Along with this, they're only taking into account the results it finds. After a certain point, it's just "good enough". And then it boils down to the interface. And look at Google's - clean, simplistic, without clutter or useless information. Do people really want a "portal" when they search? I would say no, but my own personal preferences more than likely skew my perspective quite some way from reality.
Probably one of the best things that could happen, though. Maybe then people will realize that resting on your laurels is always a bad idea in the long run.
Look, whether one company sues you for 1 million dollars or 150 companies sue you for 150 million dollars, it's still too much money for a person to ever pay back. After the award is over a quarter of a million dollars, they may as well make it Infinite Dollars for all the good it's going to do them.
That argument has merit until you follow it out to the extremes. Is a pen cap art? What about each individual Cheerio? How about a pile of dog crap? It's all been produced, but the quality, however, is, at best, mundane, and at worse...feces.
There comes a point where you have to draw a line - and I admit that it is a grey area, and up for interpretation - as to what art may be. Saying everything is art completely removes whatever meaning the word may have.
I really wonder whether that's true or not (the 90% pirated mp3 thing). I would say about 20% of my songs are pirated; the rest are ripped. Just by taking a short poll of my coworkers, most agree (I'm actually the most pirate of the bunch (yarrr!). Then again, we have another guy here with over 200 gb (?!?!) of pirated music. (As an aside: what in the hell did he do, download mp3s of someone singing everything in the Library of Congress?)
Of course, this goes under the (potentially false) assumption that Identity Theft is a law in and of itself. The previous sibling seems to be more knowledgeable than myself on this.
They aren't arguing about the legality of the content, but rather, the legality of signing up for a service under someone else's name. I imagine the plaintiff is trying to get John Doe in trouble with the law because of the satire but through the "identity theft". You can make as much satire about me as you'd like, but the moment you steal something of mine to do it, I can turn the powers-that-be against you.
Or at least that seems to be their case. Whether or not it'll fly or not, I don't know. The question is; is signing up for a service under someone else's name Identity Theft, Fraud, or... nothing? I'm a geek, not a lawyer.
I live in the middle of BFE - my nearest neighbor is half a mile away. I'm more worried about the FCC or whoever it is that governs who gets to touch what part of the whatever spectrum.:(
I always thought it would be cool if you could digitize the complete collection of a library's books, complete with (relatively) good metadata and the ability to fully search the contents of every single book for _whatever_ (yeah, I know, the latter has lots of overhead, so make sure the metadata is good enough people don't feel the need to use it). Sell (or loan) those digital book readers and allow people to check out books on those. I bet it would probably be cheaper to buy every person a digital book reader than it would be to lay fiber to their house.
Then the best thing to do would be to take them out of circulation for a few years. What is theft or fraud to a normal person? A few years in jail? Alright, same with a corporation. Also force businesses to pay their employees a decent severence package to make up for it.
It would basically be suicide for any corporation to break the law, then.
Why should the government be doing this? Yes, I am a fan of a government laying the infrastructure in the first place, but that isn't what happened here. Someone else spent millions on this and you're just going to take it? That isn't, nor should it be, legal. If the service is really that bad, get a huge petition together and lobby a different telecommunications company to lay their own lines and render SBC inefective. THAT is your option. Not to just take it because they manage it improperly.
I may like "manuring" or "pruning" the economic field (such as the state laying infrastructure for UseX or stopping monopolies and advertising lies), which can be considered somewhat "Communist", but having the sort of control you propose is excessively over the "line"
Yes, but be realistic. Every single driver isn't going to slack off and not do their job every single hour of every single day for an entire year. I agree it's still a lot of money, but it's nowhere near 3 billion dollars.
Or bitch about them and hope against hope the powers-that-be change their mind instead of firing you. Of course it isn't illegal. And within reason, it shouldn't be. All the same, though, if you're not interested in a particular policy your employer institutes, you DO have the right to bitch. Sure, you'll probably be fired, but still. Complaints are still allowed.
How easy would it be for a terrorist (or a nation who doesn't particularly like the US) to set a nuke (or maybe even a large conventional bomb) in or around the volcano and wipe out the entire east coast in one fell swoop?
The problem isn't that they DRMed their stuff. Fine. Let them. It's theirs, not ours, even if we really, really want it to be. But not telling us that it is DRMed is misleading advertising. It's like selling someone a car that automatically spraypaints the inside of their garage or else refuses to turn on. If the car manufacturer requires a garage to be painted a certain color, then fine, they can do that, no matter how ridiculous it may be. But they have to make that extremely pertinent information known prior to the sale.
You'd be surprised. My father's family is that exact same way; my brother and step brother manage to buy these luxuries with whatever money they can scrounge up mowing lawns + christmas presents/birthday presents. I pretty much grew up with the fact that my parents were never, ever going to buy me anything other than the necessities, and that if I wanted something, I was going to have to get a job or do some neighborhood chores and get it myself.
I never claimed it was. Then again, you made the assumption on the fact that I criticized parents doing a bad job (at least in this particular facet of parenting) that I was automatically pro-legislation. I'm not. However, there are social problems that result from this. What we need to do is figure out a practical social response to this issue, not a knee-jerk reactionary legal solution. Any ideas?
Slashdot Mirror
Along with this, they're only taking into account the results it finds. After a certain point, it's just "good enough". And then it boils down to the interface. And look at Google's - clean, simplistic, without clutter or useless information. Do people really want a "portal" when they search? I would say no, but my own personal preferences more than likely skew my perspective quite some way from reality.
Gun vs. Family Starving In Street
I'm not so sure which is worse. Maybe that's just because I there are worse things than death.
Probably one of the best things that could happen, though. Maybe then people will realize that resting on your laurels is always a bad idea in the long run.
So...he's not a black pot, then?
...well that makes everything better, then, doesn't it?
Look, whether one company sues you for 1 million dollars or 150 companies sue you for 150 million dollars, it's still too much money for a person to ever pay back. After the award is over a quarter of a million dollars, they may as well make it Infinite Dollars for all the good it's going to do them.
That argument has merit until you follow it out to the extremes. Is a pen cap art? What about each individual Cheerio? How about a pile of dog crap? It's all been produced, but the quality, however, is, at best, mundane, and at worse...feces.
There comes a point where you have to draw a line - and I admit that it is a grey area, and up for interpretation - as to what art may be. Saying everything is art completely removes whatever meaning the word may have.
I really wonder whether that's true or not (the 90% pirated mp3 thing). I would say about 20% of my songs are pirated; the rest are ripped. Just by taking a short poll of my coworkers, most agree (I'm actually the most pirate of the bunch (yarrr!). Then again, we have another guy here with over 200 gb (?!?!) of pirated music. (As an aside: what in the hell did he do, download mp3s of someone singing everything in the Library of Congress?)
Fine then, I'll see your point and raise you the fact that we just changed it back. Get over it.
Of course, this goes under the (potentially false) assumption that Identity Theft is a law in and of itself. The previous sibling seems to be more knowledgeable than myself on this.
They aren't arguing about the legality of the content, but rather, the legality of signing up for a service under someone else's name. I imagine the plaintiff is trying to get John Doe in trouble with the law because of the satire but through the "identity theft". You can make as much satire about me as you'd like, but the moment you steal something of mine to do it, I can turn the powers-that-be against you.
Or at least that seems to be their case. Whether or not it'll fly or not, I don't know. The question is; is signing up for a service under someone else's name Identity Theft, Fraud, or... nothing? I'm a geek, not a lawyer.
I live in the middle of BFE - my nearest neighbor is half a mile away. I'm more worried about the FCC or whoever it is that governs who gets to touch what part of the whatever spectrum. :(
They dropped their prices a few months ago; it shouldn't be 30$ a month now!
What I want is to be able to setup my own cell phone tower* that funnels my "cell phone" calls over voip.
I always thought it would be cool if you could digitize the complete collection of a library's books, complete with (relatively) good metadata and the ability to fully search the contents of every single book for _whatever_ (yeah, I know, the latter has lots of overhead, so make sure the metadata is good enough people don't feel the need to use it). Sell (or loan) those digital book readers and allow people to check out books on those. I bet it would probably be cheaper to buy every person a digital book reader than it would be to lay fiber to their house.
I don't know, though, I just felt like rambling.
Then the best thing to do would be to take them out of circulation for a few years. What is theft or fraud to a normal person? A few years in jail? Alright, same with a corporation. Also force businesses to pay their employees a decent severence package to make up for it.
It would basically be suicide for any corporation to break the law, then.
Why should the government be doing this? Yes, I am a fan of a government laying the infrastructure in the first place, but that isn't what happened here. Someone else spent millions on this and you're just going to take it? That isn't, nor should it be, legal. If the service is really that bad, get a huge petition together and lobby a different telecommunications company to lay their own lines and render SBC inefective. THAT is your option. Not to just take it because they manage it improperly.
I may like "manuring" or "pruning" the economic field (such as the state laying infrastructure for UseX or stopping monopolies and advertising lies), which can be considered somewhat "Communist", but having the sort of control you propose is excessively over the "line"
I guess I better move IBM to the inconsequential list now :\
Yes, but be realistic. Every single driver isn't going to slack off and not do their job every single hour of every single day for an entire year. I agree it's still a lot of money, but it's nowhere near 3 billion dollars.
Or bitch about them and hope against hope the powers-that-be change their mind instead of firing you. Of course it isn't illegal. And within reason, it shouldn't be. All the same, though, if you're not interested in a particular policy your employer institutes, you DO have the right to bitch. Sure, you'll probably be fired, but still. Complaints are still allowed.
Oh, well, in that case, we're safe. Although I would prefer someone threw the cast of "The Real Gilligan's Island" in instead. :)
How easy would it be for a terrorist (or a nation who doesn't particularly like the US) to set a nuke (or maybe even a large conventional bomb) in or around the volcano and wipe out the entire east coast in one fell swoop?
It isn't mother nature I'm concerned about, it's someone "helping" mother nature along.
The problem isn't that they DRMed their stuff. Fine. Let them. It's theirs, not ours, even if we really, really want it to be. But not telling us that it is DRMed is misleading advertising. It's like selling someone a car that automatically spraypaints the inside of their garage or else refuses to turn on. If the car manufacturer requires a garage to be painted a certain color, then fine, they can do that, no matter how ridiculous it may be. But they have to make that extremely pertinent information known prior to the sale.
What, are you saying you can't make a living without greed and deceit?
Fucking immoral capitalist swine.
Bastard ducks!
You'd be surprised. My father's family is that exact same way; my brother and step brother manage to buy these luxuries with whatever money they can scrounge up mowing lawns + christmas presents/birthday presents. I pretty much grew up with the fact that my parents were never, ever going to buy me anything other than the necessities, and that if I wanted something, I was going to have to get a job or do some neighborhood chores and get it myself.
I never claimed it was. Then again, you made the assumption on the fact that I criticized parents doing a bad job (at least in this particular facet of parenting) that I was automatically pro-legislation. I'm not. However, there are social problems that result from this. What we need to do is figure out a practical social response to this issue, not a knee-jerk reactionary legal solution. Any ideas?