Actually he didn't move at all, he just turned off his card (apparently he didn't need it for what he was doing). ANd later he did get in a dialogue with the officer and discussed the law.
Come on guys, lets try to have titles that are at least close to being accurate. He wasn't busted, he was asked politely by an officer (who didn't even stay to make sure he remained offline) to only access the signal inside the library. Minor difference between the two.
While I did not research SCO's financial state so I cannot tell whether or not your summary is in fact objective (though I think it unlikely that it was biased), what I believe the origional poster was questioning was the second half concerning the validity of SCO's legal case. But that wasn't based on anything the other contributor said, that was more to do with/.'s reputation to insert bias in its articles. Anything to do with SCO, Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, the Bush administration, etc. will almost certainly be negative. Thus we are forced to treat any article mentioning any of the above parties with a grain of salt. And I personally doubt many in the editing room are trying hard to do otherwise.
While its certainly true that/. users generally have a known point of view when it comes to the SCO case, would it really be that hard for the lead stories to be somewhat objective and leave the opinions to the comment section?
What advantage do they get by keeping the buzz elevated where it is? The only time they benefit from the buzz is when they actually release the operating system. A continuous stream of such releases it seems will only dull the public for when that happens.
I very much doubt this will be all that popular, as I see very few realistic uses for such a thing. As for accounts solely being used with this hurting Google, that may be the case. But so would accounts which the user forgets about and just accumulates spam. I don't think they are counting on each individual account bringing in profit, just the gmail system as a whole.
Considering two people posted almost the exact same thing at almost the exact same time, I doubt you are the only one who saw that. Try this view, it may be a bit clearer, though you can't really see the cli... uh, scroll wheel.
Man, I'll never be able to look at one of those again without giggling like a school girl.
...and not a bunch of FUD, here is a legitimate reason for blocking 3rd party notifiers. If everyone is free to develop their own apps, they could run into similar problems as sites serving rss feeds. As it is now, any damn fool can write themself an aggregator, and as a result many do not work as they are supposed to. Instead of only checking for changes every hour or so, some allow the user to check for updates every minute. As a result of that, the aggregators end up forming a DDOS attack on the server hosting the feed. If Google controls the notifiers for gmail, they can ensure that they do not suffer similar problems.
What exactly would be the point of having a gmail account if you are only accessing it through a pop3 interface? You would be storing the email on your hard drive so the gig of storage space doesn't matter, and you would be accessing it with a desktop application, so Google's nifty UI wouldn't matter either.
Thats not the same thing as blocking third party apps. It may not be making it easy for them (but that is neither Google's nor Yahoo's job), but it is not blocking them.
Is there evidence this is being done for the purpose of blocking third party notifiers? Is it not possible that they are still working on the service (it is still in Beta after all) and some tweak they did inadvertently broke unsupported applications? I have not seen any official statement from Google saying they do not approve of third party notifiers, and until they release such a statement I am not willing to assume that everything they do has evil hidden purposes.
Ah, the conspiracy theories that fly around on slashdot.
Many curtain rods are adjustable so that it doesn't really matter what size the windows are.
And as far as it being "common practice" to take them with you, when I recently moved out of my old apartment the owner required me to remove the shades I had put in.
And do you know what most business owners think about offshoring? I'll count them among those who have actually studied the matter and my point becomes even more evident.
""Look, it didn't destroy us, so it must be a good thing!""
Except not only did it not destroy the economy, it helped it in the past.
Anyways, check out the scorecard:
Evidence offshoring helps the economy - 2 (historical evidence and economic theory).
Evidence offshoring hurts the economy - 0 (not counting ignorant ramblings on/.)
"The.com boom, by the way, was abnormally high investment in the US economy. Investment has moved on now. Outsourcing is one of the mechanisms it has used to move on."
Actually outsourcing occured back in the 90's during the dot com boom.
"The First Amendment was added to protect a citizen's right to express their ideas and opinions without fear of punishment from "the powers that be"."
I must have missed the part of the First Amendment that limited free speech to only that.
"In contrast advertisement, especially modern forms, is just about convincing someone to buy a product or use a service."
Both are advertisement. In one case you have companies advertising their products, in another you have politicians advertising their policies. Thus if you claim advertisements are not protected by the 1st Amendement (I would actually agree there), that would have to apply to both political and commericial ads.
Well your link provides no specific information concerning the study so there is no way to know exactly what it said. So this is based more on what the description suggested it said (which is not much; after all there is a difference between "outperforming ex-Finance Ministers and Oxford students" and "outperforming ex-Finance Ministers and Oxford students on a number of key issues").
There is a big difference between forcasting specific information about the economy at some specific point in the future and predicting what effect certain specific events (which the economy has already experienced numerous times in the past) will have. The former is a lot harder as a lot of unknowns effects the economy (politics, technology, business moves, etc.). The latter merely requires understanding how the economy works.
"I've yet to see Slashdotters hammering on Chinese (and, to an even greater extent, Japanese)."
Yeah, the Chinese have been the subject of anger from the "Dey Terk Er Jarbs" crowd, and the Japanese were a reference to the debate a little over a decade ago. You see this is not a new debate, fears over "American jobs" going overseas have existed for a long time (and they have yet to prove valid).
Interesting you didn't deny considering Indians the spawn of Satan...
"No. People thought that during.com, not during Outsourcing."
Actually that is exactly what the debate is about. Low level coding jobs are moving overseas to where people are willing to work for under $40,000 a year to sit at a desk. People think they have a right to overpaid jobs.
"
The removal of long-term unemployed from the unemployment statistics *does* skew the numbers. I don't think anyone is demanding complete employment."
Tell that to John Kerry who is bitching about the unemployment rate being one of the lowest among nations of comparable sizes.
"
No. He's just helping promote outsourcing."
Sure he is, what with all the tariffs and such.
"No. He's just more likely to engage in protectionism than Bush."
And the sad thing is that people will still consider Bush the racist ethnocentric asshole. I guess that just goes to show the gullibility of the electorate.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually he didn't move at all, he just turned off his card (apparently he didn't need it for what he was doing). ANd later he did get in a dialogue with the officer and discussed the law.
Thats why we have lawyers.
Busted: 7. Slang. 1. To place under arrest. 2. To make a police raid on.
This guy was a priest after all.
Come on guys, lets try to have titles that are at least close to being accurate. He wasn't busted, he was asked politely by an officer (who didn't even stay to make sure he remained offline) to only access the signal inside the library. Minor difference between the two.
While I did not research SCO's financial state so I cannot tell whether or not your summary is in fact objective (though I think it unlikely that it was biased), what I believe the origional poster was questioning was the second half concerning the validity of SCO's legal case. But that wasn't based on anything the other contributor said, that was more to do with /.'s reputation to insert bias in its articles. Anything to do with SCO, Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, the Bush administration, etc. will almost certainly be negative. Thus we are forced to treat any article mentioning any of the above parties with a grain of salt. And I personally doubt many in the editing room are trying hard to do otherwise.
Oh well, if anyone here still needs a gmail account, I've got one here for a limited time only.
While its certainly true that /. users generally have a known point of view when it comes to the SCO case, would it really be that hard for the lead stories to be somewhat objective and leave the opinions to the comment section?
What advantage do they get by keeping the buzz elevated where it is? The only time they benefit from the buzz is when they actually release the operating system. A continuous stream of such releases it seems will only dull the public for when that happens.
If you look at that discussion you will see that I was active on it. We pretty much established that it was nothing but FUD.
I very much doubt this will be all that popular, as I see very few realistic uses for such a thing. As for accounts solely being used with this hurting Google, that may be the case. But so would accounts which the user forgets about and just accumulates spam. I don't think they are counting on each individual account bringing in profit, just the gmail system as a whole.
Since when?
Man, I'll never be able to look at one of those again without giggling like a school girl.
At least their mouse has multiple buttons.
But then you are accessing Google's interface and thus seeing the ads. Ergo, Google is still able to make a profit off of your account.
...and not a bunch of FUD, here is a legitimate reason for blocking 3rd party notifiers. If everyone is free to develop their own apps, they could run into similar problems as sites serving rss feeds. As it is now, any damn fool can write themself an aggregator, and as a result many do not work as they are supposed to. Instead of only checking for changes every hour or so, some allow the user to check for updates every minute. As a result of that, the aggregators end up forming a DDOS attack on the server hosting the feed. If Google controls the notifiers for gmail, they can ensure that they do not suffer similar problems.
What exactly would be the point of having a gmail account if you are only accessing it through a pop3 interface? You would be storing the email on your hard drive so the gig of storage space doesn't matter, and you would be accessing it with a desktop application, so Google's nifty UI wouldn't matter either.
Thats not the same thing as blocking third party apps. It may not be making it easy for them (but that is neither Google's nor Yahoo's job), but it is not blocking them.
Ah, the conspiracy theories that fly around on slashdot.
And as far as it being "common practice" to take them with you, when I recently moved out of my old apartment the owner required me to remove the shades I had put in.
And do you know what most business owners think about offshoring? I'll count them among those who have actually studied the matter and my point becomes even more evident.
Except not only did it not destroy the economy, it helped it in the past.
Anyways, check out the scorecard: /.)
Evidence offshoring helps the economy - 2 (historical evidence and economic theory).
Evidence offshoring hurts the economy - 0 (not counting ignorant ramblings on
"The .com boom, by the way, was abnormally high investment in the US economy. Investment has moved on now. Outsourcing is one of the mechanisms it has used to move on."
Actually outsourcing occured back in the 90's during the dot com boom.
I must have missed the part of the First Amendment that limited free speech to only that.
"In contrast advertisement, especially modern forms, is just about convincing someone to buy a product or use a service."
Both are advertisement. In one case you have companies advertising their products, in another you have politicians advertising their policies. Thus if you claim advertisements are not protected by the 1st Amendement (I would actually agree there), that would have to apply to both political and commericial ads.
There is a big difference between forcasting specific information about the economy at some specific point in the future and predicting what effect certain specific events (which the economy has already experienced numerous times in the past) will have. The former is a lot harder as a lot of unknowns effects the economy (politics, technology, business moves, etc.). The latter merely requires understanding how the economy works.
Yeah, the Chinese have been the subject of anger from the "Dey Terk Er Jarbs" crowd, and the Japanese were a reference to the debate a little over a decade ago. You see this is not a new debate, fears over "American jobs" going overseas have existed for a long time (and they have yet to prove valid).
Interesting you didn't deny considering Indians the spawn of Satan...
"No. People thought that during .com, not during Outsourcing."
Actually that is exactly what the debate is about. Low level coding jobs are moving overseas to where people are willing to work for under $40,000 a year to sit at a desk. People think they have a right to overpaid jobs.
" The removal of long-term unemployed from the unemployment statistics *does* skew the numbers. I don't think anyone is demanding complete employment."
Tell that to John Kerry who is bitching about the unemployment rate being one of the lowest among nations of comparable sizes.
" No. He's just helping promote outsourcing."
Sure he is, what with all the tariffs and such.
"No. He's just more likely to engage in protectionism than Bush."
And the sad thing is that people will still consider Bush the racist ethnocentric asshole. I guess that just goes to show the gullibility of the electorate.