... it took Microsoft to finally produce a web browser that performs as well as other browsers were doing in their previous generations, and meanwhile the one they actually have in production (IE8) sucks eggs. So what else is new? Have they got a modern filesystem yet?
When you create the legal fiction that an intangible conglomeration of people, united solely in their desire to exploit other people for monetary gain, counts as a human being under the law, weird shit starts happening.
If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.
"Lean toward?" India took billions of rubles in Soviet military equipment and actively participated in Soviet intelligence activities. Yeah, that's just "leaning toward."
Let me get something straight here. The one, only, singular, final, absolute reason the US supported Pakistan was to undermine the Soviets. Had the Indians been willing to resist Soviet totalitarianism in the early 1950s when we asked them to, we would never have gone near Pakistan or at least have equally supported both countries. Those were the terms of the Cold War. Don't blame America for India's unwillingness to get involved in the war against tyranny until it was politically convenient to do so, and then picking the wrong side of history.
And yes, I am perfectly well aware that the Pakistani government was up to very nasty things in the 1970s with the people of Bangladesh. But to cast the Indians as the white knight in that particular conflict is, as the Germans say, Quatsch reden.
Wow, touchy much? Admittedly Indo-Soviet relations warmed up in the 1950s after the Pakistanis started taking military aid through SEATO, but the Indians always had the choice to, I don't know, not menace the Pakistanis, who at one-tenth the population never posed a serious threat to them. We wanted strategic entrenchment against the Soviets in Asia and we were prepared to take it any way we could get it; if the Indians had been willing to play ball and not pursue their ridiculous non-alignment policy (which of course they ended up breaking anyway) we probably would have supplied both them and the Pakistanis. It's the same reason why we supported Israel and Turkey.
Whenever the US undergoes a military buildup the Canadians don't run to the nearest dictatorship and start building nuclear weapons. India wanted regional hegemony, was pissed off that American anti-Soviet policy happened to be bulking up their biggest competitor for that role, namely China, so they ran off to the Soviets and started up Smiling Buddha. To suggest that they somehow had clean hands then, or that their international ambitions have somehow cooled off in the meantime, is ridiculous.
A lot of people don't know this, but the Indians were closely aligned with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. In particular you had the Indo-Soviet Treaty, under which India received military and (gasp) intelligence assistance from the Russians.
So the fact that they're behaving like pseudo-socialist totalitarians right now shouldn't really surprise anybody. And provided they continue to rent their workforce to US corporations at rates that can't be competed with on US soil, our CEOs and CFOs will continue to patronize them.
I realize this map is intended to be pretty much science-only, but if that's the case, can you please leave off the "reason and critical thinking" part? It kind of raises my hackles a bit when a document claims to list prominent personalities in the history of critical thought and leaves off such basic people as, I don't know, Plato and Aristotle. If you plot Western thought on a Tube map they're Paddington Station.
I could go on with a pretty massive list of non-empirical non-mathematicians, but let's just stick with those two to avoid confusion.
From the article: "The result of the problem is the creation of what amounts to a backdoor in the QuickTime code, Santamarta said. 'WATCH OUT! Do not hype this issue beyond it deserves...'"
Looks like we already missed the boat on that one.
This is what I want to know: Is Microsoft's new stance a sort of "this is the way the world is going, we'd better at least pretend to get with the program," or is it more like "we need to do a better job with PR of covering up our continuing efforts to break and absorb every platform that isn't ours?"
Of course the Fed won't prosecute them. After all, it'd just be hypocritical if they went after a bunch of perverted quasi-Orwellian miscreants for doing, on a much smaller scale, the same kind of espionage the Fed directs against its own citizens on a daily basis.
5 billion devices is, let's face it, outside the capacity of an addressing scheme (IPv4) that originally only anticipated a shade over 4 billion possible devices. Why are we not moving over to IPv6 faster? I don't know much about networking and related issues; what are the big challenges for IPv6 going forward?
"Its influence ever further?" Isn't this just good competition in the social networking space? Google is a far more monolithic company than Facebook, its goal being to have its hooks in all the world's information, and they've been trying to muscle in on social media as well (Buzz, Wave, Me, etc.). I haven't heard complaints about that.
When company B resists buyout by company A and company A then starts competing directly with company B, it's usually because company A had decided to move into company B's market to begin with and thought that the easiest way to get into the space would be to grab up and integrate an established player. Witness for instance Apple's strategic purchases of all sorts of companies associated with its mobile technologies. Recently they've gotten multitouch technology from FingerWorks and power-efficient mobile CPU tech from P.A. Semi, both of which ended up in their iOS devices.
Likewise, when Google decided to get into social networking for serious (as in not Orkut) they made an offer to buy Facebook, and when that fell through they started fiddling with things like Buzz, Wave, and now Me. Clearly social is a big part of Google's strategy going forward, and they tried to make that easier by grabbing up an established player.
So, Facebook clearly wanted in on the geolocation game, and their first move was to -- guess what -- buy up someone who already had some success in the business, FourSquare. When that fell through they decided to build their own product, which may or may not become a serious competitor to FourSquare. This is absolutely bog-standard business practice in Silicon Valley.
I guess next we'll hear that Facebook bought land for an office space in Nevada, and the headline on Slashdot will be "FACEBOOK PLANNING NEW AREA 51, GEOLOCATING DEMON BOTS TO SCOUR THE EARTH OF MYSPACE USERS."
What do you mean, you've never been to Alpha Centauri? For heavens' sakes, mankind, it's only five light-years away. Look, I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local politics that's your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
Apathetic bloody planet... I've no sympathy at all.
Nope. That's categorically wrong, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how contracts law and equity actually work. Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit.
"Ad hominem?" He's been indicted by the State of New York for a crime that goes directly to his credibility in any claim of contractual obligation.
YANAL, so I'll forgive you for not knowing basic New York contract law:
213. Actions to be commenced within six years: where not otherwise
provided for; on contract; on sealed instrument; on bond or note, and
mortgage upon real property; by state based on misappropriation of
public property; based on mistake; by corporation against director,
officer or stockholder; based on fraud. The following actions must be
commenced within six years:
1. an action for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by
law;
2. an action upon a contractual obligation or liability, express or
implied, except as provided in section two hundred thirteen-a of this
article or article 2 of the uniform commercial code or article 36-B of
the general business law;
[snip]
In short, assuming (contrary to fact) that this guy's claim is genuine, his opportunity to allege a claim of breached contract expired the date the performance in the contract came due. That would have been six years from February of 2004, when Facebook went live. He's a few months late.
Of course even if he'd brought the claim in February he'd probably be barred under equity by laches.
A contract alleged by a guy who's currently under federal indictment for fraud alleges he owns 84% of Facebook based on a seven year-old contract he never bothered to assert any rights under and is therefore barred by the statute of limitations. If you believe a damn word that huckster says I have a bridge to sell you on the cheap.
Wait, wasn't he supposed to have stolen the idea from a couple of millionaire playboys? Or wasn't it that guy who thought he was interesting enough to write an autobiography right after getting out of college? Or wasn't it one of the many predecessor sites he stole the idea from? I'm confused, you're going to have to help me out. If he stole the idea, whose idea was it to begin with again?
Slashdot Mirror
... it took Microsoft to finally produce a web browser that performs as well as other browsers were doing in their previous generations, and meanwhile the one they actually have in production (IE8) sucks eggs. So what else is new? Have they got a modern filesystem yet?
I'm sorry, what? Who's losing rights when we say enough to the abuse of a poorly designed vehicle for business activity?
Libertarians are statists like the rest of us, it's just that in their language "state" starts with C and ends with N.
When you create the legal fiction that an intangible conglomeration of people, united solely in their desire to exploit other people for monetary gain, counts as a human being under the law, weird shit starts happening.
If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.
Could you maybe have told me this _before_ I had them yanked?
"Lean toward?" India took billions of rubles in Soviet military equipment and actively participated in Soviet intelligence activities. Yeah, that's just "leaning toward."
Let me get something straight here. The one, only, singular, final, absolute reason the US supported Pakistan was to undermine the Soviets. Had the Indians been willing to resist Soviet totalitarianism in the early 1950s when we asked them to, we would never have gone near Pakistan or at least have equally supported both countries. Those were the terms of the Cold War. Don't blame America for India's unwillingness to get involved in the war against tyranny until it was politically convenient to do so, and then picking the wrong side of history.
Maybe I'm just an American ethnocentrist, but majoritarianism is not the same as liberal democracy, which requires you to not blow up the houses of worship of people you don't like.
And yes, I am perfectly well aware that the Pakistani government was up to very nasty things in the 1970s with the people of Bangladesh. But to cast the Indians as the white knight in that particular conflict is, as the Germans say, Quatsch reden.
Wow, touchy much? Admittedly Indo-Soviet relations warmed up in the 1950s after the Pakistanis started taking military aid through SEATO, but the Indians always had the choice to, I don't know, not menace the Pakistanis, who at one-tenth the population never posed a serious threat to them. We wanted strategic entrenchment against the Soviets in Asia and we were prepared to take it any way we could get it; if the Indians had been willing to play ball and not pursue their ridiculous non-alignment policy (which of course they ended up breaking anyway) we probably would have supplied both them and the Pakistanis. It's the same reason why we supported Israel and Turkey.
Whenever the US undergoes a military buildup the Canadians don't run to the nearest dictatorship and start building nuclear weapons. India wanted regional hegemony, was pissed off that American anti-Soviet policy happened to be bulking up their biggest competitor for that role, namely China, so they ran off to the Soviets and started up Smiling Buddha. To suggest that they somehow had clean hands then, or that their international ambitions have somehow cooled off in the meantime, is ridiculous.
A lot of people don't know this, but the Indians were closely aligned with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. In particular you had the Indo-Soviet Treaty, under which India received military and (gasp) intelligence assistance from the Russians.
So the fact that they're behaving like pseudo-socialist totalitarians right now shouldn't really surprise anybody. And provided they continue to rent their workforce to US corporations at rates that can't be competed with on US soil, our CEOs and CFOs will continue to patronize them.
I realize this map is intended to be pretty much science-only, but if that's the case, can you please leave off the "reason and critical thinking" part? It kind of raises my hackles a bit when a document claims to list prominent personalities in the history of critical thought and leaves off such basic people as, I don't know, Plato and Aristotle. If you plot Western thought on a Tube map they're Paddington Station. I could go on with a pretty massive list of non-empirical non-mathematicians, but let's just stick with those two to avoid confusion.
From the article: "The result of the problem is the creation of what amounts to a backdoor in the QuickTime code, Santamarta said. 'WATCH OUT! Do not hype this issue beyond it deserves...'"
Looks like we already missed the boat on that one.
Can someone please print out and mail this article to Alanis Morissette so she knows what irony is?
This is what I want to know: Is Microsoft's new stance a sort of "this is the way the world is going, we'd better at least pretend to get with the program," or is it more like "we need to do a better job with PR of covering up our continuing efforts to break and absorb every platform that isn't ours?"
Of course the Fed won't prosecute them. After all, it'd just be hypocritical if they went after a bunch of perverted quasi-Orwellian miscreants for doing, on a much smaller scale, the same kind of espionage the Fed directs against its own citizens on a daily basis.
5 billion devices is, let's face it, outside the capacity of an addressing scheme (IPv4) that originally only anticipated a shade over 4 billion possible devices. Why are we not moving over to IPv6 faster? I don't know much about networking and related issues; what are the big challenges for IPv6 going forward?
"Its influence ever further?" Isn't this just good competition in the social networking space? Google is a far more monolithic company than Facebook, its goal being to have its hooks in all the world's information, and they've been trying to muscle in on social media as well (Buzz, Wave, Me, etc.). I haven't heard complaints about that.
When company B resists buyout by company A and company A then starts competing directly with company B, it's usually because company A had decided to move into company B's market to begin with and thought that the easiest way to get into the space would be to grab up and integrate an established player. Witness for instance Apple's strategic purchases of all sorts of companies associated with its mobile technologies. Recently they've gotten multitouch technology from FingerWorks and power-efficient mobile CPU tech from P.A. Semi, both of which ended up in their iOS devices.
Likewise, when Google decided to get into social networking for serious (as in not Orkut) they made an offer to buy Facebook, and when that fell through they started fiddling with things like Buzz, Wave, and now Me. Clearly social is a big part of Google's strategy going forward, and they tried to make that easier by grabbing up an established player.
So, Facebook clearly wanted in on the geolocation game, and their first move was to -- guess what -- buy up someone who already had some success in the business, FourSquare. When that fell through they decided to build their own product, which may or may not become a serious competitor to FourSquare. This is absolutely bog-standard business practice in Silicon Valley.
I guess next we'll hear that Facebook bought land for an office space in Nevada, and the headline on Slashdot will be "FACEBOOK PLANNING NEW AREA 51, GEOLOCATING DEMON BOTS TO SCOUR THE EARTH OF MYSPACE USERS."
Maxwell's demon could not be reached for comment.
What do you mean, you've never been to Alpha Centauri? For heavens' sakes, mankind, it's only five light-years away. Look, I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local politics that's your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
Apathetic bloody planet... I've no sympathy at all.
Nope. That's categorically wrong, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how contracts law and equity actually work. Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit.
"Ad hominem?" He's been indicted by the State of New York for a crime that goes directly to his credibility in any claim of contractual obligation.
YANAL, so I'll forgive you for not knowing basic New York contract law:
213. Actions to be commenced within six years: where not otherwise
provided for; on contract; on sealed instrument; on bond or note, and
mortgage upon real property; by state based on misappropriation of
public property; based on mistake; by corporation against director,
officer or stockholder; based on fraud. The following actions must be
commenced within six years:
1. an action for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by
law;
2. an action upon a contractual obligation or liability, express or
implied, except as provided in section two hundred thirteen-a of this
article or article 2 of the uniform commercial code or article 36-B of
the general business law;
[snip]
In short, assuming (contrary to fact) that this guy's claim is genuine, his opportunity to allege a claim of breached contract expired the date the performance in the contract came due. That would have been six years from February of 2004, when Facebook went live. He's a few months late.
Of course even if he'd brought the claim in February he'd probably be barred under equity by laches.
A contract alleged by a guy who's currently under federal indictment for fraud alleges he owns 84% of Facebook based on a seven year-old contract he never bothered to assert any rights under and is therefore barred by the statute of limitations. If you believe a damn word that huckster says I have a bridge to sell you on the cheap.
Wait, wasn't he supposed to have stolen the idea from a couple of millionaire playboys? Or wasn't it that guy who thought he was interesting enough to write an autobiography right after getting out of college? Or wasn't it one of the many predecessor sites he stole the idea from? I'm confused, you're going to have to help me out. If he stole the idea, whose idea was it to begin with again?
[citation needed]
The kneebone's connected to the... something. The something's connected to the... red thing. The red thing's connected to my wristwatch...