Wow. You bring an all-new meaning to the phrase "waste of oxygen". There isn't anything to refute in your post since you failed to make any kind of coherent point. But I am glad to hear that you don't plan to carry a gun for self-defense, since you're as likely to shoot an innocent bystander as you are to blow your own balls off (if you had any to begin with).
Yes, wouldn't it be better to outlaw guns, thus ensuring that only criminals and cops have them. I will never understand the anti-self-defense crowd. Why would you give a flying fuck about some thug's rights when he's getting shot during a failed robbery attempt. If thugs want to avoid getting shot, here's a very simple way for them to do it: stop fucking robbing people! How hard is that? I along with most Americans do not feel sorry for criminals when their victim strikes back, even if they get it worse than their victim would have gotten it.
This may be true, but it is generally not the role of local police to enforce FCC regulations. I've never heard of the sheriff's department raiding a Radio Shack because some of their radio receivers weren't compliant with FCC code.
In other words, power hungry cops will make up laws on the spot when it suits their purpose. This sounds like a classic case. Almost as bad as those cops that want people to think it's illegal to be on the street in the United States without ID and have been known to arrest someone solely for this reason. Hopefully anyone affected by this will file the false arrest suit they are entitled to.
Yes, the guy who killed him was psycho. No, I would not do it if I were in that situation, even if I were sure I would not get caught. I agree that it is wrong, and that it is rightfully illegal to kill someone over a car. However, it did not exactly bring a tear to my eye to read that story. It's called Karma, and like they say it can be a bitch sometimes.
Kind of like when that Chicago tow truck driver was killed a couple of years ago while attempting to wrongfully tow someone's car. I'm feeling about the same level of outrage now as I did then, which is to say none at all. Sure, I don't think this type of thing should be legal, but that doesn't mean I regret to hear about it.
Google for "product placement". This term refers to subtle ads in the background of a movie or game. In other words, the goal is to NOT interrupt the story or game, but to advertise in a passive and almost subliminal manner. It must have some effect, since companies pay big $ just to have their product used as a prop in a movie. As I was saying, this is not the type of thing people will be up in arms about, but an interruption in game play, similar to a commercial interruption in a TV show, will piss them off to no end.
I think what will determine how well these ads are accepted by consumers as a whole will be the level of intrusiveness. If the ads are shown in the background without interrupting game play, which appears to be the case, I don't think people will object. What's the difference between having an ad as the background or having a brick wall? If the game were interrupted for a 1 minute "commercial break", that's a different story.
I agree with what you're saying, in that people shouldn't have to pay to be advertised to, but society as a whole doesn't seem to be bothered by that idea. When the ads start to cause a problem by interfering with game play or filling up a hard drive, I think that is when people will wake up.
Having lived in Indiana for 10 years, I remember some very entertaining public policy debates whenever the subject of daylight savings time was brought up (every spring). Some people were concerned that daylight savings time would screw up the cows milking schedule. Others seemed to think it would make the corn grow faster. I heard someone make the argument that it would reduce crime since there would be an extra hour of daylight. Some of these morons actually seemed to think that there would be another hour of sunlight, as if the earth's rotation were being slowed or something.
Indiana's reluctance to switch with the rest of the world is mainly due to the extreme lack of progress, morelike fear of progress, that grips the people of this fine state.
I'd say they will end up changing their minds. I can't imagine even the most pointy-haired boss deciding to spend a bunch of money on an operating system upgrade just to get a free web browser, when other free web browsers would work just fine with their current OS. Whatever functionality a company might need from IE7, I'm sure they could get it with another product without an OS upgrade.
This "spam form" is both funny and informative, however I think someone could use it on almost any approach to spam fighting. ANY solution or attempt at a solution will have drawbacks. Having a local spam filter carries the disadvantage of possibly deleting legitimate mail, especially from mailing lists you may have subscribed to. If we want to get serious about fighting spam, at some point we (the internet community) will have to adopt the least-bad solution and go with it, despite the drawbacks. I'm thinking of something like sender-ID. Sure, it will be a pain in the ass to work out the details, and people won't trust whoever the central authority happens to be, but what is the alternative? How much longer do mail administrators want to continue dealing with spam consisting of upwards of 90% of their total mail?
This is exactly what causes market bubbles: irrational behavior. It is usually pretty easy to not lose money in a bubble stock like this, if you're willing to put aside the excitement of buying into this company. Look at fundamentals and the chance of future success. Not from a technical standpoint, but a business one. Don't buy a stock with a P/E ratio of 120 or something insane like that. When it comes down to it, all that will sustain a stock price going forward is money coming in the door. Not too many companies have a serious stock crash while they're sitting on a pile of cash.
A spammer will never win in court for one reason: juries. Would any jury give a monetary reward to a spammer, even if legal technicalities required them to? The answer is no; juries have the power to evaluate the law as well as the facts of the case. If they find it "unconscionable" that a verdict be returned in favor of the plantiff (spammer), they won't do it, end of story.
The reason the courts decided that some music download services were illegal, such as Napster, is because the plantiffs argued the primary purpose was to infringe copyrights and that the service even promoted themselves that way. Orkut, on the other hand, is primarily used for legal activities and I'd say the percentage of traffic that goes towards directing illegal activities is in the single digits. Therefore, the same argument would not hold. No court has said that a communications provider bears full responsibility for anything that anyone uses the service for. If that were ever found to be the case, the internet and the phone networks would just have to shut down.
Hah. Cold hard facts. I don't read enough of his drivel to pick it apart piece by piece, nor do I have the interest in doing so, but his "research" is so tainted by his attempts to drive an agenda it cannot even begin to be considered the undeniable truth. I'm too lazy and uninterested to drag out specific examples and counter-examples, so if you want to use that as an excuse to claim you won the argument, knock yourself out.
Chomsky's beliefs can be summed up quite simply. USA = bad. Whatever would be good for the United States, he will oppose. Whatever would be bad for them, he will favor. There are no exceptions.
In the next few years, we will definitely see some "generic consumer electronics companies" go bankrupt. All they (Dell, HP, Sony, Gateway, countless Chinese companies) are doing is competing on lowest price and most flashy features. That will only work for so long before someone corners a segment of the market and prices all the others out. Which company will die first? The fact that Apple is still in business means that some people are still willing to pay more for quality.
Actually I found that being abusive reduced the total number of calls I received (before the do not call list). Being nice to them but declining their offer usually resulted in me being called again the next night with the same offer. Any telemarketer with half a brain (maybe 10% of them) would know that putting an abusive person back on the list will just reduce their number of possible sales while increasing their stress level.
I know this is a troll, but who pays for the phone lines? In either case, it's the people. Who pays the phone company? Who pays taxes? Can I knock on your door every 15 minutes to try to sell you crap?
On that note, perhaps someone could set up a form of subsidized phone service where people get a discounted/free phone in exchange for listening to a certain number of sales calls. That way, a telemarketer would not just be using your phone as a free marketing tool for themselves. That's what irked me the most about telemarketing; it's a phone that I pay for so that I can use, not to provide advertisers with a free medium. Perhaps some people would not find the advertising offensive, and with Americans' desire for all things free or cheap, it might be a success.
If you were as much of a pompous ass to the court as you are on Slashdot (Mr. "Senior Programmer"), no wonder you got your ass handed to you. It may not sound fair at first, but it's called Karma, and you had it coming to you.
Sure, you can always lock your network down so tight as to be unusable, but that would kind of eliminate the purpose. Most organizations in this day and age need email/internet and would be handicapped if it was restricted too much. This is why security is challenging: you must provide access to your users but make sure the network is protected. Security would be easy if all you had to do is shut the network off to the outside.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. You bring an all-new meaning to the phrase "waste of oxygen". There isn't anything to refute in your post since you failed to make any kind of coherent point. But I am glad to hear that you don't plan to carry a gun for self-defense, since you're as likely to shoot an innocent bystander as you are to blow your own balls off (if you had any to begin with).
Yes, wouldn't it be better to outlaw guns, thus ensuring that only criminals and cops have them. I will never understand the anti-self-defense crowd. Why would you give a flying fuck about some thug's rights when he's getting shot during a failed robbery attempt. If thugs want to avoid getting shot, here's a very simple way for them to do it: stop fucking robbing people! How hard is that? I along with most Americans do not feel sorry for criminals when their victim strikes back, even if they get it worse than their victim would have gotten it.
This may be true, but it is generally not the role of local police to enforce FCC regulations. I've never heard of the sheriff's department raiding a Radio Shack because some of their radio receivers weren't compliant with FCC code.
In other words, power hungry cops will make up laws on the spot when it suits their purpose. This sounds like a classic case. Almost as bad as those cops that want people to think it's illegal to be on the street in the United States without ID and have been known to arrest someone solely for this reason. Hopefully anyone affected by this will file the false arrest suit they are entitled to.
This is the way I always remember Slashdot being. Home of the tin-foil hat brigade!
Yes, the guy who killed him was psycho. No, I would not do it if I were in that situation, even if I were sure I would not get caught. I agree that it is wrong, and that it is rightfully illegal to kill someone over a car. However, it did not exactly bring a tear to my eye to read that story. It's called Karma, and like they say it can be a bitch sometimes.
Kind of like when that Chicago tow truck driver was killed a couple of years ago while attempting to wrongfully tow someone's car. I'm feeling about the same level of outrage now as I did then, which is to say none at all. Sure, I don't think this type of thing should be legal, but that doesn't mean I regret to hear about it.
Google for "product placement". This term refers to subtle ads in the background of a movie or game. In other words, the goal is to NOT interrupt the story or game, but to advertise in a passive and almost subliminal manner. It must have some effect, since companies pay big $ just to have their product used as a prop in a movie. As I was saying, this is not the type of thing people will be up in arms about, but an interruption in game play, similar to a commercial interruption in a TV show, will piss them off to no end.
I think what will determine how well these ads are accepted by consumers as a whole will be the level of intrusiveness. If the ads are shown in the background without interrupting game play, which appears to be the case, I don't think people will object. What's the difference between having an ad as the background or having a brick wall? If the game were interrupted for a 1 minute "commercial break", that's a different story.
I agree with what you're saying, in that people shouldn't have to pay to be advertised to, but society as a whole doesn't seem to be bothered by that idea. When the ads start to cause a problem by interfering with game play or filling up a hard drive, I think that is when people will wake up.
Having lived in Indiana for 10 years, I remember some very entertaining public policy debates whenever the subject of daylight savings time was brought up (every spring). Some people were concerned that daylight savings time would screw up the cows milking schedule. Others seemed to think it would make the corn grow faster. I heard someone make the argument that it would reduce crime since there would be an extra hour of daylight. Some of these morons actually seemed to think that there would be another hour of sunlight, as if the earth's rotation were being slowed or something.
Indiana's reluctance to switch with the rest of the world is mainly due to the extreme lack of progress, morelike fear of progress, that grips the people of this fine state.
I'd say they will end up changing their minds. I can't imagine even the most pointy-haired boss deciding to spend a bunch of money on an operating system upgrade just to get a free web browser, when other free web browsers would work just fine with their current OS. Whatever functionality a company might need from IE7, I'm sure they could get it with another product without an OS upgrade.
This "spam form" is both funny and informative, however I think someone could use it on almost any approach to spam fighting. ANY solution or attempt at a solution will have drawbacks. Having a local spam filter carries the disadvantage of possibly deleting legitimate mail, especially from mailing lists you may have subscribed to. If we want to get serious about fighting spam, at some point we (the internet community) will have to adopt the least-bad solution and go with it, despite the drawbacks. I'm thinking of something like sender-ID. Sure, it will be a pain in the ass to work out the details, and people won't trust whoever the central authority happens to be, but what is the alternative? How much longer do mail administrators want to continue dealing with spam consisting of upwards of 90% of their total mail?
This is exactly what causes market bubbles: irrational behavior. It is usually pretty easy to not lose money in a bubble stock like this, if you're willing to put aside the excitement of buying into this company. Look at fundamentals and the chance of future success. Not from a technical standpoint, but a business one. Don't buy a stock with a P/E ratio of 120 or something insane like that. When it comes down to it, all that will sustain a stock price going forward is money coming in the door. Not too many companies have a serious stock crash while they're sitting on a pile of cash.
A spammer will never win in court for one reason: juries. Would any jury give a monetary reward to a spammer, even if legal technicalities required them to? The answer is no; juries have the power to evaluate the law as well as the facts of the case. If they find it "unconscionable" that a verdict be returned in favor of the plantiff (spammer), they won't do it, end of story.
The reason the courts decided that some music download services were illegal, such as Napster, is because the plantiffs argued the primary purpose was to infringe copyrights and that the service even promoted themselves that way. Orkut, on the other hand, is primarily used for legal activities and I'd say the percentage of traffic that goes towards directing illegal activities is in the single digits. Therefore, the same argument would not hold. No court has said that a communications provider bears full responsibility for anything that anyone uses the service for. If that were ever found to be the case, the internet and the phone networks would just have to shut down.
Then you'll have Orrin Hatch proposing the death penalty for anyone caught with a bulk CD copier.
Hah. Cold hard facts. I don't read enough of his drivel to pick it apart piece by piece, nor do I have the interest in doing so, but his "research" is so tainted by his attempts to drive an agenda it cannot even begin to be considered the undeniable truth. I'm too lazy and uninterested to drag out specific examples and counter-examples, so if you want to use that as an excuse to claim you won the argument, knock yourself out.
Chomsky's beliefs can be summed up quite simply. USA = bad. Whatever would be good for the United States, he will oppose. Whatever would be bad for them, he will favor. There are no exceptions.
In the next few years, we will definitely see some "generic consumer electronics companies" go bankrupt. All they (Dell, HP, Sony, Gateway, countless Chinese companies) are doing is competing on lowest price and most flashy features. That will only work for so long before someone corners a segment of the market and prices all the others out. Which company will die first? The fact that Apple is still in business means that some people are still willing to pay more for quality.
Actually I found that being abusive reduced the total number of calls I received (before the do not call list). Being nice to them but declining their offer usually resulted in me being called again the next night with the same offer. Any telemarketer with half a brain (maybe 10% of them) would know that putting an abusive person back on the list will just reduce their number of possible sales while increasing their stress level.
But they do take "I'm gay, I smoke pot and I weigh 300 pounds" for an answer. They'll never call again after hearing that.
I know this is a troll, but who pays for the phone lines? In either case, it's the people. Who pays the phone company? Who pays taxes? Can I knock on your door every 15 minutes to try to sell you crap?
On that note, perhaps someone could set up a form of subsidized phone service where people get a discounted/free phone in exchange for listening to a certain number of sales calls. That way, a telemarketer would not just be using your phone as a free marketing tool for themselves. That's what irked me the most about telemarketing; it's a phone that I pay for so that I can use, not to provide advertisers with a free medium. Perhaps some people would not find the advertising offensive, and with Americans' desire for all things free or cheap, it might be a success.
Sue for malpractice, you had a shitty lawyer. No matter how corrupt their system is, no lawyer should have lost such an easy-to-defend case.
If you were as much of a pompous ass to the court as you are on Slashdot (Mr. "Senior Programmer"), no wonder you got your ass handed to you. It may not sound fair at first, but it's called Karma, and you had it coming to you.
Sure, you can always lock your network down so tight as to be unusable, but that would kind of eliminate the purpose. Most organizations in this day and age need email/internet and would be handicapped if it was restricted too much. This is why security is challenging: you must provide access to your users but make sure the network is protected. Security would be easy if all you had to do is shut the network off to the outside.