This should come at no surprise to any one. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Of course they're going to panic when they see control of the distribution channels slip away from them. What these idiots don't understand is that if they adjusted their business model, they could make a decent amount of money with current technology. Maybe that's why they're idiots.
I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit argument as to how this is "stifling competition". That seems to their answer for everything. Kind of like "OMG TERRORISTS!".
Agreed. Personally I think IE9 is pretty good. But people in general are happier about an FF release and skeptical/cynical about an IE9 release. It's because MS has more to prove.
China is still in the year 1984. The censoring of the word "freedom" is very telling. It perfectly sums up what the Communist Party in China is all about; suppressing individual liberty. They are the boot stamping on a human face. I hope China is able to move out from under the shadow of Big Brother in the coming decades
FF has a better history of adhering to standards than IE. IE also came from a company that went out of its way to try and dominate the web with its proprietary technology and almost succeeded. Some (if not much) cynicism is warranted.
This sucks. Really sucks. I've been a T-Mobile customer since 2002 and I've enjoyed their great customer service. They've rarely screwed me over. I'm not looking forward to dealing with AT&T's douchebaggery. I'm going to jump ship as soon as I can.
Sprint or Verizon? How do they compare to T-Mobile?
Go to keepvid.com and download a copy of that video. If YouTube does take it down, we can always post it again (on another note, I can't seem to find part 2).
The Internet Never Forgets.
Also, Universal Music are douchebags, but what's new? The douchebaggery and the lies are so obvious that it's not even worth going into it.
Agree. I had my own hacked-together custom blogging-platform that I wrote way back in 2002. I kept wanting to do the "grand rewrite" to add more features, but never got around to it. Finally I realized that I would just be reinventing the wheel and decided that the smart thing to do would be to go with Wordpress.
They have really good documentation for their database schema and so I didn't have a very hard time migrating my old data over. With wordpress in place it's become very easy for me to make blog posts. Not to mention that there are hundreds and hundreds of Wordpress plugins that offer added functionality.
The article doesn't make it clear that the aircraft still needs to be pulled for it to glide into the air (you can see this in the attached video). I was under the impression that it took off like a bird. The "flapping" of the wings is really cool to see though, once the craft gets airborne.
I think he probably would have gone through the case filings if this was an actual case he was working on. He was just giving me an opinion based on the facts that he had on hand from what I showed him.
IANAL but my cousin is and this is what he had to say:
(02:49:23 PM) PP: yeah (02:49:34 PM) PP: well (02:51:06 PM) PP: the issue you run into here is that in order to be heard you need to have a case in controversy, the issue has to be ripe (02:51:36 PM) PP: if some one is about to do something that may hurt your business or place an undue burden on you, can file for an injunction (02:52:37 PM) PP: to stop them from doing it (02:52:46 PM) PP: now what you have sent me does not seem like it will hold up (02:52:53 PM) PP: because there is no case in controversy (02:53:00 PM) PP: if something hasn't happened you can't sue them (02:53:27 PM) PP: for example I can sue you for wrecking my car if it has not even happened yet (02:53:33 PM) PP: I can't* (02:54:08 PM) PP: I don't see why a judge would accept this lawsuit (02:54:20 PM) PP: there are is only one party (02:54:27 PM) PP: judge would for sure throw this out (02:56:07 PM) PP: Now if the suit is for past action but you don't know exactly who they are, you can sue Jane and John Doe (02:56:29 PM) PP: and then try to discover who they are throughout the process (02:56:46 PM) PP: I would imagine this would be so your Statutes of Limitation on your claim would not run out (02:57:12 PM) PP: So for example if you get in a car wreck and have no clue who the person is cause the y ran away, you basically have two years to file a claim (02:57:48 PM) PP: by calling them John or Jane Doe you are including them and preserving your rights (02:57:54 PM) PP: to sue (03:08:23 PM) PP: All this suit pretty much is is a way to scare off furture bootleggers letting them know they will be sued if caught. By getting this publicity they will get their message across (03:09:42 PM) PP: it hasn't been filed cause there is no case number, its just a template and they are threatening to use it if something comes up, that is we will insert your name here, so don't do it (03:11:05 PM) PP: All you need to take away from this is that it is not a lawsuit yet since it has not been filed, rather its just a warning of what they will file if you get caught.
"The New York Times is quite simply wrong," wrote Mistique Cano, a Google spokesman, in an e-mail. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."
A Google spokeswoman told the Guardian: "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.
Verizon has also moved to dismiss the story. A company statement reads: "The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."
So, if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes that works out to 477 pixels per inch and at 8 inches it's 716 ppi. You have to hold iPhone 4 out about 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi. So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina
No, no, no! Mr. Soneira has it all wrong! The math works out if you are inside a reality-distortion field, since all physical laws either change or do not apply inside said field!
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very good idea. Something like PCI requirements, but for personal information.
If an AI is sufficiently advanced as to be distinguished from a human, does it have a right to not stare at people's goatses?
Can you imagine being the QA for that AI? Or even the developer tasked with developing that AI?
"What do you do all day?"
"Oh, I find pictures of people taking shits and feed it to my AI".
"..."
This should come at no surprise to any one. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Of course they're going to panic when they see control of the distribution channels slip away from them. What these idiots don't understand is that if they adjusted their business model, they could make a decent amount of money with current technology. Maybe that's why they're idiots.
I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit argument as to how this is "stifling competition". That seems to their answer for everything. Kind of like "OMG TERRORISTS!".
Agreed. Personally I think IE9 is pretty good. But people in general are happier about an FF release and skeptical/cynical about an IE9 release. It's because MS has more to prove.
China is still in the year 1984. The censoring of the word "freedom" is very telling. It perfectly sums up what the Communist Party in China is all about; suppressing individual liberty. They are the boot stamping on a human face. I hope China is able to move out from under the shadow of Big Brother in the coming decades
FF has a better history of adhering to standards than IE. IE also came from a company that went out of its way to try and dominate the web with its proprietary technology and almost succeeded. Some (if not much) cynicism is warranted.
Goddammit. Wrong story.
This sucks. Really sucks. I've been a T-Mobile customer since 2002 and I've enjoyed their great customer service. They've rarely screwed me over. I'm not looking forward to dealing with AT&T's douchebaggery. I'm going to jump ship as soon as I can.
Sprint or Verizon? How do they compare to T-Mobile?
http://vivin.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/key.png
I made a pretty version of the key.
Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit. I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail.
I just have one question. How was Doc able to build the locomotive time-machine without any access to technology?!
Independent radio stations?
Go to keepvid.com and download a copy of that video. If YouTube does take it down, we can always post it again (on another note, I can't seem to find part 2).
The Internet Never Forgets.
Also, Universal Music are douchebags, but what's new? The douchebaggery and the lies are so obvious that it's not even worth going into it.
Agree. I had my own hacked-together custom blogging-platform that I wrote way back in 2002. I kept wanting to do the "grand rewrite" to add more features, but never got around to it. Finally I realized that I would just be reinventing the wheel and decided that the smart thing to do would be to go with Wordpress.
They have really good documentation for their database schema and so I didn't have a very hard time migrating my old data over. With wordpress in place it's become very easy for me to make blog posts. Not to mention that there are hundreds and hundreds of Wordpress plugins that offer added functionality.
Because you can. Because you want to. Just to show it can be done?
The article doesn't make it clear that the aircraft still needs to be pulled for it to glide into the air (you can see this in the attached video). I was under the impression that it took off like a bird. The "flapping" of the wings is really cool to see though, once the craft gets airborne.
Either way, really neat.
No thanks. I don't want my vehicle information in a database. Also, a transponder? Yeah sure - I definitely want my vehicle being tracked.
grep needle haystack
Where "needle" is a dissident site and "haystack" is a log file.
Couldn't the Iranian censors do something to that effect? Or am I just being naive?
I think he probably would have gone through the case filings if this was an actual case he was working on. He was just giving me an opinion based on the facts that he had on hand from what I showed him.
IANAL but my cousin is and this is what he had to say:
(02:49:23 PM) PP: yeah
(02:49:34 PM) PP: well
(02:51:06 PM) PP: the issue you run into here is that in order to be heard you need to have a case in controversy, the issue has to be ripe
(02:51:36 PM) PP: if some one is about to do something that may hurt your business or place an undue burden on you, can file for an injunction
(02:52:37 PM) PP: to stop them from doing it
(02:52:46 PM) PP: now what you have sent me does not seem like it will hold up
(02:52:53 PM) PP: because there is no case in controversy
(02:53:00 PM) PP: if something hasn't happened you can't sue them
(02:53:27 PM) PP: for example I can sue you for wrecking my car if it has not even happened yet
(02:53:33 PM) PP: I can't*
(02:54:08 PM) PP: I don't see why a judge would accept this lawsuit
(02:54:20 PM) PP: there are is only one party
(02:54:27 PM) PP: judge would for sure throw this out
(02:56:07 PM) PP: Now if the suit is for past action but you don't know exactly who they are, you can sue Jane and John Doe
(02:56:29 PM) PP: and then try to discover who they are throughout the process
(02:56:46 PM) PP: I would imagine this would be so your Statutes of Limitation on your claim would not run out
(02:57:12 PM) PP: So for example if you get in a car wreck and have no clue who the person is cause the y ran away, you basically have two years to file a claim
(02:57:48 PM) PP: by calling them John or Jane Doe you are including them and preserving your rights
(02:57:54 PM) PP: to sue
(03:08:23 PM) PP: All this suit pretty much is is a way to scare off furture bootleggers letting them know they will be sued if caught. By getting this publicity they will get their message across
(03:09:42 PM) PP: it hasn't been filed cause there is no case number, its just a template and they are threatening to use it if something comes up, that is we will insert your name here, so don't do it
(03:11:05 PM) PP: All you need to take away from this is that it is not a lawsuit yet since it has not been filed, rather its just a warning of what they will file if you get caught.
Google has denied these claims:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367436,00.asp
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180192/Google_denies_talks_with_Verizon_to_end_Net_neutrality_
"The New York Times is quite simply wrong," wrote Mistique Cano, a Google spokesman, in an e-mail. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/05/gogle-denies-verizon-deal-net-neutrality
A Google spokeswoman told the Guardian: "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.
Verizon has also moved to dismiss the story. A company statement reads: "The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."
Everyone should save that blog post to their hard-drive. And then re-post it on their blog or whatever.
So, if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes that works out to 477 pixels per inch and at 8 inches it's 716 ppi. You have to hold iPhone 4 out about 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi. So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina
No, no, no! Mr. Soneira has it all wrong! The math works out if you are inside a reality-distortion field, since all physical laws either change or do not apply inside said field!
When I first read the title of the story I thought someone was charged (as in criminally) because they destroyed a copy of IE6 at Microsoft.