n cases like Exxon being sued by fisherman because passing of their tanker coincides with oil slick, but the case is thrown out because of "lack of evidence", then the fishermen should not be paying Exxo
I disagree. This needs to work both ways for it to be effective - the corporations that we love to hate can easily get nickeled and dimed to death otherwise. The fact that there's no sufficient evidence is something that the fisherman's attorney should have warned him of ahead of time. Half of the point is to prevent cases that aren't reasonable to begin with - regardless of whether the plaintiff is Exxon or a fisherman.
After reading through the claims of the patent, I don't see that there really is a good defense against it -- except for as you said, the broadness of the patent itself (though of course IANAL).
That may be a very valid argument though - because this patent could just as easily be read to include the serving and viewing of a web page: the client software is requesting to view a "document", the process of creating and serving that document is handled by the server, and the rendering is handled by the client.
Given that the defendants are also ridiculously litigious about software patents,
Every case like this that is lost by the defendants serves to further legitimize this type of patent. If they win this, any project using Ajax is at risk, including many popular FOSS forum and CMS packages. So you'll pardon me if I'm less than enthusiastic about this, regardless of who is defending.
I hate loud commercials too, but this is just too much government IMHO. I'd much rather just have intelligent TVs or receivers that turned the volume down upon detecting a commercial...based on the settings *I* want, not what the government thinks is best for me.
These TVs used to exist (we used to have one in the 90s that would auto-mute on commercials based on the brief gap of extra size between commercial and programming), and were forced out of the market - or so I assume as I have not been able to find one for years.
I'm not generally a fan of government interference, but I don't see an alternative here. The market can't correct this - or rather, the market here isn't controlled by consumers, but by the advertisers & networks. The competition that should correct it can't, as the consumer isn't a consideration in targeting the products.
Assuming that some other server is running. Assuming the other server has the data you need. Assuming the other server matches the variant of the client you've been using.
Open source is a great thing, but it's no silver bullet - it can be mismanaged just as easily as closed source.
Being forced to purchase insurance, the insurance is paid for by your employer whether you want it or not. Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled.
Every employer I've had has offered the option of health care, from the largest to the smallest. I'm sure there are some cases where what you describe holds true, but it's certainly not the rule.
Freedom of choice constrained (try to go to an out of network doctor
My insurance covers 80% of out of network, and 100% in-network. In addition, I have thousands of doctors and hospitals to choose from in network. Note also that choice doesn't always mean "you get to do anything you damned please". beyond that, I also have multiple plans available - both the subsidized insurance plans my job offers, and the unsubsidized ones I can get independently.
The same cost for one kid or eight? Once again we have that now.
Um, no. All the plans I'm familiar with will add to your premium for each kid, though there may be an upper limit on how much it will increase.
but could you please try to put some thought into what you write before you spew such easily refutable garbage.
Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude?
That's a rather broad statement that smells suspiciously of flamebait. One could just as easily ask why other countries constantly want to include the US in agreements that will often require US to shoulder a disproportionate burden of the cost. The question is just as valid (that is to say, a grain of truth but barely scratches the surface).
As far as CRC (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm)...
I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??
This is like when someone attaches a ridiculous rider to a bill related to children, then publishes smear ads when a house member votes the bill down because of the rider. "Jo Schmo is against The Children!"
A couple of things that might be objectionable (I don't know this for sure), which aren't covered in your over-generalized "prevent sale into slavery":
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
What does that mean for those who want to give up their children for adoption at birth? In those cases it is possible for the child to know and be cared for by his parents, but also not reasonable if the parents will not be keeping the child.
A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents
And if one of those parents is in prison due to having tried to kill the child? If it were my kid, you can be damned sure I wouldn't allow him/her to visit that parent until and unless they requested it with full understanding of what it means.
States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health.
To this end, States Parties shall:
(a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29;
(b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources;
(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books;
(d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous;
(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.
Do I need to explain the potential pitfalls in this one? Particularly "e"? Or the rather ignorant assumptions present in "d"?
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:
(d) To diminish infant and child mortality;
(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;
(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;
(d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal
. By changing the name from fraud to identity theft, they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.
I would argue the opposite. By stating "identity theft" there is no doubt of who the victim is. By more accurately calling it "fraud", now it's much less clear for the victim could be the merchant, the bank, or the person.
One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.
That's a fallacy that I think occurs a lot - "punishment to fit the crime" somehow becomes considered as "punishment relative to other punishments for unrelated crimes". And of course when looked at in that light, it's pretty unreasonable -- but that's a lot like comparing apples to soda cans.
or the number of times the driver gets into the wrong lane becuase they don't really understand what the words and numbers are actually telling them to do? T
Having used a satnav with a rental recently, I have to say... it's really hard to misunderstand "Turn left in 120 feet" "Turn left in 50 feet" "Turn left". I used the display, but really only in looking "ahead" to see what was coming up in a mile or two. If a driver doesn't understand how the localized unit of measurement is relevant to actual distance, they shouldn't be driving with or without satnav.
That misses the point though. Nobody ever said "indie" meant "good". You're a "real" indie if you're not with a major label. The quality of your work is irrelevant to both your status as "indie" and whether or not you've earned the money you're owed.
So wouldn't it be a more reasonable requirement in that environment to say "no leaky headphones" than "no music for you!" ? Too, it doesn't sound like noise leakage is the issue - it sounds like the boss thinks music is distracting to the person who is listening to it.
VMs have been compromised through some exploit that has nothing to do with Amazon. The exploit allowed C&C component of a botnet to lodge itself into the hosting machine(s). And... it's news because Amazon is hosting? The machines are only as secure as the images provided to Amazon, are they not?
The problem is that most employers won't ask. That opens up kegs of worms that they don't need to - instead, they see your resume, google your name, and into the circular file you go. No fuss.
Nobody is free of skeletons, just try not to have some real bad ones.
I'm not free of 'em either, but you won't find any of them when you google my name, either. Once it's out there, it's too late - the only way to protect yourself is to keep it from getting out there. And... idiot or no, a lot of employers will make google their first checkpoint. If there's something too egregiously stupid, it will cost you the job and perhaps rightly so.
I've no idea, tell you the truth. I'm not a salesperson for them, I was just shooting for a vaguely witty remark indicating that at first glance, infobunker seems more about a keen slogan than a useful service. Clearly there's more to them than first impression.
But here goes anyway - damn you for making me use my brain. I am making certain assumptions based on what I've read -- primary among them being that IM didn't just jam a data center into the old mine any way it would fit.
It seems that the biggest benefits they draw from it over any other location is that a) they don't have to dig the pit to get the protection it offers, and b) they can use geothermal temperature control. Given the nature of their business (securing data against all forseeable catastrophe), I'm gonna hazard a guess that they've taken such points as you raised into consideration.
You can bet that if I were looking to give them my business, I'd be doing more than assuming.
In the US it's the same. Even ordering online from the mainstream suppliers, Linux offerings are slim. Dell has a line, but they are priced identically to the Windows version (probably because there's no crapware to subsidize it - of Linux goes mainstream does that mean OEM installs will need to be decrapified?), but most of their emphasis is on Windows. That's really the same store with all of the major suppliers - Acer, Asus, HP, et al. THey/have/ linux offerings, but it's not usually any cheaper, and is available on a limited subset of options.
Walk into any retail chain, and it's nonexistent.
Kind of makes me wonder how they calculate this 30%...
Meh. In the war of the mission statements, Iron Mountain wins.
Infobunker: InfoBunker is committed to providing our clients with the most secure, robust and flexible data storage
environment attainable while maintaining affordability and delivering the utmost in customer service.
Iron Mountain: Helping businesses solve information management challenges.
I mean seriously, did the infobunker folks run the Buzzword Mission Statement generator when coming up with that, or are their marketing execs truly that... um, talented?
I am from the area, and the Pennsylvania mine was almost solely government records for a long time. Iron Mountain took over in the late 90's. You see Iron Mountain trucks all over Pittsburgh collecting records now.
Yes. As a matter of fact, they were going door-to-door. A few weeks ago, I got a knock on my door. Turns out it was some Iron Mountain dude, wanted to know if I had any electronic records I cared to offload. Said he'd free up some GB for me.
Slashdot Mirror
n cases like Exxon being sued by fisherman because passing of their tanker coincides with oil slick, but the case is thrown out because of "lack of evidence", then the fishermen should not be paying Exxo
I disagree. This needs to work both ways for it to be effective - the corporations that we love to hate can easily get nickeled and dimed to death otherwise. The fact that there's no sufficient evidence is something that the fisherman's attorney should have warned him of ahead of time. Half of the point is to prevent cases that aren't reasonable to begin with - regardless of whether the plaintiff is Exxon or a fisherman.
(I joke, I joke... I've friends from India, AC does not exaggerate...)
That may be a very valid argument though - because this patent could just as easily be read to include the serving and viewing of a web page: the client software is requesting to view a "document", the process of creating and serving that document is handled by the server, and the rendering is handled by the client.
Given that the defendants are also ridiculously litigious about software patents,
Every case like this that is lost by the defendants serves to further legitimize this type of patent. If they win this, any project using Ajax is at risk, including many popular FOSS forum and CMS packages. So you'll pardon me if I'm less than enthusiastic about this, regardless of who is defending.
I hate loud commercials too, but this is just too much government IMHO. I'd much rather just have intelligent TVs or receivers that turned the volume down upon detecting a commercial...based on the settings *I* want, not what the government thinks is best for me.
These TVs used to exist (we used to have one in the 90s that would auto-mute on commercials based on the brief gap of extra size between commercial and programming), and were forced out of the market - or so I assume as I have not been able to find one for years.
I'm not generally a fan of government interference, but I don't see an alternative here. The market can't correct this - or rather, the market here isn't controlled by consumers, but by the advertisers & networks. The competition that should correct it can't, as the consumer isn't a consideration in targeting the products.
Open source is a great thing, but it's no silver bullet - it can be mismanaged just as easily as closed source.
Does TiVo yet work with digital cable, including encrypted subscription channels , hd, etc? (It didn't several years ago, when I last looked.)
Being forced to purchase insurance, the insurance is paid for by your employer whether you want it or not. Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled.
Every employer I've had has offered the option of health care, from the largest to the smallest. I'm sure there are some cases where what you describe holds true, but it's certainly not the rule.
Freedom of choice constrained (try to go to an out of network doctor
My insurance covers 80% of out of network, and 100% in-network. In addition, I have thousands of doctors and hospitals to choose from in network. Note also that choice doesn't always mean "you get to do anything you damned please". beyond that, I also have multiple plans available - both the subsidized insurance plans my job offers, and the unsubsidized ones I can get independently.
The same cost for one kid or eight? Once again we have that now.
Um, no. All the plans I'm familiar with will add to your premium for each kid, though there may be an upper limit on how much it will increase.
but could you please try to put some thought into what you write before you spew such easily refutable garbage.
Indeed.
Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude?
That's a rather broad statement that smells suspiciously of flamebait. One could just as easily ask why other countries constantly want to include the US in agreements that will often require US to shoulder a disproportionate burden of the cost. The question is just as valid (that is to say, a grain of truth but barely scratches the surface).
As far as CRC (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm)...
I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??
This is like when someone attaches a ridiculous rider to a bill related to children, then publishes smear ads when a house member votes the bill down because of the rider. "Jo Schmo is against The Children!" A couple of things that might be objectionable (I don't know this for sure), which aren't covered in your over-generalized "prevent sale into slavery" :
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
What does that mean for those who want to give up their children for adoption at birth? In those cases it is possible for the child to know and be cared for by his parents, but also not reasonable if the parents will not be keeping the child.
A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents
And if one of those parents is in prison due to having tried to kill the child? If it were my kid, you can be damned sure I wouldn't allow him/her to visit that parent until and unless they requested it with full understanding of what it means.
States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall: (a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29; (b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources; (c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books; (d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous; (e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.
Do I need to explain the potential pitfalls in this one? Particularly "e"? Or the rather ignorant assumptions present in "d"?
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (d) To diminish infant and child mortality; (b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care; (c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal
. By changing the name from fraud to identity theft, they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.
I would argue the opposite. By stating "identity theft" there is no doubt of who the victim is. By more accurately calling it "fraud", now it's much less clear for the victim could be the merchant, the bank, or the person.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer piece of pond scum.
Don't be so complimentary - at least pond scum (of the algae variety) has its place in the ecosystem...
One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.
That's a fallacy that I think occurs a lot - "punishment to fit the crime" somehow becomes considered as "punishment relative to other punishments for unrelated crimes". And of course when looked at in that light, it's pretty unreasonable -- but that's a lot like comparing apples to soda cans.
or the number of times the driver gets into the wrong lane becuase they don't really understand what the words and numbers are actually telling them to do? T
Having used a satnav with a rental recently, I have to say... it's really hard to misunderstand "Turn left in 120 feet" "Turn left in 50 feet" "Turn left". I used the display, but really only in looking "ahead" to see what was coming up in a mile or two. If a driver doesn't understand how the localized unit of measurement is relevant to actual distance, they shouldn't be driving with or without satnav.
That misses the point though. Nobody ever said "indie" meant "good". You're a "real" indie if you're not with a major label. The quality of your work is irrelevant to both your status as "indie" and whether or not you've earned the money you're owed.
So wouldn't it be a more reasonable requirement in that environment to say "no leaky headphones" than "no music for you!" ? Too, it doesn't sound like noise leakage is the issue - it sounds like the boss thinks music is distracting to the person who is listening to it.
VMs have been compromised through some exploit that has nothing to do with Amazon. The exploit allowed C&C component of a botnet to lodge itself into the hosting machine(s). And ... it's news because Amazon is hosting? The machines are only as secure as the images provided to Amazon, are they not?
The problem is that most employers won't ask. That opens up kegs of worms that they don't need to - instead, they see your resume, google your name, and into the circular file you go. No fuss.
Nobody is free of skeletons, just try not to have some real bad ones.
I'm not free of 'em either, but you won't find any of them when you google my name, either. Once it's out there, it's too late - the only way to protect yourself is to keep it from getting out there. And... idiot or no, a lot of employers will make google their first checkpoint. If there's something too egregiously stupid, it will cost you the job and perhaps rightly so.
But here goes anyway - damn you for making me use my brain. I am making certain assumptions based on what I've read -- primary among them being that IM didn't just jam a data center into the old mine any way it would fit.
It seems that the biggest benefits they draw from it over any other location is that a) they don't have to dig the pit to get the protection it offers, and b) they can use geothermal temperature control. Given the nature of their business (securing data against all forseeable catastrophe), I'm gonna hazard a guess that they've taken such points as you raised into consideration.
You can bet that if I were looking to give them my business, I'd be doing more than assuming.
A couple of miles of limestone are as effective as a lesser quantity of lead ... that is to say after a certain distance, 100% effective.
I'd like to apologize
You must be new here.
Walk into any retail chain, and it's nonexistent.
Kind of makes me wonder how they calculate this 30%...
No. Doesn't support enough RAM.
Infobunker: InfoBunker is committed to providing our clients with the most secure, robust and flexible data storage environment attainable while maintaining affordability and delivering the utmost in customer service.
Iron Mountain: Helping businesses solve information management challenges.
I mean seriously, did the infobunker folks run the Buzzword Mission Statement generator when coming up with that, or are their marketing execs truly that... um, talented?
I am from the area, and the Pennsylvania mine was almost solely government records for a long time. Iron Mountain took over in the late 90's. You see Iron Mountain trucks all over Pittsburgh collecting records now.
Yes. As a matter of fact, they were going door-to-door. A few weeks ago, I got a knock on my door. Turns out it was some Iron Mountain dude, wanted to know if I had any electronic records I cared to offload. Said he'd free up some GB for me.