE we have let the "politically controlled media cartels" degenerate to this point that I believe we should be proactive in this case. I don't want search engines to end up as just another product placement/promotion tool and with limited or no practical use.
" how about start with those who have sinned in the past, rather than by punishing the innocent?"
Nobody actually said anything about "punishing". "Controlling", even passively, is more what I had in mind. And this control has to be a neutral third-party, not necessarily a government entity. Studies like the one from Indiana University should do, as long as they're not funded by "generic rival search engine", which is owned by a corporation you "probably" mentionned. The problem is that there's always going to be some kind of loophole/tradeoff in any kind of control mechanism.
And again, it is not about sinner/saint, good/bad, us/terrorists, it's about people being aware of the power that search engines have in the new economy, and whether or not they should be allowed to conduct business like any random company, or should be given special status that reflects their new power. Hey, I didn't say that I had the best solution to a currently non-existent problem, or that solving this non-existent problem is more important than "punishing" others who have abused of their power. Just because THEY got away with something they shouldn't have gotten away with (no, not murder, but close...), should inspire but not influence the way we should act with Google (or any other search engine). I say bravo Google, but I still got my eyes on you... just in case...
"Why then is everyone so keen to condemn google for crimes that remain hypothetical?"
My main concern isn't really an ethical one, and I'm not one to judge Google on their spotless reputation so far. However, my point was to highlight the fact that search engines play a pivotal role in the way Internet works, and what they choose to highlight (or not) has very deep implications. Google, in the end, is a corporation, not a religious/moral institution. and there currently is no reliable neutral third-party to makes sure they (or any other search engine) aren't pushing some sites/products more than others.
I'm just bothered by the fact that we should rely on Google's reputation to make sure that they won't do something stupid/illegal. In business, good faith just doesn't cut it anymore, checks and controls should exist in any industry/service/medium that has the power to shape people's opinion.
" AOL, who for a long time tried to persuade their subscribers that there was no web outside of AOL hosted content."
"Google as an egalitarian influence on the web? I think it's a bit of a no-brainer, personally."
Just because the alternative to having search engines is much worse does not make Google an egalitarian influence by default. It is the least worst solution, definitely, and one I for one can happily live with, but we are still in a situation where if (when?) Google decides to jump ship and to start promoting some sites more than others for personal/financial/sexual favors, we end up in a situation identical to the first one, but in a much less obvious way. So, even if the answer to the question is "mmm... yes" today, it doesn't mean it has (or will) stay like that forever.
Since The Terrorists' (tm) goal is to create fear, this new drug will allow us to finally defeat the evil-doers!
If we are immune to fear, then there is nothing they can do to scare us.
For those still unconvinced, the drug should be taken in combination with this other new drug, one that suppresses critical thinking, another totally unnecessary brain function.
This kind of thing only happens because you people let your governments get away with it! If somebody tried to pull off something like this here in France, armed mobs would take over the streets in protest!
Slashdot Mirror
The first sentence was misleading and wrong. BBC said something like this- More than 300 bloggers attended the conference.
Yining corrected the BBC woman."No. you are wrong, the meeting participants are less than 200."
According Chinese law, any assembles by more than 200 people should be approved officially.If not, it's illegal.
Clever clever boy Yining... he caught the BBC in a lie. However, the Chinese "Law" he mentioned, interestingly, says waves more than anything he could've said in any interview. I don't know if he did it on purpose, but that by itself should give the BBC enough to write about. Right of association anyone?http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/ amendment01/12.html
The beauty of Yining's comment is that he takes such laws as accepted truths, and uses it to disprove the BBC's claim the same way a physicist would disprove a certain claim using Newton's or Einstein's theories.
And of course: http://www.concept420.com/how_to_roll_a_joint_spli ff.htm
CD-ROM for fathers with wives retarded enough to buy junk like this on Christmas? *Sigh*
Well since: Microsoft Loses $126 Per Unit on XBox 360" can't Microsoft be sued by Sony et al. on the basis that they are selling a product at a loss? This is definitely predatory pricing, but I could be wrong... Anyone with a degree in law care to explain how this is actually justified ?
2- Yes... Let's push music further and further away from its artistic origins and relegate it even deeper in the "yet another consumer goods" category.
I don't know, next thing you know you'll be getting free MP3s with every 6-pack of beer, box of cereals, oil change... Or maybe I'm just too old-fashioned to appreciate the new way of doing things.
Oh, and I almost forgot 3:
-At least it doesn't come with a r00tkit for free too!
So basically, the rootkit would install itself on your PC even if you clicked NO on the popup that appears after inserting the disk? Wow... Now re-read this (different article, posted on Slashdot earlier):
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" the head of Sony BMG's global digital business, Thomas Hesse, told National Public Radio.
I don't know... So they are counting on tricking gullible PC users into installing something which will ultimately harm their PC, which is heinous in itself, but somewhat legally "murky" enough for them to get away with it. But when your answer to the EULA actually has no effect whatsoever on whether the r00tkit is installed or not, that is beyond words. It shows how much these corporations disrespect their customers. We are sheep. With cash they gave us for working for them... and they want it back.
Causal fallacy.
It's not like he doesn't know it, but why bother building proper arguments when you can get away with absolute b*llshit and still be quoted as a respectable source? I couldn't finish reading the whole article, and to compare file-sharers to bank robbers and shoplifters was just insulting.
Cary Sherman: Obviously, anyone who has stopped downloading (or uploading) illegally will not get sued.
Thank you, Cary Sherman, for your infinite compassion towards us petty thieves, we are not worthy of such.
Seriously, do you guys realize that getting a 140 on an IQ test at age 5 merely means that you are smarter than you should be, i.e you think like a 7 year old instead of of a 5 year old (I don't know if the 7-5 ratio is correct, it's something like that though so don't quote me on it). This doesn't mean that at age 18 you will be smarter than any other person, just that you had a head-start, which could fritter away very easily by wasting two years of your adolescence doing things that don't help your intellectual development (depression due to social issues, pot, alohol, pick yer poison). Having an IQ of 195 after you're 20 though, that's something...
Why should they care? Besides the obvious invasion of privacy issue and compromised security? People care when they have cookies that register more information than they should. You'd think they'd care if you installed a friggin' trojan horse, especially one that also cripples people using your product legally (i.e the 3 copy limit on CDs for people transferring songs from the CD to their iPods).
I still can't believe he was quoted saying that... the Head of Sony BMG's global digital business. It just shows how completely off these people when it comes to understanding piracy, and how to "fight" it...
More accurate would be "Quickest cash-in on popular movie that nobody will remember in 3 months' time"
My all-time winner? : "Austin Powers: Operation Trivia", Yeah Baby!
It is BECAUSE we have let the "politically controlled media cartels" degenerate to this point that I believe we should be proactive in this case. I don't want search engines to end up as just another product placement/promotion tool and with limited or no practical use.
" how about start with those who have sinned in the past, rather than by punishing the innocent?"
Nobody actually said anything about "punishing". "Controlling", even passively, is more what I had in mind. And this control has to be a neutral third-party, not necessarily a government entity. Studies like the one from Indiana University should do, as long as they're not funded by "generic rival search engine", which is owned by a corporation you "probably" mentionned. The problem is that there's always going to be some kind of loophole/tradeoff in any kind of control mechanism.
And again, it is not about sinner/saint, good/bad, us/terrorists, it's about people being aware of the power that search engines have in the new economy, and whether or not they should be allowed to conduct business like any random company, or should be given special status that reflects their new power. Hey, I didn't say that I had the best solution to a currently non-existent problem, or that solving this non-existent problem is more important than "punishing" others who have abused of their power. Just because THEY got away with something they shouldn't have gotten away with (no, not murder, but close...), should inspire but not influence the way we should act with Google (or any other search engine). I say bravo Google, but I still got my eyes on you... just in case...
My main concern isn't really an ethical one, and I'm not one to judge Google on their spotless reputation so far. However, my point was to highlight the fact that search engines play a pivotal role in the way Internet works, and what they choose to highlight (or not) has very deep implications. Google, in the end, is a corporation, not a religious/moral institution. and there currently is no reliable neutral third-party to makes sure they (or any other search engine) aren't pushing some sites/products more than others.
I'm just bothered by the fact that we should rely on Google's reputation to make sure that they won't do something stupid/illegal. In business, good faith just doesn't cut it anymore, checks and controls should exist in any industry/service/medium that has the power to shape people's opinion.
Just because the alternative to having search engines is much worse does not make Google an egalitarian influence by default. It is the least worst solution, definitely, and one I for one can happily live with, but we are still in a situation where if (when?) Google decides to jump ship and to start promoting some sites more than others for personal/financial/sexual favors, we end up in a situation identical to the first one, but in a much less obvious way. So, even if the answer to the question is "mmm... yes" today, it doesn't mean it has (or will) stay like that forever.
If we are immune to fear, then there is nothing they can do to scare us.
For those still unconvinced, the drug should be taken in combination with this other new drug, one that suppresses critical thinking, another totally unnecessary brain function.
Yours Truly,
Your Government
Lucky you. I'm so hideous I was forced to uninstall OpenBSD :(
This kind of thing only happens because you people let your governments get away with it!
If somebody tried to pull off something like this here in France, armed mobs would take over the streets in protest!
Oh wait... Nevermind