I wonder if they're just trying to keep it alive and not lose too much money while they fulfill some kind of contractual obligations to HP. I'm sure they'd have to pony up some cash to HP if they just dropped it.
It's not hard to get a misspelling domain like yaho.com or googel.com on trademark grounds. Generic words are where most of the big money is spent on domains these days. Check out DN Journal to get a peek of what publicly announced domain sales are like these days. Plenty of 5-figures sales for the more generic terms.
You have to realize that most of the people who pay for porn are the vast, unwashed, naive people. You and I know how much free porn there is out there, whether torrents of DVD rips or whatever else. The people who pay for it are... AOL users, for example.
Search engine traffic is great for conversion ratios in the online porn industry. But sex.com isn't even in the first 100 results when I google the word sex. For it to be worth that, it's gotta be the type-ins. That, and the simple notoreity factor.
I'm about to look into Vintella Authentication Services to have Solaris boxes authenticate against a local Active Directory domain at one of the sites, simply because I keep getting locked out of systems I don't log into often enough, and also to make the SOX compliance audits go easier.
If anyone has any horror stories with doing that, please feel free to mention it.
Of course, when companies get nonsensical security policies, they force people into horribly inefficient and/or insecure workarounds.
Rather than issuing in-office consultants a company e-mail address, CCing a Yahoo.com e-mail address, besides being insecure and unaudited, just looks damn unprofessional.
Don't have a document management system, SFTP, or even FTP? People clog up Exchange with huge attachments with no central control or even a sense of where the authoritative copy of something can be found.
How many of us have run SSH on port 443 on an outside box just for SSH tunneling? I had an employer who blocked 22 specifically because the firewall guys new that inbound tunnels could be opened... but damn it if 443 wasn't wide open.
When C-level execs bitch about things, though, it's not hard to get someone in IT to demand the security equivalent of a chmod -R 777 /
In thinking about patents resulting from illegal behavior (I don't know if what the Korean guy did was illegal -- possibly fraud if nothing else), it would be interesting for a gov't to issue the patent, but assign it to the public domain.
That'd keep people from profiting from the illegal behavior, and also not allow someone else to come in and profit from it just because they're "clean".
Hey, if you prefer a real colonoscopy to a virtual one, go right ahead.:)
If on the other hand, you'd prefer an MRI to an anal probe, you might want to check into it.
Virtual colonoscopy (VC) uses x rays and computers to produce two- and three-dimensional images of the colon (large intestine) from the lowest part, the rectum, all the way to the lower end of the small intestine and display them on a screen. The procedure is used to diagnose colon and bowel disease, including polyps, diverticulosis, and cancer. VC can be performed with computed tomography (CT), sometimes called a CAT scan, or with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
While there's no shortage of SPIM on the proprietary networks, if federation means an increase in connectivity between disparate (and arbitrary?) IM networks, is there any trust process to keep rogue servers off of the network? Is it a matter of blacklisting/delinking?
Your argument falls apart with the books not even being Google's in the first place. By copying the books they didn't even pay for, the damage is nonzero.
Libraries don't have the right to buy one copy of a book and reproduce it.
Have you ever seen a photocopy of a book next to the real thing sitting on the bookshelf of a library?
Google's reproducing the book as a whole, in order to be able to allow access to snippets. And unlike the library, they didn't even buy the first copy!
Not that it'd be the sanest way to secure anything, but if IE is locked down to use a proxy, but port 80 is still open outbound, then Firefox is getting around the security policy, as flawed as it may be.
Alternately, if the user can set up a proxy of his own, SSH tunneled outbound, having the ability to use that proxy in Firefox vs. a locked down IE means that he can violate the security policy as well.
Managing risk is the company's business. Part of managing risk is knowing what the risk is, and accounting for it. If the company's done that and is still using IE, that's the company's choice.
What are the consequences of delisting? Less access to raise capital by issuing new shares? Was that really gonna happen with their current financial situation, anyway?
Re:Seems like fair use to me.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the EFF analysis: Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used: Favors Google. Google appears to be copying only as much as necessary (if you are enabling full-text searching, you need the full text), and only tiny snippets are made publicly accessible. Once again, Google looks a lot more like Arriba Soft than MP3.com.
They may only be providing snippets, but they're copying the whole damn thing.
While I'm not sure how I feel about whether or not it's fair use (I think that Google's activity may enable fair use, but not be fair use in itself), it certainly has the potential to be a disruptive technology in terms of research.
People tend to be afraid of disruption. It's natural. Google's got the pockets to deal with the repercussions, so I'm happy to let it play itself out, even if they get spanked with a billion dollar judgement against them.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if they're just trying to keep it alive and not lose too much money while they fulfill some kind of contractual obligations to HP. I'm sure they'd have to pony up some cash to HP if they just dropped it.
Depending on the features you need, you could probably get away with MS SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Edition, which is ~$800.
m pare-features.mspx
Recoding takes time and introduces risk. It's up to you to evaluate those against the $800.
Here's the edition matrix, in case you're interested.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/co
It's just like being a Nielsen household, but being able to choose afterwards to participate, instead of having to be selected beforehand.
Your Tivo's know what you watch for a while now.
The biggest concern I have is the potential for unwanted exposure of the data, via worm or "hacker".
OK, we know that Apple uses desktops and laptops to justify the switch to Intel, but what does this bode for the future of the Xserve line?
If Apple's going to be commodity CPU on the server front, then there's no incentive on the hardware front to pay for Apple.
Anyone looked into the possible marketing misstep by Intel stopping marketing their processors by clock speed?
It's not hard to get a misspelling domain like yaho.com or googel.com on trademark grounds. Generic words are where most of the big money is spent on domains these days. Check out DN Journal to get a peek of what publicly announced domain sales are like these days. Plenty of 5-figures sales for the more generic terms.
You have to realize that most of the people who pay for porn are the vast, unwashed, naive people. You and I know how much free porn there is out there, whether torrents of DVD rips or whatever else. The people who pay for it are... AOL users, for example.
Search engine traffic is great for conversion ratios in the online porn industry. But sex.com isn't even in the first 100 results when I google the word sex. For it to be worth that, it's gotta be the type-ins. That, and the simple notoreity factor.
I'm about to look into Vintella Authentication Services to have Solaris boxes authenticate against a local Active Directory domain at one of the sites, simply because I keep getting locked out of systems I don't log into often enough, and also to make the SOX compliance audits go easier.
If anyone has any horror stories with doing that, please feel free to mention it.
Of course, when companies get nonsensical security policies, they force people into horribly inefficient and/or insecure workarounds.
Rather than issuing in-office consultants a company e-mail address, CCing a Yahoo.com e-mail address, besides being insecure and unaudited, just looks damn unprofessional.
Don't have a document management system, SFTP, or even FTP? People clog up Exchange with huge attachments with no central control or even a sense of where the authoritative copy of something can be found.
How many of us have run SSH on port 443 on an outside box just for SSH tunneling? I had an employer who blocked 22 specifically because the firewall guys new that inbound tunnels could be opened... but damn it if 443 wasn't wide open.
When C-level execs bitch about things, though, it's not hard to get someone in IT to demand the security equivalent of a chmod -R 777 /
*sigh*
In thinking about patents resulting from illegal behavior (I don't know if what the Korean guy did was illegal -- possibly fraud if nothing else), it would be interesting for a gov't to issue the patent, but assign it to the public domain.
That'd keep people from profiting from the illegal behavior, and also not allow someone else to come in and profit from it just because they're "clean".
Hey, if you prefer a real colonoscopy to a virtual one, go right ahead. :)
If on the other hand, you'd prefer an MRI to an anal probe, you might want to check into it.
Virtual colonoscopy (VC) uses x rays and computers to produce two- and three-dimensional images of the colon (large intestine) from the lowest part, the rectum, all the way to the lower end of the small intestine and display them on a screen. The procedure is used to diagnose colon and bowel disease, including polyps, diverticulosis, and cancer. VC can be performed with computed tomography (CT), sometimes called a CAT scan, or with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
More info on it here.
Ah, the shift key! :)
14GB of MP3s? I'd bet that one in three Slashdotters has at least that much. Anyone know what the "crack the headers" bit refers to for CDs?
While there's no shortage of SPIM on the proprietary networks, if federation means an increase in connectivity between disparate (and arbitrary?) IM networks, is there any trust process to keep rogue servers off of the network? Is it a matter of blacklisting/delinking?
If the company policy can address the needs of the knowledgeable user, then so be it. Violating the IT policy means that their risk becomes your risk.
Your argument falls apart with the books not even being Google's in the first place. By copying the books they didn't even pay for, the damage is nonzero.
Libraries don't have the right to buy one copy of a book and reproduce it.
Have you ever seen a photocopy of a book next to the real thing sitting on the bookshelf of a library?
Google's reproducing the book as a whole, in order to be able to allow access to snippets. And unlike the library, they didn't even buy the first copy!
Not that it'd be the sanest way to secure anything, but if IE is locked down to use a proxy, but port 80 is still open outbound, then Firefox is getting around the security policy, as flawed as it may be.
Alternately, if the user can set up a proxy of his own, SSH tunneled outbound, having the ability to use that proxy in Firefox vs. a locked down IE means that he can violate the security policy as well.
Managing risk is the company's business. Part of managing risk is knowing what the risk is, and accounting for it. If the company's done that and is still using IE, that's the company's choice.
What are the consequences of delisting? Less access to raise capital by issuing new shares? Was that really gonna happen with their current financial situation, anyway?
From the EFF analysis:
Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used: Favors Google. Google appears to be copying only as much as necessary (if you are enabling full-text searching, you need the full text), and only tiny snippets are made publicly accessible. Once again, Google looks a lot more like Arriba Soft than MP3.com.
They may only be providing snippets, but they're copying the whole damn thing.
While I'm not sure how I feel about whether or not it's fair use (I think that Google's activity may enable fair use, but not be fair use in itself), it certainly has the potential to be a disruptive technology in terms of research.
People tend to be afraid of disruption. It's natural. Google's got the pockets to deal with the repercussions, so I'm happy to let it play itself out, even if they get spanked with a billion dollar judgement against them.
Haven't you ever read National Geographic? They already have boobies there!
Why not just put on some quantum dots and go as a white LED?
We do have a standard time. It's called UTC, and the article was posted on the 15th in UTC. date -u
Just because you don't use it -- that doesn't mean there isn't a standard.
Why do you feel the need to announce this?
You're a proud rebel?
Plenty of people had already mentioned that it was Shockwave. And I'm sure that the reason that you can't view Shockwave is one of choice...