So wait, you think that instead of the obvious answer, which is that
1. The reaction to the muslim video has been for a lot of people to click "flag content as inapproriate" while 2. The reaction to the christian video has been for a lot of people not to click "flag content as inapproriate"
that instead there is some massive conspiracy for YouTube to like one viewpoint over the other? And your evidence is what, other than they look like similar videos?
I'm sure if you get a hundred thousand people (or whatever) to click "flag content as inapproriate" on your christian video, they will take it down.
If that happens, will you then stop complaining they are favoring one viewpoint over the other?
(My *guess* is that you will just pretend that was never really the "real issue", and then complain instead that they took both your videos down)
Well, they should agree. Why? If I told you i wanted to buy a lot of land in NC, you might charge me 100 bucks an acre. If i told you i wanted to buy a lot of land in NC for Google to host a datacenter, you'd probably charge me 1000 bucks an acre. Google needed to NDA all this to avoid getting gouged when trying to acquire the necessary land/etc to get this deal done. This is pretty obvious if you give it more than a second's thought.
You can try all you want to get people to hide information, but it won't work forever.
As technology gets better and better, more and more people will have access to very high resolution pictures of more and more of the world.
Your long term plans (20-30+ year) plans for security should take into account the fact that everyone will have access to high resolution photos of everything you can see from a satellite. If they don't, you are pretty dumb.
Right now we seem to be in the "pretty dumb" category, since you seem to be saying we can't seem to maintain good security of our country without taking steps like blurring out things on maps.
Secondly, lawyers are like whores because that is the ethical responsibility of every lawyer. When you represent someone, you stand in their shoes, whether it is a corporation, a little old lady, or somebody charged with a capital offense.
No. This is not only completely wrong, it's a very common misconception among those who defend lawyers.
Note, IAAL.
The ABA model rules of professional conduct, which most states' ethical rules are based on, have more than the requirement that you "zealously represent your client" (which is the rule everyone seems to remember).
They also require, more importantly, they you do not press claims you know to be frivilous or a non-good faith extension, modification, or reversal of an existing law. See rule 3.1
Tons of lawyers who should be sanctioned for this, aren't. However, if you ever accidentally mix client funds, you will be disbarred.
The rules also require that you keep in contact with your client, and be responsive in keeping them up to date. See rule 1.4.
When have you met a lawyer who actually responds to phone calls?
You sound awfully bitter. Maybe they just didn't think your personality would fit in? Honestly, I don't either.
A lot of questions are asked to see if you can answer them without taking them personally (IE 'why didn't you go to a better school'), as people who take things personally tend not to be good at things like, say, having their code reviewed by a lot of people.
You also seem pretty impressed with yourself and your resume. A lot of Googler's have done great things to, they just don't talk about them as much, and let their accomplishments speak for themselves.
There is certainly the possibility that you just found a bunch of assholes there, but at least from the post you've just made, i'm pretty sure they made the right choice anyway.
How can any of you seriously expect Google to take a stand and not turn over information about a guy trading child porn on Orkut? This is not some questionable case where the person is a political dissident, or something. They have records of this person's account, trading child porn. They want to know who he is.
Do you honestly think there is any sane way to take a stand on this issue and not look like a complete monster? If they don't turn over the information, people will say they are protecting child molesters. If they do turn over the information, people will say they are violating people's privacy.
IMHO, They deliberately try to make it sound like the EFF is at the forefront of this case, appealing it to the Supreme Court.
What really has happened is that KSR has gone to the Supreme Court asking for review, and the Supreme Court granted review. This happened a few months back, actually.
The EFF has filed a brief in support of KSR. About 10 other briefs in support of KSR have been filed in support of KSR, besides the EFF one, including some more important ones, like the Solicitor General's (representing the views of the US/Bush Administration). The Supreme Court generally cares more about what the SG thinks than the EFF.
If you look at the settings, next to every checkbox for "sync this", there is another check box for "encrypt this". Literally everything it can sync can be encrypted.
Second, it syncs much more than bookmarks. I for one, enjoy having my history, tabs, and windows saved between the laptop and desktops I work on.
If you look at that patent, the actual *meat of what the patent is*, the claims, are very short, simple sentences, and there are 6 of them.
The specification (which is what you are reading) has very different statutory requirements, and is *not* (except in some corner cases, so that i don't get bitched at from someone else who actually understand) defining what the patent covers.
You could include the text of novels if you wanted to in the spec.
Actually, it's not released yet
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I'm not sure what gave the person who submitted the story, or the editor who posted the story, the idea that 4.1 was released, but it isn't.
In fact, it was just branched less than a week ago.
We haven't even put out an RC yet!
Really, it's not out.
When it is, you will see something sent to gcc-announce
Except that SQLObjects for python has a very close syntax and *does* do what LINQ does.
Sorry, it's not innovation, nor have just "building blocks" been available on other platforms.
It's been here, in production use, for years now.
it's not like you need to spend years secluded in monestary to learn to read this stuff.
It's about 2 hours, maybe.
If a patent can't be understood by someone skilled in the art, it's invalid.
While 45 pages seems a bit much for a small patent, claim language is a very technical and precise thing. Unless you are a registered patent agent, or have studied patent law, saying you can't understand the claims without studying how to is like saying you can't understand french without studying how to.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean?
GWT is open source and accepts external contributions.
Which is, not surprisingly, why they already do it!
http://code.google.com/hosting/
So wait, you think that instead of the obvious answer, which is that
1. The reaction to the muslim video has been for a lot of people to click "flag content as inapproriate"
while
2. The reaction to the christian video has been for a lot of people not to click "flag content as inapproriate"
that instead there is some massive conspiracy for YouTube to like one viewpoint over the other?
And your evidence is what, other than they look like similar videos?
I'm sure if you get a hundred thousand people (or whatever) to click "flag content as inapproriate" on your christian video, they will take it down.
If that happens, will you then stop complaining they are favoring one viewpoint over the other?
(My *guess* is that you will just pretend that was never really the "real issue", and then complain instead that they took both your videos down)
Well, they should agree.
Why?
If I told you i wanted to buy a lot of land in NC, you might charge me 100 bucks an acre.
If i told you i wanted to buy a lot of land in NC for Google to host a datacenter, you'd probably charge me 1000 bucks an acre.
Google needed to NDA all this to avoid getting gouged when trying to acquire the necessary land/etc to get this deal done.
This is pretty obvious if you give it more than a second's thought.
You can try all you want to get people to hide information, but it won't work forever.
As technology gets better and better, more and more people will have access to very high resolution pictures of more and more of the world.
Your long term plans (20-30+ year) plans for security should take into account the fact that everyone will have access to high resolution photos of everything you can see from a satellite.
If they don't, you are pretty dumb.
Right now we seem to be in the "pretty dumb" category, since you seem to be saying we can't seem to maintain good security of our country without taking steps like blurring out things on maps.
No. This is not only completely wrong, it's a very common misconception among those who defend lawyers.
Note, IAAL.
The ABA model rules of professional conduct, which most states' ethical rules are based on, have more than the requirement that you "zealously represent your client" (which is the rule everyone seems to remember).
They also require, more importantly, they you do not press claims you know to be frivilous or a non-good faith extension, modification, or reversal of an existing law. See rule 3.1
Tons of lawyers who should be sanctioned for this, aren't. However, if you ever accidentally mix client funds, you will be disbarred.
The rules also require that you keep in contact with your client, and be responsive in keeping them up to date. See rule 1.4.
When have you met a lawyer who actually responds to phone calls?
Uh, docs.google.com being able to give you a list of contacts when you enter the address in *your* browser is not a bug or a security flaw.
The flaw *was* allowing *other sites* to use it as a src variable (IE someone *else's* site using that URL + your cookies).
This is indeed fixed.
Lotus had a utility patent (which covers processes and methods).
This is a design patent (which covers ornamental designs).
World of difference.
You all are complaining about patenting look and feel, but there is a very important difference between what has been done, and things like Lotus.
Lotus had a utility patent on their look and feel.
Google has an "ornamental design" patent on their look and feel.
Utility patents cover methods and processes
Design patents cover look and only look.
In other words, to infringe a utility patent, you have to do the same thing in the same way (this is vastly simplified).
To infringe a design patent, you have to make something that looks *exactly the same*.
They really shouldn't even be called patents.
They just aren't that interesting.
Lotus attempted to stop anyone from making menus that performed the same processes and actions as their menus by using a utility patent.
If Lotus had only gotten a design patent on their menus, they wouldn't have even had a case because Borland's menus don't look the same.
You can't get a design patent on something like using keystrokes to perform an action, since it's not a look.
You sound awfully bitter.
Maybe they just didn't think your personality would fit in?
Honestly, I don't either.
A lot of questions are asked to see if you can answer them without taking them personally (IE 'why didn't you go to a better school'), as people who take things personally tend not to be good at things like, say, having their code reviewed by a lot of people.
You also seem pretty impressed with yourself and your resume. A lot of Googler's have done great things to, they just don't talk about them as much, and let their accomplishments speak for themselves.
There is certainly the possibility that you just found a bunch of assholes there, but at least from the post you've just made, i'm pretty sure they made the right choice anyway.
Uh, it does index Subversion and CVS repos.
Why do people not read?
without permission. You may get sued for assault.
How can any of you seriously expect Google to take a stand and not turn over information about a guy trading child porn on Orkut?
This is not some questionable case where the person is a political dissident, or something. They have records of this person's account, trading child porn. They want to know who he is.
Do you honestly think there is any sane way to take a stand on this issue and not look like a complete monster?
If they don't turn over the information, people will say they are protecting child molesters.
If they do turn over the information, people will say they are violating people's privacy.
IMHO, They deliberately try to make it sound like the EFF is at the forefront of this case, appealing it to the Supreme Court.
What really has happened is that KSR has gone to the Supreme Court asking for review, and the Supreme Court granted review.
This happened a few months back, actually.
The EFF has filed a brief in support of KSR.
About 10 other briefs in support of KSR have been filed in support of KSR, besides the EFF one, including some more important ones, like the Solicitor General's (representing the views of the US/Bush Administration).
The Supreme Court generally cares more about what the SG thinks than the EFF.
So, uh, what makes you think google created that project
If you look at the settings, next to every checkbox for "sync this", there is another check box for "encrypt this".
Literally everything it can sync can be encrypted.
Second, it syncs much more than bookmarks.
I for one, enjoy having my history, tabs, and windows saved between the laptop and desktops I work on.
If you look at the extension, you will see you can choose to encrypt any/all of what it can sync.
Guess what happens if you run SPEC rate on a two processor machine?
...
You get twice the SPEC rate of a single processor machine!
So if it's only twice as fast as a *single processor* iMac G5, then it's
NOT FASTER.
SPEC rate is a useless benchmark when comparing a different number of CPU's.
The cinebench stuff or whatever is more valid.
XEmacs CVS now has XFT support (yay, anti-aliased fonts everwhere!), and an incremental GC, so no more pauses.
I used to use regular emacs, but with no pause times scrolling around and super-clear fonts, i now use xemacs.
Do you even understand how to read patents?
If you look at that patent, the actual *meat of what the patent is*, the claims, are very short, simple sentences, and there are 6 of them.
The specification (which is what you are reading) has very different statutory requirements, and is *not* (except in some corner cases, so that i don't get bitched at from someone else who actually understand) defining what the patent covers.
You could include the text of novels if you wanted to in the spec.
I'm not sure what gave the person who submitted the story, or the editor who posted the story, the idea that 4.1 was released, but it isn't. In fact, it was just branched less than a week ago. We haven't even put out an RC yet! Really, it's not out. When it is, you will see something sent to gcc-announce
Except that SQLObjects for python has a very close syntax and *does* do what LINQ does. Sorry, it's not innovation, nor have just "building blocks" been available on other platforms. It's been here, in production use, for years now.
it's not like you need to spend years secluded in monestary to learn to read this stuff. It's about 2 hours, maybe. If a patent can't be understood by someone skilled in the art, it's invalid.
It can be understood, it just requires study, the same way understanding source code requires study.
While 45 pages seems a bit much for a small patent, claim language is a very technical and precise thing.
Unless you are a registered patent agent, or have studied patent law, saying you can't understand the claims without studying how to is like saying you can't understand french without studying how to.