In the end, I am sure honorable and trustworthy business could generate more profit than any marketing campaign or monopolistic CEO would hope for.
Why? Because you don't even need to ask people to use what you offer. You offer something so good that people come themselves to (almost) beg for it.
No it is not very common to see this, but maybe Google will remain as honnest, trustworthy and reliable than now after the IPO. Maybe they'll report figures so good that no one will complain. Maybe they'll generate so much profit that they will be asked to simplify their interface even more. Maybe clients will be so happy that investors will be glad to see profits reinvested in R&D. Maybe not... But who knows? Let's hope for the best.
Split it floppy-sized files. Been there, done that. When you really want something, you'll wait.
2.) Disallow accounts from being accessed by more than 10 ip addresses in a 24 hour period.
Let people connect to your account through a "shared-proxy".
I don't even know it this could happen. But my point is: nothing is secure and even kiddies will find a way to conveniently use their gmail accounts to do what the hell they want. It's simply unavoidable. The good side is that it'll force some people to develop better security, and then someone else will find a way to break it, and so on.
groups said they were concerned about Google's ability to link a user's personal details
Google has NO ability whatsoever unless YOU give them YOUR email address.
These privacy groups make me mad, just like those who sued McDonald's for serving fat food. Come on. Use your fuckin brains. McDonald's never forced anyone to eat their stuff and Google never forced you to supply any data.
YOU chose to use a service, and YOU even go as far as to give them your email address. Deal with it. You did it. Are their any idiot-watch groups out there to signal those moron privacy-paranoid "tell-me-what-to-do-I-can't-decide-anything-by-mys elf" assholes?
There are many technological solutions to make driving safer, and more of them should be made mandatory.
You just can't replace a responsible person by a machine. I doubt any of these "marvels" will actualy solve any problem.
Besides, they're hackable. And I'm the first on the list who would screw the thing up if it was installed in my car. It is NOT safe to breathe in a tube while driving -- I'm concentrating on the road, not on your device. And I am not going to tolerate being considered a criminal. I drink alcohol sometimes, and I drive everyday. But I do NOT drink and drive, and I do NOT need that piece of crap. Forget it. *I* happen to be a responsible person, and the people I vote for are there to manage the country, not to baby-sit me.
And if I am forced to use it, I'll force the poor techie to find a way to install it on a Ford T.
My bad then. My apologies to the parent poster. BUT, lots of people seem to think this way. Just look at the bill that was passed -- was that bill sarcasm too? Maybe I just didn't get that one...
I am a responsible person who believes I should be responsible for my own actions.
Wow. Phew... I thought I was alone, with all these stupid comments about what MORE we could do to take away people's rights.
That bill is a troll. Mod New Mexico down! Seriously, there are more and more of these incredibly unbelievable laws passed, mostly in Canada and the USA. Whether they are about music, the internet, movies, alcohol, guns, etc - in every case, they assume we are children. There are ALREADY laws for that, and if people do not respect these laws, voting a bill that forces you to respect the law is completely illogical.
1. These breath-thingies will be hacked 2. criminals will continue their business as usual 3. Honnest citizens will pay the price twice 4. Profit? No. In the end, as many people will die because they were drunk (or drugged) while driving. It is not about the cars, about the alcohol or about the laws -- it is about a society. Better education and higher penalties for offenders is the way to go. Otherwise, we're just not solving the problem.
Having a parking lot at a bar is like being an accessory to the crime
You are assuming each and everyone of us are unable to drink alcohol in a moderate way. It is not about the taxes collected from the sales of alcohol, but about our freedom.
I do not need an idiot senator or a frustrated, clueless individual like yourself to make new laws that require people to respect laws that are already there. The argument is stupid.
Maybe we could ban the internet too, eh? Making this evil technology available to the public is being accessory to crime, because we know the internet is only used to download music illegaly.
If you have an alcohol problem and you can't behave in public places, get some help. I'm certainly not willing to give away my rights just because you're a moron.
Indeed! A large portion of Windows users won't even pay for Windows anyway and think a computer should be dirt cheap so they go out and buy the "basic kit" at Joe's 'Puters.
A multi-OS-wifi-majority-rules-functional-networkabl e-compatible-user-friendly computer really is nothing more than an utopia. This wouldn't work today and probably never will. The public (myself included) thinks a 1,000$ PC is just fine and does everything OK. The device you are dreaming of has military uses, and seldom would pay a hundred grand just to download MP3s.
No flames intended, I'm just being realistic here. Besides, if people pay too much for their PCs, they're more likely to stick with it for a long time - and that's a marketing no-no. Geeks might think it's cool to look for ETs on a beowolf cluster, but most people just don't need that. It's the very same reason Chevrolet Cavaliers sell more than BMW M3's.
Yes, and this will be interesting to see in courts when a user's real identity will have been give to the CRIA by the ISP. DO they actualy have the right to do this?
If I own the copyright to something, and you violate that copyright, then I have no right enforcing it? You might want to look into reading some laws.
No, that's not what I meant. You have the entire right to sue me if you think I violate your copyrights.
What is not acceptable is the investigation and the personal data a private corporation can gather juste because they think something's not right.
Last time I checked, neither my personnal addy nor my full name were written or encoded in my IP address, and I see no way, other than spying on me in some way or my ISP giving away my information to another private corporation without my consent, that the CRIA could manage to prove it was me sharing their music. That's what bugs me.
Yes, we do have more laisser-aller or laisse-faire. Socialy anyway. But when it comes to large corporations' money, then Canada has that frustrating tendency to bow to the US and surrender anything.
We import most of your stuff here, and many trade agreements depend on good relations between the two countries. So if the media don't feel happy about something, they've got so much influence here that we will do what they ask.
I am not surprised at all. I was just wondering when it would happen.
I don't understand why nerds get so up in arms when people defend their intellectual property
And I certainly don't understand why people should be glad that their privacy on the internet will stop to exist because some companie think it's ok to spy on you and analyse what files you share.
The CRIA is not the Secret Services. It is okay for them to protect their IP, but knowing that Videotron is so inclined to associate people's indentity with their IP adress is kinda scary. If there's a lawsuit filed against me for doing something criminal, then fine, they must have reasons to think that I'm doing something wrong. But if they start looking at what ports you use to upload you files, and then suspect you of sharing music, and then give your personal info to some private corporation without your consent, and then, they sue you -- that's just plain wrong.
Indeed, we've all already paid our due (in theory) for copying music (whether we do it or not) when we buy blank medias. Can this argument reach the courts or is it just plain stupid to think that you've been judged and fined without any lawsuit when you are forced to pay levies?
but Google seems to have underestimated the power they have...
Somehow, this is also what makes Google so great. They do not abuse their power. They just make things as simple as possible. Google is actualy no one and everyone all at once. Their "editorial" is what the world thinks of the fractal -- not what Google thinks of it.
Personnaly, their omnipresence everywhere combined to their absence in what they provide is the reason why I use and preach Google.
It is funny to see how the internet was supposed to be a good thing, because people from everywhere in the world would be able to communicate, share information and knowledge, and work together -- but when it actualy happens, it suddently becomes a bad thing and people get scared when outsourcing is mentioned.
Hey, that was totaly predictable and unavoidable. Evolution. Wake up and smell the vaththalkuzhambu.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end, I am sure honorable and trustworthy business could generate more profit than any marketing campaign or monopolistic CEO would hope for.
Why? Because you don't even need to ask people to use what you offer. You offer something so good that people come themselves to (almost) beg for it.
No it is not very common to see this, but maybe Google will remain as honnest, trustworthy and reliable than now after the IPO. Maybe they'll report figures so good that no one will complain. Maybe they'll generate so much profit that they will be asked to simplify their interface even more. Maybe clients will be so happy that investors will be glad to see profits reinvested in R&D. Maybe not... But who knows? Let's hope for the best.
1.) Only allow attachments up to say 2 megs.
Split it floppy-sized files. Been there, done that. When you really want something, you'll wait.
2.) Disallow accounts from being accessed by more than 10 ip addresses in a 24 hour period.
Let people connect to your account through a "shared-proxy".
I don't even know it this could happen. But my point is: nothing is secure and even kiddies will find a way to conveniently use their gmail accounts to do what the hell they want. It's simply unavoidable. The good side is that it'll force some people to develop better security, and then someone else will find a way to break it, and so on.
What definition of 'absolutely necessary' are we using here?
;)
Absolutely necessary as in "if we block access to the net, we'll have to get back to Solitaire". 'Nuff said.
groups said they were concerned about Google's ability to link a user's personal details
s elf" assholes?
Google has NO ability whatsoever unless YOU give them YOUR email address.
These privacy groups make me mad, just like those who sued McDonald's for serving fat food. Come on. Use your fuckin brains. McDonald's never forced anyone to eat their stuff and Google never forced you to supply any data.
YOU chose to use a service, and YOU even go as far as to give them your email address. Deal with it. You did it. Are their any idiot-watch groups out there to signal those moron privacy-paranoid "tell-me-what-to-do-I-can't-decide-anything-by-my
I'm a private pilot
Woohoo! A new one: IAPP/IANPP!!
Banned in Norway (1980), re-rated 15 in Norway (1989)
Banned in Ireland too (from 1979 to 1987) the re-reated 15.
It's frightening just to think that a movie was banned in an entire country, and that there was no Internet to download it from...
There are many technological solutions to make driving safer, and more of them should be made mandatory.
You just can't replace a responsible person by a machine. I doubt any of these "marvels" will actualy solve any problem.
Besides, they're hackable. And I'm the first on the list who would screw the thing up if it was installed in my car. It is NOT safe to breathe in a tube while driving -- I'm concentrating on the road, not on your device. And I am not going to tolerate being considered a criminal. I drink alcohol sometimes, and I drive everyday. But I do NOT drink and drive, and I do NOT need that piece of crap. Forget it. *I* happen to be a responsible person, and the people I vote for are there to manage the country, not to baby-sit me.
And if I am forced to use it, I'll force the poor techie to find a way to install it on a Ford T.
could recognize sarcasm
My bad then. My apologies to the parent poster. BUT, lots of people seem to think this way. Just look at the bill that was passed -- was that bill sarcasm too? Maybe I just didn't get that one...
I am a responsible person who believes I should be responsible for my own actions.
Wow. Phew... I thought I was alone, with all these stupid comments about what MORE we could do to take away people's rights.
That bill is a troll. Mod New Mexico down! Seriously, there are more and more of these incredibly unbelievable laws passed, mostly in Canada and the USA. Whether they are about music, the internet, movies, alcohol, guns, etc - in every case, they assume we are children. There are ALREADY laws for that, and if people do not respect these laws, voting a bill that forces you to respect the law is completely illogical.
1. These breath-thingies will be hacked
2. criminals will continue their business as usual
3. Honnest citizens will pay the price twice
4. Profit? No. In the end, as many people will die because they were drunk (or drugged) while driving.
It is not about the cars, about the alcohol or about the laws -- it is about a society. Better education and higher penalties for offenders is the way to go. Otherwise, we're just not solving the problem.
Having a parking lot at a bar is like being an accessory to the crime
You are assuming each and everyone of us are unable to drink alcohol in a moderate way. It is not about the taxes collected from the sales of alcohol, but about our freedom.
I do not need an idiot senator or a frustrated, clueless individual like yourself to make new laws that require people to respect laws that are already there. The argument is stupid.
Maybe we could ban the internet too, eh? Making this evil technology available to the public is being accessory to crime, because we know the internet is only used to download music illegaly.
If you have an alcohol problem and you can't behave in public places, get some help. I'm certainly not willing to give away my rights just because you're a moron.
Portable pr0n. Yeehaw!
and use it to do something regrettable
Don't worry. Potential terrorists would need an LoA. They can't even take off! Now that's a safe country!
The biggest downside is bloat and cost
l e-compatible-user-friendly computer really is nothing more than an utopia. This wouldn't work today and probably never will. The public (myself included) thinks a 1,000$ PC is just fine and does everything OK. The device you are dreaming of has military uses, and seldom would pay a hundred grand just to download MP3s.
Indeed! A large portion of Windows users won't even pay for Windows anyway and think a computer should be dirt cheap so they go out and buy the "basic kit" at Joe's 'Puters.
A multi-OS-wifi-majority-rules-functional-networkab
No flames intended, I'm just being realistic here. Besides, if people pay too much for their PCs, they're more likely to stick with it for a long time - and that's a marketing no-no. Geeks might think it's cool to look for ETs on a beowolf cluster, but most people just don't need that. It's the very same reason Chevrolet Cavaliers sell more than BMW M3's.
Yes, and this will be interesting to see in courts when a user's real identity will have been give to the CRIA by the ISP. DO they actualy have the right to do this?
If I own the copyright to something, and you violate that copyright, then I have no right enforcing it? You might want to look into reading some laws.
No, that's not what I meant. You have the entire right to sue me if you think I violate your copyrights.
What is not acceptable is the investigation and the personal data a private corporation can gather juste because they think something's not right.
Last time I checked, neither my personnal addy nor my full name were written or encoded in my IP address, and I see no way, other than spying on me in some way or my ISP giving away my information to another private corporation without my consent, that the CRIA could manage to prove it was me sharing their music. That's what bugs me.
Scenario 1A: Copyright holder uses police to go after copyright infringers.
How do they know who to send the police after? They got my real name from my IP address?...
Scenario 1B: Copyright holder privately goes after copyright infringers.
No matter what, this is NOT their job and they have no right whatsoever to even think about doing this. And again, how did they know it was me?
(quebequeers)
Oh. I guess THAT was the insightful part?
The Canadian people do not want Big Brother to be accusing and convicting the 12 year old swappers like the U.S.
No, but we certainly appreciate when the US is buying our meat, our wood, our cereals, our fish, our oil and Celine Dion....
Canada would have a more laisse fair
Yes, we do have more laisser-aller or laisse-faire. Socialy anyway. But when it comes to large corporations' money, then Canada has that frustrating tendency to bow to the US and surrender anything.
We import most of your stuff here, and many trade agreements depend on good relations between the two countries. So if the media don't feel happy about something, they've got so much influence here that we will do what they ask.
I am not surprised at all. I was just wondering when it would happen.
I don't understand why nerds get so up in arms when people defend their intellectual property
And I certainly don't understand why people should be glad that their privacy on the internet will stop to exist because some companie think it's ok to spy on you and analyse what files you share.
The CRIA is not the Secret Services. It is okay for them to protect their IP, but knowing that Videotron is so inclined to associate people's indentity with their IP adress is kinda scary. If there's a lawsuit filed against me for doing something criminal, then fine, they must have reasons to think that I'm doing something wrong. But if they start looking at what ports you use to upload you files, and then suspect you of sharing music, and then give your personal info to some private corporation without your consent, and then, they sue you -- that's just plain wrong.
Indeed, we've all already paid our due (in theory) for copying music (whether we do it or not) when we buy blank medias. Can this argument reach the courts or is it just plain stupid to think that you've been judged and fined without any lawsuit when you are forced to pay levies?
Georgie-boy waited a long time for the technology to be "mature"
Yes, and meanwhile, he was singing Karma Chameleon, with red lipstick and an ugly hat.
just how much money could Google make if they sold just a small ad on their home page
But then, would it still be Google?
but Google seems to have underestimated the power they have...
Somehow, this is also what makes Google so great. They do not abuse their power. They just make things as simple as possible. Google is actualy no one and everyone all at once. Their "editorial" is what the world thinks of the fractal -- not what Google thinks of it.
Personnaly, their omnipresence everywhere combined to their absence in what they provide is the reason why I use and preach Google.
It is funny to see how the internet was supposed to be a good thing, because people from everywhere in the world would be able to communicate, share information and knowledge, and work together -- but when it actualy happens, it suddently becomes a bad thing and people get scared when outsourcing is mentioned.
Hey, that was totaly predictable and unavoidable. Evolution. Wake up and smell the vaththalkuzhambu.