Who cares what the face-boy of facebook thinks anyway?
The most interesting thing about this article is who sponsers the "Crunchies"; namely three web-entities that are little more than gadget-review sites.
So, it's a ceremony wherein one bunch of black t-shirts gives awards to another group of black t-shirts for getting the most votes from the larger group of black t-shirts inclusive of the first two. (It's enough to make the Grammys, by comparison, seem like science.)
Since every point increase for bing'le must be a consequent "loss" for google, any "down" for google over the last 2 months could easily be explained by (1) der bing'le being default on all of the new W7 installs/machines, and (2) all microserfs being flagellated into using it exclusively and as often as cpu-ably possible.
Massaged user stats aside, if google==Al Gore, then bing'le==Dan Quayle.
From TFA: "Fink cited a study by Maffioletti and Ramello (2004) which concluded that . . . increased copyright enforcement would not expand sales of legitimate copies on a one-for-one basis."
The study did not say this, but anecdotally it seems to me that if not for "piracy" the audience penetration for a lot of movies and music would be a lot less, and I often wonder if it's "pirates" who posted Iron Man to youtube or put up a torrent of Wolverine, or Paramount and Marvel (maybe even Audi?).
Copyright enf't--at least in the common law jurisdictions--has always implied an assessment of money damages; it's not really a new thing, or shouldn't be if it is.
When I was young we couldn't get cell phone service, dsl nor did we have bicycles and we lived in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.
Every night at midnight we'd have to get up out of the shoebox and lick the road clean with our tongues, then we'd go to work 24 hours at the mill for fourpence every six years . . . or was that "sixpence every four years"?
Try telling that to the FCC today. . . they won't believe you.
You might want to reconsider wearing that shirt and reading our emails.
All of the agents of communication people are arguing about here are, like Google, willing to "read your email" to comply with the law, but would never allow that they do so on a regular basis or suggest that they have any duty to do so.
A duty implies liability if something goes wrong; if you regularly read people's emails then you might be at least partly liable for any acts of terrorism or other types of mayhem that ensued.
In other words, you (nor Google) don't need to access your high sense of ethics for a reason not to read other people's email, it's really more like common sense not to do it: i.e. because you don't want to become like the priest in the confessional or the psychiatrist with the homicidal client(-s).
Remember how big a deal Bloggers were going to be? A few are great, the rest are just boring people being *precisely* as boring as the rest of us. And don't Twitter me your bowel movements, either: just not that useful.
Hey, I resemble most of those remarks!
(Link to blog listing tweets of my difficulties boweling--as well as other age-related complaints--to follow)
My apologies; I did not mean to suggest that you or anyone else should reject anyone's friendship b/c they do or don't do everything that you do.
I only meant to agree with the previous post that, as a general rule, like-likes-like seems to be observably true in everyday life.
Though your personal, anecdotal experience does not support such a conclusion, social science (and social engineering), advertising, marketing, etc. seem very much to be based on at least an acceptance of this notion.
I think we do agree that, even if the outcomes in the study presented in TFA are styled as "positive", the same principle lends itself to the much more negative outcome of coercion.
I think that this is certainly backed up, as you say, by common, human experience; in the example of the smoker whose friends all quit, she had two choices: quit herself, or quit her friends. Even Barney Gumble is rejected on the Simpsons when he no longer wants to be the town drunk.
On the other hand, the main thrust of social scientific research in this vein, since the time of Paul Lazarsfeld (as noted in TFA), has been to provide "scientific evidence" that people are not "led" by institutions, but "influenced" by peers. So, if Homer, Lenny and Carl could be convinced to stop drinking then Barney might actually have a chance to reform himself.
The contrary of that, which also has "experimental evidence" to back it up, is that Homer, Lenny and Carl may now alternately become an instrument to keep Barney from expressing himself freely; that is, if it were Barney's habit to shout "you lie" only at black politicians and not to shout "you moron" at white ones, he might be less inclined to do so if his pals at Moe's did the opposite. The social influence of Homer et al, would then be typed as social repression.
The results in the 20th century were a lot of money spent on advertising, movies, and other mass media, and the advent of talk shows, "personalities", and pundits.
It remains to be seen if the same will carry over, for good and for bad, into the 21st century world of social networking.
In other words, will a select few emerge as the alpha nerds on/., or the big giant heads of facebook, or biggest twits on twitter?
Slashdot Mirror
You left out "post rants and screeds on /."
(Of which, this is most definitely not one, BTW.)
A cacophony of reason.
There, fixed that for you.
As far as US law is concerned in this regard, the 4th Amendment is not so much the problem as is the 40 yr old "expectation of privacy" test.
Perhaps it's time to change that one and bring it up to date particularly in light of the fact that it doesn't seem to apply to very much any longer.
The larger problem--as pointed out above by petes_PoV--is the international jurisdiction issue; "where" is the data cloud?
The answer to that question determines which laws--including any related "third party doctrines"--will apply.
Will google respect non-US law when it comes to turning over cloud data to non-US gov't agents?
The chart in TFA seems to reflect (to my untrained eyes) a rise in MS/bing-le's market share mostly as a matter of eroding that of yahoo!
The chart also seems to show google(-site-)'s share growing as much as MS/bing-le's over the same period.
Maybe I'm missing something . . .
Who cares what the face-boy of facebook thinks anyway?
The most interesting thing about this article is who sponsers the "Crunchies"; namely three web-entities that are little more than gadget-review sites.
So, it's a ceremony wherein one bunch of black t-shirts gives awards to another group of black t-shirts for getting the most votes from the larger group of black t-shirts inclusive of the first two. (It's enough to make the Grammys, by comparison, seem like science.)
Bill Atkinson outlined a plan for a "magic slate" in his "HyperCard Handbook" over 20 years ago.
The Newton was a step in that direction, as was Sony's MagicLink; after that (about 1995) nothing happened.
I agree with those who say that the smartphones have made such devices seem to be too little, too late.
At this point, what would a "magic slate" do that a smartphone with a larger screen, larger hd, and wifi capability couldn't/wouldn't do?
And quite a bit more really.
Also, wouldn't all things in space, including battle, have to be 4D by definition?
. . . a light box and two cameras?
Perhaps I'm not smart enough to see it, but that's a pretty low standard of DIY, even for "Instructables".
. . . would you like me to guide you?
Ask Clippy!
They are discussing AT&T, not their sex life.
Note to self: "jk" is NOT always implied.
. . .wristwatches are . . . a symbol of status and of self-expression.
Which is why everyone who wears one nowadays comes across as an insecure realtor or con-artist.
You think your iPhone is going to get you laid... or any serious street cred?.
I beg to differ; most of the people who I know who have iPhones say that it gets them screwed every month.
As for "cred", there's an app for that, isn't there?
Since every point increase for bing'le must be a consequent "loss" for google, any "down" for google over the last 2 months could easily be explained by (1) der bing'le being default on all of the new W7 installs/machines, and (2) all microserfs being flagellated into using it exclusively and as often as cpu-ably possible.
Massaged user stats aside, if google==Al Gore, then bing'le==Dan Quayle.
This must run afoul of the rule against perpetuities in some way . . . doesn't everything?
I thought "Forbidden Planet" (after leavening with Horatio Hornblower) was the pilot for ST:TOS?
Though Spock beats Robby like a drum.
Ummm . . . could you put that last slide up again?
From TFA: "Fink cited a study by Maffioletti and Ramello (2004) which concluded that . . . increased copyright enforcement would not expand sales of legitimate copies on a one-for-one basis."
The study did not say this, but anecdotally it seems to me that if not for "piracy" the audience penetration for a lot of movies and music would be a lot less, and I often wonder if it's "pirates" who posted Iron Man to youtube or put up a torrent of Wolverine, or Paramount and Marvel (maybe even Audi?).
Copyright enf't--at least in the common law jurisdictions--has always implied an assessment of money damages; it's not really a new thing, or shouldn't be if it is.
You were lucky.
When I was young we couldn't get cell phone service, dsl nor did we have bicycles and we lived in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.
Every night at midnight we'd have to get up out of the shoebox and lick the road clean with our tongues, then we'd go to work 24 hours at the mill for fourpence every six years . . . or was that "sixpence every four years"?
Try telling that to the FCC today. . . they won't believe you.
You might want to reconsider wearing that shirt and reading our emails.
All of the agents of communication people are arguing about here are, like Google, willing to "read your email" to comply with the law, but would never allow that they do so on a regular basis or suggest that they have any duty to do so.
A duty implies liability if something goes wrong; if you regularly read people's emails then you might be at least partly liable for any acts of terrorism or other types of mayhem that ensued.
In other words, you (nor Google) don't need to access your high sense of ethics for a reason not to read other people's email, it's really more like common sense not to do it: i.e. because you don't want to become like the priest in the confessional or the psychiatrist with the homicidal client(-s).
Parlez seule pour toi, mon ami!
wikipedia agrees with you: As of January 30, 2009 Micro-USB has been accepted by almost all cell phone manufacturers as the standard charging port (including Apple, Motorola, Nokia, LG, RIM, Samsung, Sony Ericsson) in the EU and most of the world.
And I have a sanyo and a samsung that both use it.
Remember how big a deal Bloggers were going to be? A few are great, the rest are just boring people being *precisely* as boring as the rest of us. And don't Twitter me your bowel movements, either: just not that useful.
Hey, I resemble most of those remarks!
(Link to blog listing tweets of my difficulties boweling--as well as other age-related complaints--to follow)
I am a firm believer in the maxim "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?"
If this is true then it must also be true that "if you do not intend to judge a person, then why are you surveilling him/her?"
And if you're judging a person, what standard are you applying and what gives you the right to do the judging?
My apologies; I did not mean to suggest that you or anyone else should reject anyone's friendship b/c they do or don't do everything that you do.
I only meant to agree with the previous post that, as a general rule, like-likes-like seems to be observably true in everyday life.
Though your personal, anecdotal experience does not support such a conclusion, social science (and social engineering), advertising, marketing, etc. seem very much to be based on at least an acceptance of this notion.
I think we do agree that, even if the outcomes in the study presented in TFA are styled as "positive", the same principle lends itself to the much more negative outcome of coercion.
I think that this is certainly backed up, as you say, by common, human experience; in the example of the smoker whose friends all quit, she had two choices: quit herself, or quit her friends. Even Barney Gumble is rejected on the Simpsons when he no longer wants to be the town drunk.
On the other hand, the main thrust of social scientific research in this vein, since the time of Paul Lazarsfeld (as noted in TFA), has been to provide "scientific evidence" that people are not "led" by institutions, but "influenced" by peers. So, if Homer, Lenny and Carl could be convinced to stop drinking then Barney might actually have a chance to reform himself.
The contrary of that, which also has "experimental evidence" to back it up, is that Homer, Lenny and Carl may now alternately become an instrument to keep Barney from expressing himself freely; that is, if it were Barney's habit to shout "you lie" only at black politicians and not to shout "you moron" at white ones, he might be less inclined to do so if his pals at Moe's did the opposite. The social influence of Homer et al, would then be typed as social repression.
The results in the 20th century were a lot of money spent on advertising, movies, and other mass media, and the advent of talk shows, "personalities", and pundits.
It remains to be seen if the same will carry over, for good and for bad, into the 21st century world of social networking.
In other words, will a select few emerge as the alpha nerds on /., or the big giant heads of facebook, or biggest twits on twitter?
Stay tuned.
The link in the post above points here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088072611398_page_2.htm
Is that the correct article? That one seems to be about bank issued credit cards--was this intended?