Then when you're hauled BACK in front of the same judge, tell him that you are not smoking it now, and so the agreement that you made with him is no longer relevant.
Of course it went unnoticed for 14 months. The longer it goes "unnoticed" by the oversight committee, the more money they can collect in damages.
And still, Microsoft could have preempted ANY damages at all by complying with the LAW. (You know, the stuff that separates savages from civilization?)
Courts are not elected by votes, so lobbying doesnt generally work on them.
Try again.
Do you really misunderstand what I said, or is your self worth so low that you are forced to try to build yourself yourself up by trying to tear another down?
What I obviously meant was that the our so-called representitives in the House and Senate can, and have, altered, replaced, and written laws that not only make formerly illegal activities legal, but have also written laws that retroactively legalise illegal acts. (And sometimes have retroactively made legal acts illegal. Not often, but it has happened.)
So, try again yourself. Or better yet, move along.
Personally? Until advertisers man up, and stop acting like the guy standing on the corner of a shady neighborhood going "hey, wanna buy some shit..." they can simply suck it.
No, actually, it's more like they grab you by the arm and pull you into their shop.
You can ignore the guy on the corner if you can keep walking. Currently you must endure and accept the time it takes to download all the ads on the page, and run the CPU cycles their ads use once loaded.
Sites will start blocking Firefox browsers. If enough popular sites do this, people will be switching to other browsers. Or people will start making Firefox masquerade as a different browser, which (if it becomes popular) will subsequently be made illegal. That is assuming that third-party cookie blocking won't just be made illegal.
It is appropriate to describe this as a first-strike, because there will be a retaliatory salvo, and much of our Internet freedom will get caught in the crossfire.
I block 3rd party cookies in all of the big 3: Chrome, IE, and Firefox, using the built-in settings, but I also block most advertising SITES completely. Blocking almost all ads in the process.
This blocks not just the ad's, but the cookies too, since if they cannot reach your computer, they cannot access or ad cookies either.
It's not a perfect solution, sometimes leaving blank spots on webpages, and ALSO blocking most coupon sites, but it can be easily edited to remove sites you want to allow. I personally have a few elevated batch files that add / remove sites to the hosts file, and another that renames it (essentially removing it), and renames it again (making it available again).
I started using my hosts file to block ad sites when Double Click began tracking cookies between websites, and then stopped about 6 months later, because I believe in supporting the free websites I use, and know that if the free website model cannot be self-sustaining, that the only real alternative is to pay for every online service. Meaning no free email, search engines, help sites, or News.
My problem is that advertisers keep pushing the envelope of performance, and thus have made my 2 year old ASUS x64 netbook (my main computer, since I've returned to school) as slow a sh*t on the internet, causing some webpages to take minutes to load (because of multiple, heavy, ads), and others to freeze (because of heavy CPU usage). So about 9 months ago I began blocking sites again with the hosts file, purely as self-defense, because I can't afford to upgrade my computers every year and a half.
Blocking sites with my hosts file also has the side-effect / ?advantage? of blocking ALL traffic from my computer to those data-collection websites, not just traffic from my browser. Meaning that any ad-driven software I've installed cannot pull ads from any site listed in my hosts file. This is not because I am unwilling to "pay" for the ad-driven software, but have been forced to takes steps to keep my computer usable, and those pieces of software are simply "collateral damage".
If advertisers would be willing to limit the size and CPU usage of their ads based on the capacity of the target computer, I might be willing to open up my hosts file to them again. Until then, I will advise others to use their hosts file to block ads.
That doesnt work in statutory rape cases, why would it work here?
Because, there is no (legal) statutory rape industry, making money off of it.
All kinds of illegal activity can be forgiven, and made retroactively legal, as long as it makes money.
Remember, early cable TV providers were breaking the law, but as soon as it stopped just being neighbors sharing a Satellite Dish, and businesses stated making money doing it, the laws were rewritten to make it legal.
I'm seeing a significant re-thinking of the use of out-sourcing/off-shoring... because a good... half a dozen people in house can drastically outperform any number of off-shore contractors.
Are you sure it's productivity driving this change, and not the fact out-sourcing can go UP the chain of command even more easily than DOWN?
This is a childrens dance where they are in a circle, hop back once, then hop forward three times.
"You put your right foot in! You take your right foot out! You put your right foot in, and you shake it all about! You do the Hokey-Pokey and you turn yourself around, That's what it's all about!"
Yahoo seems to have it backwards, where they hop forward ONCE, and hob BACK THREE TIMES!
So the New World Order, AKA global government, AKA not only BIG government, but currently the BIGGEST kind of government possible, orchestrated through the U.N. is a GOOD thing now?
Or is it that Paul, like every other politician, is seduced by doing things the easy, instead of the right, way?
Precedence says that those with the deepest pockets own any name they lay claim to, despite hundreds and even thousands of years of familial ownership of the name. That's why one of the McDonalds clans had to give up their their domain name to the McDonalds burger chain.
Because they made good motherboards, so I assumed that they also made good BIOS update software.
I was upgrading my mothers computer, and decided at the last minute to top it off with the latest BIOS. The manufacturer (a famous 3 letter name brand) offered not only the standard DOS bootable upgrade, but also an "In Windows" BIOS updater. And even though my experience and knowledge told me that this was EXTREMELY unlikely, I assumed that if they were offering it as the preferred method of doing a year old BIOS update, and since I couldn't find any posts either complaining about it, that they'd figured out how to do a BIOS upgrade from inside Windows.
BAD decision.
My first hint that the BIOS upgrade didn't take was that their verification program kept saying it didn't work. I tried loading both the old and new BIOS, but the final check always failed. I kept the computer on for three days knowing that if I reboot it, that it'd become a brick. And of-course, when I did finally reboot, it was a brick.
This really pissed me off because the thing was a really good computer, with several more years of life left in it.
I even considered buying a chip programmer, but the BIOS was surface mounted, and my desoldering skills are even worse than my soldering skills.
Since when has the RIAA / MPAA invested in the production of anything?
They were created by a small, but powerful, group of copyright holders (not IP generators) , then got themselves declared as the legal representative of ALL IP creators and copyright holders (and if you create IP and disagree, "Sit down and shut-up"), with the power to sue anyone for IP theft, whether or not the actual IP owner/creator want's them too or not.
Neither MPAA or RIAA invests in anything other than lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought you only had to turn off your phones during takeoff and landing, but it's been a while since I've flown, so I don't know for sure.
I heard it had a pocket knife AND a box-cutter!
Then when you're hauled BACK in front of the same judge, tell him that you are not smoking it now, and so the agreement that you made with him is no longer relevant.
+1
MFM hard drives aren't coming back.
(Falls to knees and screams): "Noooooooooo!!"
Of course it went unnoticed for 14 months. The longer it goes "unnoticed" by the oversight committee, the more money they can collect in damages.
And still, Microsoft could have preempted ANY damages at all by complying with the LAW. (You know, the stuff that separates savages from civilization?)
The EU is just using Microsoft as a cash machine. The whole EU is in recession, you see...
Gee, and I thought it had to do with Microsoft flouting EU law... and thinking they could get away with it there, just as they have in the U.S..
I was kinda under the impression that with Google, the browser WAS the OS...
An American English lesson for you; "X could care less" is a sarcastic euphemism for "X couldn't care less".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/i+could+care+less
Courts are not elected by votes, so lobbying doesnt generally work on them.
Try again.
Do you really misunderstand what I said, or is your self worth so low that you are forced to try to build yourself yourself up by trying to tear another down?
What I obviously meant was that the our so-called representitives in the House and Senate can, and have, altered, replaced, and written laws that not only make formerly illegal activities legal, but have also written laws that retroactively legalise illegal acts. (And sometimes have retroactively made legal acts illegal. Not often, but it has happened.)
So, try again yourself. Or better yet, move along.
Personally? Until advertisers man up, and stop acting like the guy standing on the corner of a shady neighborhood going "hey, wanna buy some shit..." they can simply suck it.
No, actually, it's more like they grab you by the arm and pull you into their shop.
You can ignore the guy on the corner if you can keep walking. Currently you must endure and accept the time it takes to download all the ads on the page, and run the CPU cycles their ads use once loaded.
Sites will start blocking Firefox browsers. If enough popular sites do this, people will be switching to other browsers. Or people will start making Firefox masquerade as a different browser, which (if it becomes popular) will subsequently be made illegal. That is assuming that third-party cookie blocking won't just be made illegal.
It is appropriate to describe this as a first-strike, because there will be a retaliatory salvo, and much of our Internet freedom will get caught in the crossfire.
I block 3rd party cookies in all of the big 3: Chrome, IE, and Firefox, using the built-in settings, but I also block most advertising SITES completely. Blocking almost all ads in the process.
I do this by using MVP's ad blocking hosts file, which can be found here: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
This blocks not just the ad's, but the cookies too, since if they cannot reach your computer, they cannot access or ad cookies either.
It's not a perfect solution, sometimes leaving blank spots on webpages, and ALSO blocking most coupon sites, but it can be easily edited to remove sites you want to allow. I personally have a few elevated batch files that add / remove sites to the hosts file, and another that renames it (essentially removing it), and renames it again (making it available again).
I started using my hosts file to block ad sites when Double Click began tracking cookies between websites, and then stopped about 6 months later, because I believe in supporting the free websites I use, and know that if the free website model cannot be self-sustaining, that the only real alternative is to pay for every online service. Meaning no free email, search engines, help sites, or News.
My problem is that advertisers keep pushing the envelope of performance, and thus have made my 2 year old ASUS x64 netbook (my main computer, since I've returned to school) as slow a sh*t on the internet, causing some webpages to take minutes to load (because of multiple, heavy, ads), and others to freeze (because of heavy CPU usage). So about 9 months ago I began blocking sites again with the hosts file, purely as self-defense, because I can't afford to upgrade my computers every year and a half.
Blocking sites with my hosts file also has the side-effect / ?advantage? of blocking ALL traffic from my computer to those data-collection websites, not just traffic from my browser. Meaning that any ad-driven software I've installed cannot pull ads from any site listed in my hosts file. This is not because I am unwilling to "pay" for the ad-driven software, but have been forced to takes steps to keep my computer usable, and those pieces of software are simply "collateral damage".
If advertisers would be willing to limit the size and CPU usage of their ads based on the capacity of the target computer, I might be willing to open up my hosts file to them again. Until then, I will advise others to use their hosts file to block ads.
That doesnt work in statutory rape cases, why would it work here?
Because, there is no (legal) statutory rape industry, making money off of it.
All kinds of illegal activity can be forgiven, and made retroactively legal, as long as it makes money.
Remember, early cable TV providers were breaking the law, but as soon as it stopped just being neighbors sharing a Satellite Dish, and businesses stated making money doing it, the laws were rewritten to make it legal.
I'm seeing a significant re-thinking of the use of out-sourcing/off-shoring... because a good... half a dozen people in house can drastically outperform any number of off-shore contractors.
Are you sure it's productivity driving this change, and not the fact out-sourcing can go UP the chain of command even more easily than DOWN?
Very shortsighted, though not surprising, as this is Yahoo!, after all.
Are you saying that Yahoo! is being run by a bunch of yahoos?
This is a childrens dance where they are in a circle, hop back once, then hop forward three times.
"You put your right foot in!
You take your right foot out!
You put your right foot in,
and you shake it all about!
You do the Hokey-Pokey
and you turn yourself around,
That's what it's all about!"
Yahoo seems to have it backwards, where they hop forward ONCE, and hob BACK THREE TIMES!
Thanks for posting this.
So the New World Order, AKA global government, AKA not only BIG government, but currently the BIGGEST kind of government possible, orchestrated through the U.N. is a GOOD thing now?
Or is it that Paul, like every other politician, is seduced by doing things the easy, instead of the right, way?
Precedence says that those with the deepest pockets own any name they lay claim to, despite hundreds and even thousands of years of familial ownership of the name. That's why one of the McDonalds clans had to give up their their domain name to the McDonalds burger chain.
Lesson (re)learned? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Because they made good motherboards, so I assumed that they also made good BIOS update software.
I was upgrading my mothers computer, and decided at the last minute to top it off with the latest BIOS. The manufacturer (a famous 3 letter name brand) offered not only the standard DOS bootable upgrade, but also an "In Windows" BIOS updater. And even though my experience and knowledge told me that this was EXTREMELY unlikely, I assumed that if they were offering it as the preferred method of doing a year old BIOS update, and since I couldn't find any posts either complaining about it, that they'd figured out how to do a BIOS upgrade from inside Windows.
BAD decision.
My first hint that the BIOS upgrade didn't take was that their verification program kept saying it didn't work. I tried loading both the old and new BIOS, but the final check always failed. I kept the computer on for three days knowing that if I reboot it, that it'd become a brick. And of-course, when I did finally reboot, it was a brick.
This really pissed me off because the thing was a really good computer, with several more years of life left in it.
I even considered buying a chip programmer, but the BIOS was surface mounted, and my desoldering skills are even worse than my soldering skills.
Since when has the RIAA / MPAA invested in the production of anything?
They were created by a small, but powerful, group of copyright holders (not IP generators) , then got themselves declared as the legal representative of ALL IP creators and copyright holders (and if you create IP and disagree, "Sit down and shut-up"), with the power to sue anyone for IP theft, whether or not the actual IP owner/creator want's them too or not.
Neither MPAA or RIAA invests in anything other than lawyers.
So... how is that any different from the way the RIAA / MPAA have traditionally acted?
I'd be more concerned about the misuse of the word "create" in this case, to be honest.
They're just redefining the word "create"!
Was supposed to be a joke.
Lighten up.
Hardly. Back in the 80s and early 90s, nobody ever heard of global warming.
Public recognition, regardless of what any ad agency may tell you to the contrary, does not regulate reality.
In fact, during the 70s, there was a lot of ginned up hand-wringing about another ice age.
No. There was ONE article about it in (I believe) Time Magazine.