You're surfing on a public computer in Iran.... a popup displays showing hardcore gay sex and red blinking text says CLICK FOR FREE GAY PORN!
We're *not* talking about surfing in Iran. That's a completely different subject. The story this thread is a part of has nothing at all to do with surfing in Iran.
This could open up a whole bunch of "but I didn't download that" claims when users are caught with dubious material. They could claim that their ISP modified their download streams and point (at least some of) the blame toward the ISP.
Of course this is a disturbing trend, and from what I read about Rogers Cable, I'm not surprised. But I have to seriously question if your scenario would come to pass. I really don't think that ISPs are going to "insert" kiddie porn, "illegal" music or movies, or "terrorist" content in your Web page requests. Pirate Bay will not be buying banner ads on Rogers.
The thing that *might* open them to liability are these stupid pop-ups that look like Windows dialog boxes advertising spyware removal or similar shit.
Your examples are not what I'm talking about. I said "effectively used for". Using tables for non-tabular uses such as positioning is still debatable for some situations except by the CSS Mafia.
How can anyone involved in objective analysis of a standard "cave"? Was there money involved? Because if Ogg was the best choice than there has to be some other major deciding factor outside legitimate consideration.
I don't care what company you are and what products you normally sell. If you can create something as useful as this, you deserve respect. Well done!
It's a Web cam you ware around your neck. This is "innovation"? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not an MS basher, I've run XP as my desktop since it came out, have no major problems with it, and have only recently considered possibly a used Apple G4. But this is pretty thin on the "innovation" thing.
On the other hand, maybe Google can have people walk around town with these things and add it to their Google Maps...
a written offer is kind of pointless, when you can download busybox source code off the net free of charge (and we can assume that anyone with this router has an Internet connection...)
Sure, you can download BusyBox code from BusyBox. But can you download BusyBox code as modified by Verizon? Under the GPL, shouldn't you be able to do that? It might not be the sam as the BusyBox code at BusyBox...
...I wonder what makes this particular router a target for spending time and money on a lawsuit...
Of course it does. Like with all such lawsuits, there will be monitary damages of some kind, so why not sue the deep pockets at hated megacorporation Verizon? 1, 2, 3, PROFIT!
Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...
The problem is, very few of those "free thinkers" will take the time to actually vote, and the few that do will vote the "lesser of two evils". Unfortunately, he majority of campus voters will be "young Republicans".
Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..
That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me. Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, but not really a serious contender that any other candidate would consider risking this sort of thing to blacken with this type of "dirty campaigning" label.
Fascinating stuff. I'm on the edge of my seat! Politics at work, and all that. I've canceled all my entertainment appointments for the week just to follow this important issue.
I don't understand why all these corporations feel like they are suddenly in the business of policing for the RIAA/MPAA
Most corporations don't feel like it is in their interest to have "forward facing" moral or ethical backbone. By acquiescing to the **AA, they avoid having to take any kind of stand that might result in liability. They know that it is much more likely that the **AA will sue them, thus costing them money, than say the EFF or some random customer.
Your average user firmly believes what they are told by "experts" or the guy who sells them the computer. They are not web-savvy and don't dig into the background on computer security. They think that all they have to do is run their spyware remover and update their anti-virus and their fine.
And why shouldn't they? Honestly, "average users" shouldn't have to be computer security experts. Average users use computers to play or do productivity tasks unrelated to software development and computer science. The fact is, the average user shouldn't have to be "computer savvy" and running spyware cleaners should do just that. Blaming "average users" for the fact that such dangers exist is missing the point.
For the most part, the bitch at the link you posted is that there is a 2 or 3 second delay opening IE7.
I'm sorry, maybe I just don't drink as much strong coffee as you, but that's not something that would motivate me to spend the time to write a review at Amazon. A 2 to 3 second delay in opening IE7? Terrible productivity issue for sure!
The one thing this experience has taught is that many and "analyst", "journalist", "expert" or "lawyer" is just another opinionated asshole, too lazy to do any fact-checking.
1. Boies could have checked the facts and told SCO "you have no case."
2. All the analysts could have checked the facts and told the world "SCO has no case."
You seem to make the assumption that Boies and the analysts didn't know, where ignorant of the fact that SCO "had no case". Sometimes it may seem like these people are idiots, but the thing to remember is that they all have vested interests.
Take Boies: He's a lawyer, and lawyers represent guilty people all the time. Most lawyers are essentially mercenaries. The same thing can be said for so-called "analysts", most of whom are fare from "independent". The same goes for "journalists", who, contrary to what they would like you to think, are far from analytically unbiased.
My point is that you suggest all these talking heads are "too lazy to do any fact-checking" and in general ignorant of the facts. I think you are wrong, I think the facts are obvious, and we must look to other, self-serving reasons for their various proclamations.
...but is certainly a long laundry list of all their legal deeds.
Not really. They sued AOL and ATT, prior to targeting Apple. Not exactly a "long list". But certainly, they are a "litigation company", not a "technology comapany".
Why not sue them and make things bullet-proof and at the same time strengthen the GPL in court, rather than sorting things out vigilantism-style?
He asked the offending party, the MPAA, to take it down, they ignored him. He asked the ISP to deal with it, they took it down. How is that "vigilantism-style"? Dealing with it himself rather than running to a lawyer? I don't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your examples are not what I'm talking about. I said "effectively used for". Using tables for non-tabular uses such as positioning is still debatable for some situations except by the CSS Mafia .
Get it right. That's GNU/Drama
How can anyone involved in objective analysis of a standard "cave"? Was there money involved? Because if Ogg was the best choice than there has to be some other major deciding factor outside legitimate consideration.
On the other hand, maybe Google can have people walk around town with these things and add it to their Google Maps...
Of course it does. Like with all such lawsuits, there will be monitary damages of some kind, so why not sue the deep pockets at hated megacorporation Verizon? 1, 2, 3, PROFIT!
Fascinating stuff. I'm on the edge of my seat! Politics at work, and all that. I've canceled all my entertainment appointments for the week just to follow this important issue.
I'm sorry, maybe I just don't drink as much strong coffee as you, but that's not something that would motivate me to spend the time to write a review at Amazon. A 2 to 3 second delay in opening IE7? Terrible productivity issue for sure!
Take Boies: He's a lawyer, and lawyers represent guilty people all the time. Most lawyers are essentially mercenaries. The same thing can be said for so-called "analysts", most of whom are fare from "independent". The same goes for "journalists", who, contrary to what they would like you to think, are far from analytically unbiased.
My point is that you suggest all these talking heads are "too lazy to do any fact-checking" and in general ignorant of the facts. I think you are wrong, I think the facts are obvious, and we must look to other, self-serving reasons for their various proclamations.