Microsoft was already brought to court over antitrust matters, lost, and was fined. Then the Bush administration basically gave them a pass. I don't think we can drag them to court again, unless they do something significantly new.
Another thought: I'm not sure if the ISO/DOCX/ODF fiasco counts. I wish that it was looked into by the correct anti-trust officials, but I don't really know if that sort of thing breaks any laws.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd agree that Google has been the shining corporate citizen that you paint them to be. They have done some questionable things (privacy issues with StreetView, China dealings, etc).
I'll stop worrying about companies getting too big when I stop hearing about how companies are "Too big to fail." Or when they aren't big enough to put serious economic pressure on other people/businesses. Or when they aren't big enough to be able to legally harass people despite having a flimsy case. Or when common people are able to routinely exact damages from them.
Until then, I'm perfectly happy with society telling companies that they are too big and need to limit their scope. Large businesses have disproportionate power over me. Even more so if there are only a few options. I don't like being coerced, whether its by private companies or governments.
Multiple rocks really. They had a small fleet flying around with lasers, breaking up any rocks that got through the shield. In other words, Asteroids. They could basically take the first half of Stellvia and rename it Asteroids: The Movie.
I hope that you've had a doctor check you out for digestive track issues. Might be just a high metabolism, but I also had a friend who was unnaturally skinny. Turned out he had Crohns, and the late diagnosis made things hard on him.
Sorry if I phrased the question trollishly. I think a better way of putting it is this: If I were accused by the RIAA, do you think you'd be a good lawyer to represent me at trial. If so, what are your qualifications? I don't do much infringing anymore, so I'm unlikely to need your services, but I'd be interested in knowing.
Its my impression that you're very knowledgeable, but since I'm not a legal expert, my impressions mean nothing. Sorry if you've already gone over this.
Well,its my impression that he is skilled. At the very lest he seems knowledgeable. So I agree with you there. But I'm not a lawyer, so my feelings aren't very valid as evidence.
I was fishing for evidence that he's actually done some work in this area that would prove his competency. I realize my post came off as trollish, but I couldn't really find a less-blunt way of putting it.
I've seen a lot of people claim that defendents in copyright infringement cases should use NYCL. Forgive my bluntness, but do we really have any evidence that NYCL is a particularly skilled lawyer? Is he more likely to obtain a favorable verdict than the lawyers that these people are using? It seems like we're assuming that he's a good lawyer because he's on our side.
Its gotten to the point where I'm inherently distrustful of anyone that claims to want to protect me from terrorists, or want to protect children. It's like code-words for "I want to introduce some legislation that violates your rights, and have to make this palatable."
I can't speak scientifically one way or the other, but I certainly felt more relaxed with a park nearby. Taking a walk through the park was certainly nice. One of my biggest disappointments moving away from Chicago is that I no longer have easy access to a nice large park like Lincoln Park.
If that is the case, then you are arguing against the research on scientific terms, which does not conflict with my original statement that the science is what matters, not the source of funding.
I think the important thing to ask is, "Who paid for the study?"
This sort of reasoning is typically used to throw away useful results without properly analyzing the research. If the source of funding is affecting the results, then a peer-review of that research should turn up discrepancies.
On the other hand, believing an argument based on the authority of the person giving the argument isn't valid logic per se, but for everyday life, and general cases, its usually an effective short-cut. There are not enough hours in the day to properly validate every single claim we come across in every-day lives. However, these sorts of logical short-cuts should not be applied by scientists and policy-makers. These are the exact same people that are often asked to ignore the scientific evidence and give weight to emotional arguments.
For instance, it is one thing for you and I to disregard an oil company's research as "probably invalid." It is altogether entirely different for the scientific community and politicians to do so. They should not disregard the research because of the source.
And yet someone has to fund the research. Climate change studies are expensive, since they usually require copious data-collection and analyzing a myriad factors. Those that fund the research always have a vested interest. Otherwise, why would they fund it? You simply can't use the source of funding as a yardstick for the validity of the research. It is best to analyze the science based on its merits. If it is poisoned, as you say, it will be easy to discredit.
It has been shown, scientifically, that C02 contributes to the greenhouse affect, that C02 levels have been rising due to industrialization, and that global temperature is positively correlated with that C02 level. That you consider me brainwashed for looking at the science says more about you than me.
For three, Zicam does not provide topical relief of symptoms. It drastically reduces, to the extent of almost eliminating, the duration and severity of the cold.
Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel begins working from the first time you use it. While it is not understood why consistent use over 1-2 weeks is necessary to see results, clinical research on this product indicate that it may take one to two weeks to see a decrease in symptoms. For best results, use Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel up to one week before contact to known causes of your allergies.
1-2 weeks is the typical duration of a cold. If it takes 1-2 weeks to "see results," then it hasn't done anything in the first place. It seems that Zycam's makeers disagree with you that it reduces the duration.
It's a bit moot because Zycam isn't in homeopathic-level dilutions anyway (that is, there is actual measurable quantities of active ingredient in Zycam). Homeopathic medicine has been shown to be ineffective by proper scientific double-blind studies. This isn't surprising because homeopathic medicine is water.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Again, who said it had to be free? There's a difference between charging the users of your site and trying to charge an ISP. Don't put words into my mouth.
Do you remember when some US citizens decided to become terrorists, and came up with a plan to destroy a bridge with a blow-torch? And after the feds "busted" them, they trumpeted that as a huge victory for their new policies? Of course, everyone seemed to realize that it was just a bunch of retards with no chance of success.
My point is, if a real terrorist were caught on mainland US, you can bet that they would have been trumpeting that victory on the front page of every newspaper. They were desperate for a clear PR win. They never got one.
No I won't, because foreign terrorist attacks on mainland US were pretty much non-existent in the years leading up to 9/11 too. The way the Republicans talk, you'd think the US was a war-zone leading up to 9/11. Most of the "terrorism" we have encountered pre-911 has been rare, and against our military assets in Middle Eastern nations. And we shouldn't even have our military assets there in the first place.
Peddle your fear elsewhere. Your tiger repellent is just a plain rock.
No-one says they have to lose money on their internet business. You can distribute content over the internet and play to its strength. See: Steam, Hulu, XBox Live, PSN, Netflix. What they are trying to do is to mold the internet into the image of TV, because they cannot comprehend a business model that does not work like their current one. That is the mark of bad executives.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft was already brought to court over antitrust matters, lost, and was fined. Then the Bush administration basically gave them a pass. I don't think we can drag them to court again, unless they do something significantly new.
Another thought: I'm not sure if the ISO/DOCX/ODF fiasco counts. I wish that it was looked into by the correct anti-trust officials, but I don't really know if that sort of thing breaks any laws.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd agree that Google has been the shining corporate citizen that you paint them to be. They have done some questionable things (privacy issues with StreetView, China dealings, etc).
I'll stop worrying about companies getting too big when I stop hearing about how companies are "Too big to fail." Or when they aren't big enough to put serious economic pressure on other people/businesses. Or when they aren't big enough to be able to legally harass people despite having a flimsy case. Or when common people are able to routinely exact damages from them.
Until then, I'm perfectly happy with society telling companies that they are too big and need to limit their scope. Large businesses have disproportionate power over me. Even more so if there are only a few options. I don't like being coerced, whether its by private companies or governments.
Multiple rocks really. They had a small fleet flying around with lasers, breaking up any rocks that got through the shield. In other words, Asteroids. They could basically take the first half of Stellvia and rename it Asteroids: The Movie.
I was thinking of a particular scene from Stellvia, personally. /weaboo
I value all humans equally. Period. :)
Even Hitler?
/Godwinned
I hope that you've had a doctor check you out for digestive track issues. Might be just a high metabolism, but I also had a friend who was unnaturally skinny. Turned out he had Crohns, and the late diagnosis made things hard on him.
Sorry if I phrased the question trollishly. I think a better way of putting it is this: If I were accused by the RIAA, do you think you'd be a good lawyer to represent me at trial. If so, what are your qualifications? I don't do much infringing anymore, so I'm unlikely to need your services, but I'd be interested in knowing.
Its my impression that you're very knowledgeable, but since I'm not a legal expert, my impressions mean nothing. Sorry if you've already gone over this.
Well,its my impression that he is skilled. At the very lest he seems knowledgeable. So I agree with you there. But I'm not a lawyer, so my feelings aren't very valid as evidence.
I was fishing for evidence that he's actually done some work in this area that would prove his competency. I realize my post came off as trollish, but I couldn't really find a less-blunt way of putting it.
I've seen a lot of people claim that defendents in copyright infringement cases should use NYCL. Forgive my bluntness, but do we really have any evidence that NYCL is a particularly skilled lawyer? Is he more likely to obtain a favorable verdict than the lawyers that these people are using? It seems like we're assuming that he's a good lawyer because he's on our side.
*Dons flame-retardant suit*
Its gotten to the point where I'm inherently distrustful of anyone that claims to want to protect me from terrorists, or want to protect children. It's like code-words for "I want to introduce some legislation that violates your rights, and have to make this palatable."
It does if spending that money means you need less money from taxpayers in the first place.
I can't speak scientifically one way or the other, but I certainly felt more relaxed with a park nearby. Taking a walk through the park was certainly nice. One of my biggest disappointments moving away from Chicago is that I no longer have easy access to a nice large park like Lincoln Park.
If that is the case, then you are arguing against the research on scientific terms, which does not conflict with my original statement that the science is what matters, not the source of funding.
I was actually replying to the following idea:
I think the important thing to ask is, "Who paid for the study?"
This sort of reasoning is typically used to throw away useful results without properly analyzing the research. If the source of funding is affecting the results, then a peer-review of that research should turn up discrepancies.
On the other hand, believing an argument based on the authority of the person giving the argument isn't valid logic per se, but for everyday life, and general cases, its usually an effective short-cut. There are not enough hours in the day to properly validate every single claim we come across in every-day lives. However, these sorts of logical short-cuts should not be applied by scientists and policy-makers. These are the exact same people that are often asked to ignore the scientific evidence and give weight to emotional arguments.
For instance, it is one thing for you and I to disregard an oil company's research as "probably invalid." It is altogether entirely different for the scientific community and politicians to do so. They should not disregard the research because of the source.
And yet someone has to fund the research. Climate change studies are expensive, since they usually require copious data-collection and analyzing a myriad factors. Those that fund the research always have a vested interest. Otherwise, why would they fund it? You simply can't use the source of funding as a yardstick for the validity of the research. It is best to analyze the science based on its merits. If it is poisoned, as you say, it will be easy to discredit.
It has been shown, scientifically, that C02 contributes to the greenhouse affect, that C02 levels have been rising due to industrialization, and that global temperature is positively correlated with that C02 level. That you consider me brainwashed for looking at the science says more about you than me.
No, that's an Ad Hominem. The important thing to ask is, "Is the research scientifically sound?"
For three, Zicam does not provide topical relief of symptoms. It drastically reduces, to the extent of almost eliminating, the duration and severity of the cold.
Oh really? From Zicam's web site:
Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel begins working from the first time you use it. While it is not understood why consistent use over 1-2 weeks is necessary to see results, clinical research on this product indicate that it may take one to two weeks to see a decrease in symptoms. For best results, use Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel up to one week before contact to known causes of your allergies.
1-2 weeks is the typical duration of a cold. If it takes 1-2 weeks to "see results," then it hasn't done anything in the first place. It seems that Zycam's makeers disagree with you that it reduces the duration.
It's a bit moot because Zycam isn't in homeopathic-level dilutions anyway (that is, there is actual measurable quantities of active ingredient in Zycam). Homeopathic medicine has been shown to be ineffective by proper scientific double-blind studies. This isn't surprising because homeopathic medicine is water.
Its a job advertisement in a discussion forum. It is, technically, off-topic.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Again, who said it had to be free? There's a difference between charging the users of your site and trying to charge an ISP. Don't put words into my mouth.
You joke, but Jack Chick made a Chick Tract that basically claimed that gluons were Jesus. Seriously. I'd find it for you but I'm at work right now.
Indeed.
Do you remember when some US citizens decided to become terrorists, and came up with a plan to destroy a bridge with a blow-torch? And after the feds "busted" them, they trumpeted that as a huge victory for their new policies? Of course, everyone seemed to realize that it was just a bunch of retards with no chance of success.
My point is, if a real terrorist were caught on mainland US, you can bet that they would have been trumpeting that victory on the front page of every newspaper. They were desperate for a clear PR win. They never got one.
No I won't, because foreign terrorist attacks on mainland US were pretty much non-existent in the years leading up to 9/11 too. The way the Republicans talk, you'd think the US was a war-zone leading up to 9/11. Most of the "terrorism" we have encountered pre-911 has been rare, and against our military assets in Middle Eastern nations. And we shouldn't even have our military assets there in the first place.
Peddle your fear elsewhere. Your tiger repellent is just a plain rock.
No-one says they have to lose money on their internet business. You can distribute content over the internet and play to its strength. See: Steam, Hulu, XBox Live, PSN, Netflix. What they are trying to do is to mold the internet into the image of TV, because they cannot comprehend a business model that does not work like their current one. That is the mark of bad executives.
When it comes to internet service, I have very little choice in the matter.