Idoubt the bill comes to more then a couple hundred bucks. This was not a long complex drawn out case.
Simply discussing this case with a lawyer will cost you a couple hundred bucks. That's before you even hire him.
Most lawyers charge upwards of $200-$300 per hour. I once had a consultation with a patent attorney who charged $350 per hour. After watching him type, I can safely say this reply would have cost you $150.
What if I say "Black males comprise 6% of the population in the US, but perpetrate 40% of the murders" Is that racist, if a statement of fact, because I didn't qualify it by saying that the high rate is due to 200+ years of oppression?
What a load of bullshit. A complete and total refusal to hold one accountable for one's own actions.
Were blacks oppressed in our history? Yes. Are blacks oppressed now? No more than anybody else.
Everyone in the United States of America has the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as anyone else. To dismiss extremely high murder rates among young black males as due to "oppression" is horse shit. The high murder rate is due to the relatively large number of young punk gangsters in the black community. Does that mean all young black men are punk gangsters? Nope. Just that a young black man is more likely to be a punk gangster than anyone else.
I'm not saying it's better or worse, I'm just saying it's an alternative.
Like hell. The second you send that money order, BidPay washes their hands of the deal. I once made the mistake of issuing a chargeback against them; they came out with lawyers in full force, threatening lawsuits and collections.
Paypal's buyer protection isn't great, I'll give you that. But at least it exists in some form.
OK; I was dating this girl back in '92 or so. She used to call my BBS and chat with me, which was cool, I suppose. One day, however, I wasn't there, and she got my Eliza-clone chatbot (it would auto answer and play sysop if I didn't answer a chat request within x seconds).
I came home hours later and found the log. She started out all sweet, but slowly became more and more irritated with "my" responses. Finally culminating in questions like, "Don't you love me?" and "Why are you treating me like this?". Of course, the bot gave dumb responses that pissed her off even more, and she broke up with me, right there. Told "me" never to call her again.
And you know what? I didn't. I figured if she was that stupid, I was better off without her.
I love Linux. Use it on all of my servers and maintain hundreds of them for a living. I even have a stuffed Tux hanging from my rearview mirror. But Linux is a real pain in the ass on a workstation.
On a server, I expect to recompile my software occasionally. It's a server. It's finicky. It takes time to do right. I don't mind that.
But I won't do that on my workstation. Screwing with dependencies sucks. 9 times out of 10 when I go to install or upgrade some package, it requires a new version of x, which requires a new version of x, y, and z, which each require a new version of h-i-j-k-l-m-n-o-p, and half of the packages refuse to install and only break my system with I try to force them.
Screw that.
Hey, I'm not defending Windows. It sucks in it's own special way.
Hmm. Now I don't know why I posted this, or what my point even was. Nevermind...
It could be done by either party, for any reason, and the only issue is whether or not the person posting his comments, or allowing the other comments to stay up on his web site, are truthful.
As I said, "There is a huge difference between blatently attempting to undermine and destroy a reputation, and simply expressing your opinion." I read several of the comments in question and they look to be nothing more than name calling and bitching.
Look, it's one thing to come out and say, "Site x hires illegal aliens; it's owners use cocaine and beat their wives." It's quite another to say, "They suck, their service sucks, I had dealings with them and this is how it went down."
How long until people are unwilling to write about horrifying business experiences due to fears of a lawsuit? Whether the experience is true or not is immaterial: When you're sued for libel you aren't "innocent until proven guilty", you're guilty unless you can prove your comments were true. Considering the nature of most business complaints ("x happened, I called company, worthless customer service reps told me y, I'm never using them again and you shouldn't, either"), how are you going to prove any of it? Besides that, how are you going to afford a team of lawyers to fight this out for several years at $300 per manhour?
If you really think about it, in our litigious society, you're better to keep your mouth shut - or some company with deep pockets can take everything you own for the simple fact that they don't like what you said. That's not right.
'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'
Horse pucky. If you aren't free to share your opinion, then this isn't the United States I thought I lived in. More and more, it seems like the freedom of speech is directly related to how much money you have.
There is a huge difference between blatently attempting to undermine and destroy a reputation, and simply expressing your opinion (negative or otherwise). The ability to express one's opinion, even if said opinion is extremely negative, should be protected speech.
The people filing this lawsuit are nothing more than schoolyard bullies.
You are making excuses for a lack of understanding.
I'm not making excuses for anything. Of course he would be a better manager if he had actually done the work. I know this, you know this, and so does every other tech nerd. However, your typical I.T. manager has NOT done the work. If he could, he probably wouldn't be a manager.
Again, from the top post: Our team finds ourselves teaching him or explaining remedial things far too often. They are only spinning their wheels, going nowhere.
No, they're just whining and bitching. They're pissed because he makes twice their salary and "doesn't know anything." They think he should be some sort of I.T. god, that he should know everything they know. Well, he doesn't. He's just a manager. His expertise is in allocating resources other project management type activities.
Again, I'm not making excuses for him. He should have some skills; he would be a better manager. But he doesn't, and let's face it: Most managers don't. Now, maybe he doesn't even have management skills - maybe he just sucks completely. But what are you going to do about it? Nothing, you're screwed. Either find a new job or put up with it.
Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?
Yes. Not to be stereotypical, but he is a manager. In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't. So he manages.
As for how to deal with it? I doubt you really have a choice. Not to be cynical, but what are you really going to do about it? Hopefully he isn't a "know it all" type and will actually listen to what you have to say before making a decision. If so, just do your best to educate him in any given situation so he can make the right decision.
and watch it on my widescreen in the comfort of my own hom
You & me both, man. I bought an HD projector. I have a 12 foot 16:9 display on my wall and 7.1 channel surround. The quality far surpasses anything my crappy local theaters have. And I can have pizza and beer while I watch. And my dog can sit next to me. If any unruly cellphone toting children show up, I can kick their asses out.
The last time I was in a commercial theater, the surround channels kept popping on and off, the picture sucked, the floors and seats were sticky, and it cost me $12 to get in. Why the hell would I want to go there again?
Gigafauna is just a term for a large herd of megafauna. What you're worried about are the Terafauna. These have been extinct for quite some time, and unless some loon unearthed an ancient mosquito preserved in amber, you should be safe from them.
Well since FedEx asked him to take down the site and I know they know more about marketing then you could ever dream of.
Wow, you seem so confident. How do you figure FedEx knows more about marketing than I? You don't know who I am, let alone have a clue as to my background. Let me guess, you assume since I'm "some dork on Slashdot" and FedEx is a huge company, that automatically makes their employees more knowledgable? For all you know I am a senior market analyst for UPS.
Leaving out this idiotic move, which you agree is not the correct approach (therefore, it seems you, too, understand marketing and brand awareness better than FedEx): FedEx has 31% of the small parcel shipping market compared to UPS' 48%. Now, tell me again how well they understand marketing?
The only people that go there aren't going to changing their shiping needs because some guy made a couch of boxes.
You don't know shit about marketing.
Why did Anheuser-Busch spend millions of dollars on those "Real men of genius" commercials? You think anybody switched to drinking Bud Light after hearing those?
Why does Nike spend millions of dollars on it's ridiculous commercials? Watch this. Not a single shoe in it. In fact, the commercial had nothing to do with shoes at all.
Marketing by large corporations is about brand awareness, you doof. It has little to do with convincing customers to purchase your products or services. Were I the CEO of FedEx, I'd give this guy all the free boxes he needed, pay him for some links back to FedEx, then quietly tweak my supplies ordering system to discourage everyone and their dog from doing the same thing.
Instead, they spent 50 times more money on lawyers than "fedexfurniture.com" would have ever cost them in boxes. Seems they understand marketing about as well as you.
CEO:"Hey this guy is telling people how to make furniture out of our boxes. This could cost us lots of money if it catchs on"
Then the CEO is an idiot.
Companies such as FedEx spend countless millions on advertising. "fedexfurniture.com" is one huge ass advertisement for them. If it costs them $10k in boxes because a couple hundred people get the same idea, that's one hell of a deal for FedEx. They'd never get advertising that good, that cheap, anywhere else. Not for ten times the price.
Lookie loos:Not really interested in the content, but if it's very cheap (or free), they will take a look. They probably spend a lot of money on media, and usually want the real deal for the packaging and extras.
Hi. My name is Joe, and I'm a Lookie Loo.
200+ purchased DVDs, many bought after downloading and enjoying movies I'd never heard of before (or wouldn't have given a chance if it weren't free).
100+ downloaded movies. Movies I watched because, WTF, it's free and I'm bored. Movies I never would have rented, let alone purchased. Movies I later deleted. Many I turned off after the first 10 minutes because they sucked ass.
I have plenty of money for media. The good stuff - stuff I want to watch again, show to others, and otherwise keep forever - I buy. Everything else, I don't. And no, I don't have a moral problem with that.
Oh, I also have countless hundreds of CDs. I'd probably have a thousand by now, but I quit buying when they starting putting DRM on them. DRM = no sale. Now I just download them. Sell me a product that's usable, otherwise, fuck you, I'll find it elsewhere.
And don't say it will be impossible or too much work to break
It will be impossible or too much work to break.
Why? The universities are beginning to distribute this information on their servers, not allowing you to download it. Sure, someone could take the time to access & screen capture each and every page, but now they're posting tests and such in these same "secured" areas. If you didn't buy the book, you don't get access, and you can't take the test.
Only way around that is to hack the university's computer systems.
At least it's optional. I finished a degree last year. In January '04 (with 5 classes remaining for me), the university I attended did the following:
1. Made all books into e-books. 2. Made them mandatory (had to pay for them to enroll in the classes). 3. No method of downloading them (had to be accessed over the web). 4. Prices were no cheaper than buying the actual book (usually $60 - $90).
It was bullshit, because up until then I hadn't bought a single class book (I had over a decade of experience in my field and just needed the "pedigree" for a promotion). So, I didn't need these books. Never accessed them, in fact. Yet I still had to pay for them.
Hell we're not far from that now with the companies who register tens of thousands of domains and park them for no reason other than to sell it to someone.
Can someone make this illegal? Please?
I'm trying to setup a new web site. I made a list of several dozen possible domain names. Almost ALL of them are owned by these "buyadomain" companies and they want $200 - $500 for them.
Now, I don't have a problem with people selling their domains. But these people aren't doing jack shit with the domains. They've bought up tens of thousands of good names and are simply sitting on them. Meanwhile people like me who want to use the name legitimately - actually setup a real web site with real content around it - can't, unless we pay their extortion fee. I think that's bullshit, and it shouldn't be allowed.
We donated to Samaritan's Purse one year. Our church was doing a "fill a shoebox with things for african children" deal, and we thought it would be nice. So we put some useful items and a couple of toys in a shoebox for the poor little 3rd world children, and included the required $5 to "help cover postage."
Since then, Samaritan's Purse has spent a hell of a lot more than $5 sending me full color documents printed on nice glossy cardstock, begging for more money. Every couple of weeks I get another one of these in the mail. Now tell me why I'd donate anything more to them when they completely wasted the $5 I gave them? That was supposed to help get my package to the poor little african kid, not be spent begging me for more money.
(yes, I know *my* $5 wasn't used to mail me, but the point is they're massively wasting money, and I'm not going to contribute to that. If I were out begging for money I'd be mailing cheap newsprint once or twice a year, so as to use the money given to me appropriately)
While I use my mobile phone for long distance calling and only have the landline as required for DSL service I should still have to suffer with telemarketing calls because they whined to the FCC?
Uh, no. As others have already said, don't hook a phone up to the land line. Problem solved. Yes you have to pay for a line you aren't using, but that's a completely different conversation. Don't bitch that you HAVE to put up with telemarketing calls to have DSL, that's bullshit. DSL isn't forcing you to put up with telemarketers, that phone you willingly connected to a line you wouldn't otherwise want is the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Idoubt the bill comes to more then a couple hundred bucks. This was not a long complex drawn out case.
Simply discussing this case with a lawyer will cost you a couple hundred bucks. That's before you even hire him.
Most lawyers charge upwards of $200-$300 per hour. I once had a consultation with a patent attorney who charged $350 per hour. After watching him type, I can safely say this reply would have cost you $150.
What if I say "Black males comprise 6% of the population in the US, but perpetrate 40% of the murders" Is that racist, if a statement of fact, because I didn't qualify it by saying that the high rate is due to 200+ years of oppression?
What a load of bullshit. A complete and total refusal to hold one accountable for one's own actions.
Were blacks oppressed in our history? Yes. Are blacks oppressed now? No more than anybody else.
Everyone in the United States of America has the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as anyone else. To dismiss extremely high murder rates among young black males as due to "oppression" is horse shit. The high murder rate is due to the relatively large number of young punk gangsters in the black community. Does that mean all young black men are punk gangsters? Nope. Just that a young black man is more likely to be a punk gangster than anyone else.
Now, am I racist?
I'm not saying it's better or worse, I'm just saying it's an alternative.
Like hell. The second you send that money order, BidPay washes their hands of the deal. I once made the mistake of issuing a chargeback against them; they came out with lawyers in full force, threatening lawsuits and collections.
Paypal's buyer protection isn't great, I'll give you that. But at least it exists in some form.
OK; I was dating this girl back in '92 or so. She used to call my BBS and chat with me, which was cool, I suppose. One day, however, I wasn't there, and she got my Eliza-clone chatbot (it would auto answer and play sysop if I didn't answer a chat request within x seconds).
I came home hours later and found the log. She started out all sweet, but slowly became more and more irritated with "my" responses. Finally culminating in questions like, "Don't you love me?" and "Why are you treating me like this?". Of course, the bot gave dumb responses that pissed her off even more, and she broke up with me, right there. Told "me" never to call her again.
And you know what? I didn't. I figured if she was that stupid, I was better off without her.
No, the man has a valid point.
I love Linux. Use it on all of my servers and maintain hundreds of them for a living. I even have a stuffed Tux hanging from my rearview mirror. But Linux is a real pain in the ass on a workstation.
On a server, I expect to recompile my software occasionally. It's a server. It's finicky. It takes time to do right. I don't mind that.
But I won't do that on my workstation. Screwing with dependencies sucks. 9 times out of 10 when I go to install or upgrade some package, it requires a new version of x, which requires a new version of x, y, and z, which each require a new version of h-i-j-k-l-m-n-o-p, and half of the packages refuse to install and only break my system with I try to force them.
Screw that.
Hey, I'm not defending Windows. It sucks in it's own special way.
Hmm. Now I don't know why I posted this, or what my point even was. Nevermind...
It could be done by either party, for any reason, and the only issue is whether or not the person posting his comments, or allowing the other comments to stay up on his web site, are truthful.
As I said, "There is a huge difference between blatently attempting to undermine and destroy a reputation, and simply expressing your opinion." I read several of the comments in question and they look to be nothing more than name calling and bitching.
Look, it's one thing to come out and say, "Site x hires illegal aliens; it's owners use cocaine and beat their wives." It's quite another to say, "They suck, their service sucks, I had dealings with them and this is how it went down."
How long until people are unwilling to write about horrifying business experiences due to fears of a lawsuit? Whether the experience is true or not is immaterial: When you're sued for libel you aren't "innocent until proven guilty", you're guilty unless you can prove your comments were true. Considering the nature of most business complaints ("x happened, I called company, worthless customer service reps told me y, I'm never using them again and you shouldn't, either"), how are you going to prove any of it? Besides that, how are you going to afford a team of lawyers to fight this out for several years at $300 per manhour?
If you really think about it, in our litigious society, you're better to keep your mouth shut - or some company with deep pockets can take everything you own for the simple fact that they don't like what you said. That's not right.
'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'
Horse pucky. If you aren't free to share your opinion, then this isn't the United States I thought I lived in. More and more, it seems like the freedom of speech is directly related to how much money you have.
There is a huge difference between blatently attempting to undermine and destroy a reputation, and simply expressing your opinion (negative or otherwise). The ability to express one's opinion, even if said opinion is extremely negative, should be protected speech.
The people filing this lawsuit are nothing more than schoolyard bullies.
You are making excuses for a lack of understanding.
I'm not making excuses for anything. Of course he would be a better manager if he had actually done the work. I know this, you know this, and so does every other tech nerd. However, your typical I.T. manager has NOT done the work. If he could, he probably wouldn't be a manager.
Again, from the top post: Our team finds ourselves teaching him or explaining remedial things far too often. They are only spinning their wheels, going nowhere.
No, they're just whining and bitching. They're pissed because he makes twice their salary and "doesn't know anything." They think he should be some sort of I.T. god, that he should know everything they know. Well, he doesn't. He's just a manager. His expertise is in allocating resources other project management type activities.
Again, I'm not making excuses for him. He should have some skills; he would be a better manager. But he doesn't, and let's face it: Most managers don't. Now, maybe he doesn't even have management skills - maybe he just sucks completely. But what are you going to do about it? Nothing, you're screwed. Either find a new job or put up with it.
Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?
Yes. Not to be stereotypical, but he is a manager. In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't. So he manages.
As for how to deal with it? I doubt you really have a choice. Not to be cynical, but what are you really going to do about it? Hopefully he isn't a "know it all" type and will actually listen to what you have to say before making a decision. If so, just do your best to educate him in any given situation so he can make the right decision.
and watch it on my widescreen in the comfort of my own hom
You & me both, man. I bought an HD projector. I have a 12 foot 16:9 display on my wall and 7.1 channel surround. The quality far surpasses anything my crappy local theaters have. And I can have pizza and beer while I watch. And my dog can sit next to me. If any unruly cellphone toting children show up, I can kick their asses out.
The last time I was in a commercial theater, the surround channels kept popping on and off, the picture sucked, the floors and seats were sticky, and it cost me $12 to get in. Why the hell would I want to go there again?
I didn't watch Buffy or Angel at all, but the whole idea of Buffy seemed, well, stupid to me. So I passed.
But I love Firefly. Love it. Best. Sci-Fi. Ever. Better than Trek, in my opinion.
Go get the DVDs, watch 'em back to back. I haven't met a single person who hasn't enjoyed them.
Except, in the U.S., poachers go to jail for a good long time.
Africa can't control poaching.
buy humans
Really? How much do they cost?
Gigafauna is just a term for a large herd of megafauna. What you're worried about are the Terafauna. These have been extinct for quite some time, and unless some loon unearthed an ancient mosquito preserved in amber, you should be safe from them.
IDE and SATA are not a choice for anything but a low end low speed/load server.
BS.
http://www.lustre.org/
Well since FedEx asked him to take down the site and I know they know more about marketing then you could ever dream of.
Wow, you seem so confident. How do you figure FedEx knows more about marketing than I? You don't know who I am, let alone have a clue as to my background. Let me guess, you assume since I'm "some dork on Slashdot" and FedEx is a huge company, that automatically makes their employees more knowledgable? For all you know I am a senior market analyst for UPS.
Leaving out this idiotic move, which you agree is not the correct approach (therefore, it seems you, too, understand marketing and brand awareness better than FedEx): FedEx has 31% of the small parcel shipping market compared to UPS' 48%. Now, tell me again how well they understand marketing?
The only people that go there aren't going to changing their shiping needs because some guy made a couch of boxes.
You don't know shit about marketing.
Why did Anheuser-Busch spend millions of dollars on those "Real men of genius" commercials? You think anybody switched to drinking Bud Light after hearing those?
Why does Nike spend millions of dollars on it's ridiculous commercials? Watch this. Not a single shoe in it. In fact, the commercial had nothing to do with shoes at all.
Marketing by large corporations is about brand awareness, you doof. It has little to do with convincing customers to purchase your products or services. Were I the CEO of FedEx, I'd give this guy all the free boxes he needed, pay him for some links back to FedEx, then quietly tweak my supplies ordering system to discourage everyone and their dog from doing the same thing.
Instead, they spent 50 times more money on lawyers than "fedexfurniture.com" would have ever cost them in boxes. Seems they understand marketing about as well as you.
CEO:"Hey this guy is telling people how to make furniture out of our boxes. This could cost us lots of money if it catchs on"
Then the CEO is an idiot.
Companies such as FedEx spend countless millions on advertising. "fedexfurniture.com" is one huge ass advertisement for them. If it costs them $10k in boxes because a couple hundred people get the same idea, that's one hell of a deal for FedEx. They'd never get advertising that good, that cheap, anywhere else. Not for ten times the price.
I don't care how good a driver you think you are - I don't trust your judgement as to how fast you can safely drive.
Tough. It's not your call.
Lookie loos:Not really interested in the content, but if it's very cheap (or free), they will take a look. They probably spend a lot of money on media, and usually want the real deal for the packaging and extras.
Hi. My name is Joe, and I'm a Lookie Loo.
200+ purchased DVDs, many bought after downloading and enjoying movies I'd never heard of before (or wouldn't have given a chance if it weren't free).
100+ downloaded movies. Movies I watched because, WTF, it's free and I'm bored. Movies I never would have rented, let alone purchased. Movies I later deleted. Many I turned off after the first 10 minutes because they sucked ass.
I have plenty of money for media. The good stuff - stuff I want to watch again, show to others, and otherwise keep forever - I buy. Everything else, I don't. And no, I don't have a moral problem with that.
Oh, I also have countless hundreds of CDs. I'd probably have a thousand by now, but I quit buying when they starting putting DRM on them. DRM = no sale. Now I just download them. Sell me a product that's usable, otherwise, fuck you, I'll find it elsewhere.
And don't say it will be impossible or too much work to break
It will be impossible or too much work to break.
Why? The universities are beginning to distribute this information on their servers, not allowing you to download it. Sure, someone could take the time to access & screen capture each and every page, but now they're posting tests and such in these same "secured" areas. If you didn't buy the book, you don't get access, and you can't take the test.
Only way around that is to hack the university's computer systems.
At least it's optional. I finished a degree last year. In January '04 (with 5 classes remaining for me), the university I attended did the following:
1. Made all books into e-books.
2. Made them mandatory (had to pay for them to enroll in the classes).
3. No method of downloading them (had to be accessed over the web).
4. Prices were no cheaper than buying the actual book (usually $60 - $90).
It was bullshit, because up until then I hadn't bought a single class book (I had over a decade of experience in my field and just needed the "pedigree" for a promotion). So, I didn't need these books. Never accessed them, in fact. Yet I still had to pay for them.
This kind of bullshit should be illegal.
Hell we're not far from that now with the companies who register tens of thousands of domains and park them for no reason other than to sell it to someone.
Can someone make this illegal? Please?
I'm trying to setup a new web site. I made a list of several dozen possible domain names. Almost ALL of them are owned by these "buyadomain" companies and they want $200 - $500 for them.
Now, I don't have a problem with people selling their domains. But these people aren't doing jack shit with the domains. They've bought up tens of thousands of good names and are simply sitting on them. Meanwhile people like me who want to use the name legitimately - actually setup a real web site with real content around it - can't, unless we pay their extortion fee. I think that's bullshit, and it shouldn't be allowed.
We donated to Samaritan's Purse one year. Our church was doing a "fill a shoebox with things for african children" deal, and we thought it would be nice. So we put some useful items and a couple of toys in a shoebox for the poor little 3rd world children, and included the required $5 to "help cover postage."
Since then, Samaritan's Purse has spent a hell of a lot more than $5 sending me full color documents printed on nice glossy cardstock, begging for more money. Every couple of weeks I get another one of these in the mail. Now tell me why I'd donate anything more to them when they completely wasted the $5 I gave them? That was supposed to help get my package to the poor little african kid, not be spent begging me for more money.
(yes, I know *my* $5 wasn't used to mail me, but the point is they're massively wasting money, and I'm not going to contribute to that. If I were out begging for money I'd be mailing cheap newsprint once or twice a year, so as to use the money given to me appropriately)
How the hell is this insightful?
While I use my mobile phone for long distance calling and only have the landline as required for DSL service I should still have to suffer with telemarketing calls because they whined to the FCC?
Uh, no. As others have already said, don't hook a phone up to the land line. Problem solved. Yes you have to pay for a line you aren't using, but that's a completely different conversation. Don't bitch that you HAVE to put up with telemarketing calls to have DSL, that's bullshit. DSL isn't forcing you to put up with telemarketers, that phone you willingly connected to a line you wouldn't otherwise want is the problem.