Via this posting, I am officially informing Sourceforge that editor kdawson has been using the site "slashdot.org" to send sensitive information to terrorist cells around the world via bogus article summaries.
See? Now that I've informed Sourceforge, it's incumbent upon them to take Slashdot down or suffer the consequences.
Heck with the political stuff. They should outlaw robocalls for ALL purposes - including bill collecting.
The last two cell phone numbers I had were bombarded by robocalls from bill collectors looking for the previous owner of the phone number. Those calls offer automated options for the intended recipient, but NO automated option for "wrong phone number". Instead they give you a number for you to call and wait on hold if you want to tell them that the person is not at you number.
Whenever their call yields a caller ID number, I report it as a telemarketing call. I get a letter a month later explaining that it wasn't, but at least I've caused someone some trouble.
One of the shrinks that I saw for my depression tried giving me books to read about my condition. It wasn't much help. But one of these books mentioned a study that I found interesting.
The study had subjected depression patients (and a control group) to various stimuli over the course of several days. They strove for an even balance of good and bad stimuli *. At the end, the subjects were asked to evaluate their experiences.
The hypothesis was that the depressed subjects would have an excessively negative view of their experiences, while the control group would have a more positive evaluation.
What they found was the the control group had wildly inaccurate perceptions of their experience - either very positive or very negative. The depressed group had a much more accurate perception of their experience - rating it more neutral overall.
The conclusion was that depressed people have a heightened perception and better understanding of what is happening than "normal" people.
Needless to say, I did not find this very encouraging. (And if I'm ill because I understand too much, then explaining more to me doesn't sound like an effective cure).
* Yeah, I'd really love to know how they quantified any of this.
Way to support your argument. Tell others to look it up for you.
It's not FBI statistics. It's a biased and thoroughly debunked study. Google "Kellerman Study Gun Control".
The study said that a gun in the home was much more likely to be used against you or your loved ones than to kill an attacker. The catch was in the careful wording. Successful defense was counted only as killing an attacker - not warding him off. And use against a loved one included domestic violence (killing an abusive spouse). The sample data was from one select county in Washington over a mere 5 years.
Given a little thought, the statistic doesn't make much sense. How is an intruder who doesn't know I have a gun or where it is far more likely to wind up with that gun than me? And if I have it out and pointed at him, what are the odds he can take it without being shot?
Unless you believe that criminals have superhuman strength and prowess while the rest of society is meek and mild, it's hard to see how that statistic is believable.
all the shills here still trying to call I4i a patent troll. ...
Go read about how Rome's, and every other major civilization's, society crumbled and you'll see the same exact types of behavior......
Wow. Here I thought this was just a simple patent dispute. I never realized that the very future of western civilization is hanging in the balance!
I can't understand how credit reports are even legal.
Exactly. I find it beyond belief that these entities are shielded from libel laws simply because they are corporations.
If you go about spreading false information about me that harms me in some way, I can sue you for libel.
But if a company spreads false information about me that prevents me from getting a job or a credit account - well hey, it's just an understandable mistake right?. And it's my job to fill out their forms and jump through all their hoops and satisfy them so they will stop lying about me to others. *
These companies should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else. They should be legally liable for any inaccurate information that they spread and any harm that comes to anyone from it.
* (A "he said/she said" dispute would be one thing. But when they report someone else's accounts as mine and refuse to stop when asked, then they cross the line into deliberately spreading lies and should be on the hook for damages.)
Modded interesting? Your examples have no basis in reality - you just popped them out of your ass.
That is you can't sell your old beater Honda Civic if the seatbelts are broken,
You most certainly can sell a non functioning car. It happens all the time. People sell cars in all sorts of conditions to hobbyists who restore them or scrap yards that sell parts off of them. In my state, buyers often insist on a mechanic inspecting a vehicle first, since it's perfectly legal to sell one that doesn't pass the state's annual safety inspection. It isn't necessary for a car to have a windshield or brakes - let alone seatbelts - in order to sell it.
You can't sell rotten apples as "non-food-substance"
Rotten apples certainly can be sold and actually are for hog feed or making cider vinegar.
In most places, there is nothing wrong with selling something that doesn't work for it's primary purpose - as long as you don't mislead the buyer about the condition of the item. Yes, in most places there are warranties that you cannot disclaim. But if you warrant (claim) the apples to be rotten, you are certainly within the warranty.
Low brake fluid shouldn't cause a vibrating tire either.
I'm guessing that he pulled the tire off the rim to patch it from the inside. When he put the tire back on the rim, he balanced it. That's what stopped the vibration.
If the brake fluid was low enough to screw with the ABS unit, then you needed more than a tip off. You needed the brakes bled.
...after Internet users claiming to have received the treatment wrote in blogs and forums about being tied down and subjected to shocks for 30 minutes at a time."
They received electric shocks for Internet addiction, and then rushed right out to blog about it?
I'd say that's a pretty good indication that their condition is hopeless.....
This post is for the benefit of those who are less familiar with the issue at hand. While technically a reply, it is not directed to you as you are likely beyond redemption.
You refer to 'your' domains as 'property', and ascribe the anger directed at you to jealousy. You err on both accounts.
A domain is nothing more than an entry in a database meant to direct a seeker to something useful. The domain is not 'property' - the database as a whole is. And you do not own it.
Your function is not to provide something useful, but to interfere with the intended use of the database. You are not selling property - you are offering to remove your interference for a fee. Your 'business model' is little different than piling rocks on a road and then offering to let drivers pass for a fee.
As proof of this, ICANN offers a procedure for relief from bottom-feeders like you. Unfortunately the procedure is lengthy and expensive enough that most find it easier to simply pay the troll to cross the bridge.
In short, the only product that you have to offer anyone is your absence - the permanent state of which cannot come soon enough.
You should probably read the Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3. And then the Constitution.
And which army of which government were these prisoners fighting for?
Actual prisoners of war have been treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Iraqi soldiers have not been sent to GITMO. They were POWs in POW camps that were either released or handed over to the new Iraqi government after the war.
Those in GITMO are not prisoners of war. They are not uniformed enemy soldiers - they are people from outside the Iraqi government / military who went to Iraq to shoot at and bomb American soldiers. They do not represent any government and are no more subject to the Geneva Convention than Timothy McVeigh.
And regardless of your feelings on the matter, none of these people were in the United States when they committed these acts. Just as a French citizen is not subject to US law or the Constitution while in France, these people are not subject to it in Iraq.
Even Obama tacitly acknowledges this. The whole reason for not bringing these people into the US for trial is that bringing them here would confer constitutional rights on them. Has Obama done this? No. He's closing GITMO so he say that he ended Bush's policies that he campaigned against. But all he's doing is moving the prisoners to other foreign locations. It's a political shell game - same dirt swept under a different rug.
The first sign is that you regard all atheists as "the community". The second is that you feel that all "community members" *ought* to fight for "the cause".
The only thing that all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a supernatural god. That's it. Holding that belief doesn't confer any obligations on anyone. Nor does it necessarily mean that one has to care what the superstitious around him believe.
> When normal, well adjusted Atheists like you deny our community, you cede our voice to the loudest and angriest among us.
> Also, are you a racist? "12 kids on a 40 IQ and government handouts," where the fuck do you live???
He didn't say anything about race. He described the despicable way that some people live.
You are the one thinking "ooh! ooh! I know what race that is!". You are the one ascribing those attributes to a particular race, then covering by claiming that he is racist for making the association that you just made.
So what will you buy instead? A new Dell pre-loaded with Vista, because Dell and MS are
sooo much more open?
If you're going to boycott every company that pulls this kind of crap, get ready to grow your own food and cultivate your own penicillin too. Monsanto and the drug companies make Apple look like total hippies.
After high school, you'll find out that they ALL play dirty. It won't change unless we reform our "IP" laws.
The idea isn't to open the floor to freaks. It's to get a more accurate sampling of public support.
Hypothetical situation - you have a democrat, a republican, and an independent in the race. Roughly half the voters vote for the democrat because they are the "mainstream" party, but they strongly support the independent. The other half vote for the republican for the same reason, but also strongly support the independent.
The independent may actually have a stronger base of support, but that isn't reflected by our current system.
In our last election Obama was chosen over Hillary by a subset of the population, then was chosen over McCain by the general population. This doesn't really tell us which (Obama or Hillary) has the broadest support in the general population.
Why post AC? This was actually an insightful and relevant answer.
I'm not convinced that the spam blogs actually want to become legit. But someone running a blog and wanting some insurance against infringement suits might take to an advertiser with this model.
As for the overhead though, analyzing a site for possible infringement is a bit more trouble than looking for advertiser related keywords. It would like involve some human work. Then there's the subject of what should be paid for and what is fair use (which we all know doesn't exist in the publisher's worlds). And there are enough disputes out there over advertising payments as it is. Once the advertiser has apportion revenue between three parties instead of two, there's going to be a lot more griping.
On that last issue alone I'd expect to see many websites dump participating advertisers for non-participating ones.
Slashdot Mirror
See? Now that I've informed Sourceforge, it's incumbent upon them to take Slashdot down or suffer the consequences.
The last two cell phone numbers I had were bombarded by robocalls from bill collectors looking for the previous owner of the phone number. Those calls offer automated options for the intended recipient, but NO automated option for "wrong phone number". Instead they give you a number for you to call and wait on hold if you want to tell them that the person is not at you number.
Whenever their call yields a caller ID number, I report it as a telemarketing call. I get a letter a month later explaining that it wasn't, but at least I've caused someone some trouble.
The study had subjected depression patients (and a control group) to various stimuli over the course of several days. They strove for an even balance of good and bad stimuli *. At the end, the subjects were asked to evaluate their experiences.
The hypothesis was that the depressed subjects would have an excessively negative view of their experiences, while the control group would have a more positive evaluation.
What they found was the the control group had wildly inaccurate perceptions of their experience - either very positive or very negative. The depressed group had a much more accurate perception of their experience - rating it more neutral overall.
The conclusion was that depressed people have a heightened perception and better understanding of what is happening than "normal" people.
Needless to say, I did not find this very encouraging. (And if I'm ill because I understand too much, then explaining more to me doesn't sound like an effective cure).
* Yeah, I'd really love to know how they quantified any of this.
FBI statistics. Look it up."
Way to support your argument. Tell others to look it up for you.
It's not FBI statistics. It's a biased and thoroughly debunked study. Google "Kellerman Study Gun Control".
The study said that a gun in the home was much more likely to be used against you or your loved ones than to kill an attacker. The catch was in the careful wording. Successful defense was counted only as killing an attacker - not warding him off. And use against a loved one included domestic violence (killing an abusive spouse). The sample data was from one select county in Washington over a mere 5 years.
Given a little thought, the statistic doesn't make much sense. How is an intruder who doesn't know I have a gun or where it is far more likely to wind up with that gun than me? And if I have it out and pointed at him, what are the odds he can take it without being shot?
Unless you believe that criminals have superhuman strength and prowess while the rest of society is meek and mild, it's hard to see how that statistic is believable.
all the shills here still trying to call I4i a patent troll.
...
Go read about how Rome's, and every other major civilization's, society crumbled and you'll see the same exact types of behavior......
Wow. Here I thought this was just a simple patent dispute. I never realized that the very future of western civilization is hanging in the balance!
I can't understand how credit reports are even legal.
Exactly. I find it beyond belief that these entities are shielded from libel laws simply because they are corporations.
If you go about spreading false information about me that harms me in some way, I can sue you for libel.
But if a company spreads false information about me that prevents me from getting a job or a credit account - well hey, it's just an understandable mistake right?. And it's my job to fill out their forms and jump through all their hoops and satisfy them so they will stop lying about me to others. *
These companies should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else. They should be legally liable for any inaccurate information that they spread and any harm that comes to anyone from it.
* (A "he said /she said" dispute would be one thing. But when they report someone else's accounts as mine and refuse to stop when asked, then they cross the line into deliberately spreading lies and should be on the hook for damages.)
That is you can't sell your old beater Honda Civic if the seatbelts are broken,
You most certainly can sell a non functioning car. It happens all the time. People sell cars in all sorts of conditions to hobbyists who restore them or scrap yards that sell parts off of them. In my state, buyers often insist on a mechanic inspecting a vehicle first, since it's perfectly legal to sell one that doesn't pass the state's annual safety inspection. It isn't necessary for a car to have a windshield or brakes - let alone seatbelts - in order to sell it.
You can't sell rotten apples as "non-food-substance"
Rotten apples certainly can be sold and actually are for hog feed or making cider vinegar.
In most places, there is nothing wrong with selling something that doesn't work for it's primary purpose - as long as you don't mislead the buyer about the condition of the item. Yes, in most places there are warranties that you cannot disclaim. But if you warrant (claim) the apples to be rotten, you are certainly within the warranty.
I'm guessing that he pulled the tire off the rim to patch it from the inside. When he put the tire back on the rim, he balanced it. That's what stopped the vibration.
If the brake fluid was low enough to screw with the ABS unit, then you needed more than a tip off. You needed the brakes bled.
...after Internet users claiming to have received the treatment wrote in blogs and forums about being tied down and subjected to shocks for 30 minutes at a time."
They received electric shocks for Internet addiction, and then rushed right out to blog about it?
I'd say that's a pretty good indication that their condition is hopeless.....
The only benefit you offer anyone is your absence.
That should be your eulogy. "All he had to offer us was his absence. We gather today to celebrate his only significant achievement."
You refer to 'your' domains as 'property', and ascribe the anger directed at you to jealousy. You err on both accounts.
A domain is nothing more than an entry in a database meant to direct a seeker to something useful. The domain is not 'property' - the database as a whole is. And you do not own it.
Your function is not to provide something useful, but to interfere with the intended use of the database. You are not selling property - you are offering to remove your interference for a fee. Your 'business model' is little different than piling rocks on a road and then offering to let drivers pass for a fee.
As proof of this, ICANN offers a procedure for relief from bottom-feeders like you. Unfortunately the procedure is lengthy and expensive enough that most find it easier to simply pay the troll to cross the bridge.
In short, the only product that you have to offer anyone is your absence - the permanent state of which cannot come soon enough.
In other words - fuck off and die.
You should probably read the Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3. And then the Constitution.
And which army of which government were these prisoners fighting for?
Actual prisoners of war have been treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Iraqi soldiers have not been sent to GITMO. They were POWs in POW camps that were either released or handed over to the new Iraqi government after the war.
Those in GITMO are not prisoners of war. They are not uniformed enemy soldiers - they are people from outside the Iraqi government / military who went to Iraq to shoot at and bomb American soldiers. They do not represent any government and are no more subject to the Geneva Convention than Timothy McVeigh.
And regardless of your feelings on the matter, none of these people were in the United States when they committed these acts. Just as a French citizen is not subject to US law or the Constitution while in France, these people are not subject to it in Iraq.
Even Obama tacitly acknowledges this. The whole reason for not bringing these people into the US for trial is that bringing them here would confer constitutional rights on them. Has Obama done this? No. He's closing GITMO so he say that he ended Bush's policies that he campaigned against. But all he's doing is moving the prisoners to other foreign locations. It's a political shell game - same dirt swept under a different rug.
A problem here is that the esteemed young republican from the deep south does the right thing for the wrong reasons.
This is the first time I've ever heard Utah referred to as "the deep south".
Mix stereotypes much?
If brain activity is detected, then you are not a Senator.
But there is some phallic fascination with brain case size
Naw. Those researchers are just dickheads.
Extreme cases can also cause aggrevated swelling of the brain as it's shrinkage puts more pressure on the neurons.
Hurry. It looks like you don't have a moment to lose.
The first sign is that you regard all atheists as "the community". The second is that you feel that all "community members" *ought* to fight for "the cause".
The only thing that all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a supernatural god. That's it. Holding that belief doesn't confer any obligations on anyone. Nor does it necessarily mean that one has to care what the superstitious around him believe.
> When normal, well adjusted Atheists like you deny our community, you cede our voice to the loudest and angriest among us.
Yeah, that kind of says it all....
The only classic text I remember from school was Science Made Stupid.
I believe the actual expression is "slower than moles asses in January"
He didn't say anything about race. He described the despicable way that some people live.
You are the one thinking "ooh! ooh! I know what race that is!". You are the one ascribing those attributes to a particular race, then covering by claiming that he is racist for making the association that you just made.
sooo much more open?
If you're going to boycott every company that pulls this kind of crap, get ready to grow your own food and cultivate your own penicillin too. Monsanto and the drug companies make Apple look like total hippies.
After high school, you'll find out that they ALL play dirty. It won't change unless we reform our "IP" laws.
In related news, incidences of epileptic seizures drop sharply following death of Geocities.
Hypothetical situation - you have a democrat, a republican, and an independent in the race. Roughly half the voters vote for the democrat because they are the "mainstream" party, but they strongly support the independent. The other half vote for the republican for the same reason, but also strongly support the independent.
The independent may actually have a stronger base of support, but that isn't reflected by our current system.
In our last election Obama was chosen over Hillary by a subset of the population, then was chosen over McCain by the general population. This doesn't really tell us which (Obama or Hillary) has the broadest support in the general population.
Because we don't have a Tube Force?
I'm not convinced that the spam blogs actually want to become legit. But someone running a blog and wanting some insurance against infringement suits might take to an advertiser with this model.
As for the overhead though, analyzing a site for possible infringement is a bit more trouble than looking for advertiser related keywords. It would like involve some human work. Then there's the subject of what should be paid for and what is fair use (which we all know doesn't exist in the publisher's worlds). And there are enough disputes out there over advertising payments as it is. Once the advertiser has apportion revenue between three parties instead of two, there's going to be a lot more griping.
On that last issue alone I'd expect to see many websites dump participating advertisers for non-participating ones.