Remember way back when when the DOJ dropped the ani-trust suit against Microsoft? Did they cut a deal? Maybe the government is forcing MS to send your personal computing habits to Homeland Security? (This is/., so I expect a +5 insightful for my anti-Bush conspiracy theory involving MSFT)
It's...possible...to find...random idiots who can't write and treat the site as a popularity contest. There are a lot of empty-headed dumbasses on MySpace, but that doesn't mean the site can't be useful - just avoid contact with those people.
RTFA -- "They can catch them when they first air or watch them online the day after for free, but with commercials. If they want to watch them on the go, individual episodes without ads are available from the iTunes Music Store for US$1.99 each..."
The version with commercials IS free, and the version that you pay for on iTunes has NO commercials. This is going to be a good thing.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
That doesn't sound a bit like "separation" to you?
No, it doesn't. Read it carefully. It says that the state cannot interfere with religion. Is says nothing about religion's effect on the state. The church is free to do what it wants, as far as this ammendment is concerned. The state is who is put on a leash. The government cannot set up a state religion (like was happening in so much of Europe when our constitution was written), it cannot require that churches be registered, or make any kind of law that prevents me from freely exercising my religion. This does not seperate the two institutions, it merely restricts the state's power in matters of religion.
And what does that say about the future of Linux? If these people knew enough to run linux, they would certainly be able to keep malware off their WinXP machine...
"To receive" is an active verb, much like "to take". IANAL, but I would guess that "receiving" digital media would imply more than just having it show up in your in-box and promply deleting it. I would guess it would be more on the lines of "receiving stolen goods", where you have to actually take possession.
Paying attention to what? The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense merely has to raise reasonable doubt, and doubt in this case would be reasonable. The prosecution has to convince 12 jurors, ordinary people, that you were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in possession of illegal images. Now, if the police found a CD in your house with your finger prints on it, containing these images, then you're probably in hot water. But then, they wouldn't need the deleted e-mail, would they?
Please clarify... what real life cases are you referring to where the prosecution has made some vauge "you might have done xyz" claim and been able to get an even an indictment, much less a conviction?
We call that spam... And seeing as we live in an age where real life child molestors and rapists are "re-habilitated" instead of sentenced, I find it hard to believe that any judge would allow spam that you deleted to be entered in as evidence against you...
But our goal isn't to keep from being conquered, it is to exert control over the rest of the world all the time.
You act as if there is a difference. There's not. In today's world, if we sit back and let the world run it's course, we end up with a world where it was in 1939... Europe appeasing scary people who have ambitions of world dominiation, while we in the US sit back and ignore it all. If we lived in a bubble, if it was true that we could defend ourselves against a manaic that had conquered the rest of th world, I might agree with you (global responsibility aside). But Hitler almost beat us. Now we have problems like Iran and believe me, if we just ignore them they will become a threat that our all of our military strength could not defend us against. Your theory sounds good, but we've been there, done that, and it just doesn't work.
Peace at any price was the mantra of pre-war (WWII) europe, and it didn't exactly work out the way they wanted it. Keeping our nose out of other people's business was the pre-war (WWII) policy of the US government, and it didn't work so well, either. Thankfully, we have a president who learned the lessons of 50 years ago, who is willing to stop problems before they escalate to the point where they cause 62 millinon deaths before it's over.
My car has cruise control, but I can still speed. It does nothing to limit my speed, it merely allows me to maintain a constant speed (which I choose to set).
Exactly. In classified ads, it's common practice to list a price as "$xxx OBO" (OBO meaning Or Best Offer)... in other words, buy it now for $xxx, or put in your bid. Making this common practice a part of an online auction site seems pretty obvious to me, so what's with giving out a patent for it?
I'm guessing that the amount of time it will take for this golf ball to re-enter has more to do with the fact that there is a minimal amount of atmosphere at that altitude. Remember that the forces at work in an orbit are:
1. A centripital force, based upon the velocity of the object, pulling the object away from the earth, and
2. Gravity, pulling the object back toward earth.
The velocity of the golf ball will determine the altitude at which it orbits. No matter what direction the ball is hit in, all that really matters is it's velocity parallel to the earth, which will slowly diminish due to resistance from what atmosphere there is at that altitude. There certainly is some variability as to the amount of resistance it will encounter based on the exact forces of the golf club swing (hence the 3-4 year window for it's re-entry), but not enough to possibly put the ball into permanent orbit.
You have just booted OSX on your non-Apple computer for the last time. You have gotten a sampling of some of what a genuine Mac has to offer. Call xxx-xxx-xxxx or go to www.apple.com to order one. Please save all your files to an external device NOW.
Or it could do like XP and pop up that message whenever you add new hardware...
When I wanted to buy a house I went to my friend who is a real estate agent. He got a commision on the house I bought. I have no problem with that -- he was very helpful and earned his money. Google's service is much like a real estate agent. They help you find things (even your own personal things), and in return they get to use information you provide to make a *gasp* profit. Google is not Big Brother, they're simply on the leading edge of where our information/advertising driven economy is inevitably headed anyway.
Big Brother type governments have been able to get information about their people without Google. You pay informants, you turn people against each other for a price, and you can get all the information you need. You can't hide...whether it's google or your neighbor. If (and this is a different debate)... if the government is subverting due process with illegal wiretaps and places like Guantanamo Bay, that's a valid concern. Google is not.
I work for a healthcare company, and we have already attempted to block Google Desktop at our proxies. There are HIPAA concerns with allowing users to transfer personal data between their work machines and . But we're not the only ones, banks and other healthcare companies will eventually do the same.
Hopefully this will be sufficient. If not, we will need to block access to all of Google, which would seriously upset many people within the company, and of course this will cascade to other organizations. Will Google be happy it's pissing off a bunch of Fortune 50 companies?
Sorry, but that has absolutly nothing to do with Google. If your users are allowed to install software like Google Desktop on their own PCs, then your company has serious security issues. NO software of this nature should be allowed, regardless of WHAT the service provider does with the data. In a Windows network what this amounts to is that only the domain admin group should have administrative priviliges (including the ability to install software) on user PCs. That would stop this problem, as well as a wide range of other related issues, far more efficiently than trying to use proxies.
More to the point, Google has released a product that inappropriate for many workplace environments. Is this new? bad? No, of course not. Many workplaces would not deem any kind of IM as appropriate, and certainly games would never be deemed suitable for the workplace (you are supposed to be working, after all).
Actually, this was technology that google had to incorporate in order to get Google Talk into China...all chat logs are BCC'd to the chinese government...
So you're saying that we can make the Internet better by introducing more government oversight and regulation?
No, not the entire Internet. The government regulates the power grid (which is good), but does not tell me what I can or cannot plug into my wall sockets (which would be bad).
The Internet Backbone is the system of fiber-optic lines, routers, etc. which criss-cross this continent and which were built primarily with taxpayer dollars (and the extravagant charges that the states allowed monopoly (that's important to remember) local telecom companies like Verizon and other baby bell conglomerates to charge. There were no (or very few) free market forces at work in the building of this network, and the consumer has very little choice as to who they pay to access this network. Where you live dictates who you buy your internet access from and so, as with the power grid, the consumer will be best protected if the infastructure of the internet is regulated by the government.
OK, now for the part of the internet that will not benefit from government oversight and regulation -- the content providers. Once you are connected to the internet, free market forces drive your entire experience. Compitition on the internet is ruthless, and as a consumer your choices are almost unlimited. Since the consumer has choice, there is no need for government regulation and oversight, which could only server to hurt the experience.
So in conclusion, please remember that there is a place for everything. Government oversight and regulation is important in certain instances (try to think of what your electric bill might look like if the government let them charge whatever they felt like!). In other instances (most, to be sure), government oversight and regulation is opressive and stifling and generally undesirable.
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to receive your newsletter.
I do live in PA, and now I'm just pissed off. I've been paying $50/month all this time and it was supposed to be building me a fiber optic network capable of delivering 45 Mbps, and I can't even get DSL? Outrageous...and now they want to create a 2-tiered internet with all that money I've been giving them. I always did think it kind of strange that POTS cost the same as Comcast's 6Mbps internet connection...
ISPs are not public utilities, but given the importance of the internet is approaching and will most likely exceed the importance of POTS, I believe that the internet backbone should be considered a public utility. I fully agree with parent; those running a network should make their money running an efficient network. I believe that the government should mandate a time period for VOIP to replace POTS, much like they are doing with HDTV. POTS is another conflict of interest for ISP/Phone companies like Verizon. In time, everybody should have an IP network connection to their house, for which they will pay a monthly fee. (I pay around $50/month for POTS with Verizon, not including long distance, so this shouldn't be an undue burden to anyone). Entire areas could switch over at once ("on the first of next month, your phone line will become digital. You will need to buy a special adaptor to use your analog phone with it.") Eventually, you would have your monopoly network providers, regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, and your free market content providers (phone service, streaming video, etc), and no conflicts of interest.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember way back when when the DOJ dropped the ani-trust suit against Microsoft? Did they cut a deal? Maybe the government is forcing MS to send your personal computing habits to Homeland Security? (This is /., so I expect a +5 insightful for my anti-Bush conspiracy theory involving MSFT)
It's...possible...to find...random idiots who can't write and treat the site as a popularity contest. There are a lot of empty-headed dumbasses on MySpace, but that doesn't mean the site can't be useful - just avoid contact with those people.
Sounds exactly like /. to me!!
RTFA -- "They can catch them when they first air or watch them online the day after for free, but with commercials. If they want to watch them on the go, individual episodes without ads are available from the iTunes Music Store for US$1.99 each..."
The version with commercials IS free, and the version that you pay for on iTunes has NO commercials. This is going to be a good thing.
What insanely great insight into language processing can a CS student have that whole teams of experts still didn't get?
What insanely great insight into aerodynamics can two bicycle shop owners have that the rest of the world still didn't get?
What insanely great insight into bookmaking can a german goldsmith have that all those scribes over thousands of years still didn't get?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
That doesn't sound a bit like "separation" to you?
No, it doesn't. Read it carefully. It says that the state cannot interfere with religion. Is says nothing about religion's effect on the state. The church is free to do what it wants, as far as this ammendment is concerned. The state is who is put on a leash. The government cannot set up a state religion (like was happening in so much of Europe when our constitution was written), it cannot require that churches be registered, or make any kind of law that prevents me from freely exercising my religion. This does not seperate the two institutions, it merely restricts the state's power in matters of religion.
And what does that say about the future of Linux? If these people knew enough to run linux, they would certainly be able to keep malware off their WinXP machine...
"To receive" is an active verb, much like "to take". IANAL, but I would guess that "receiving" digital media would imply more than just having it show up in your in-box and promply deleting it. I would guess it would be more on the lines of "receiving stolen goods", where you have to actually take possession.
Paying attention to what? The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense merely has to raise reasonable doubt, and doubt in this case would be reasonable. The prosecution has to convince 12 jurors, ordinary people, that you were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in possession of illegal images. Now, if the police found a CD in your house with your finger prints on it, containing these images, then you're probably in hot water. But then, they wouldn't need the deleted e-mail, would they?
Please clarify... what real life cases are you referring to where the prosecution has made some vauge "you might have done xyz" claim and been able to get an even an indictment, much less a conviction?
We call that spam... And seeing as we live in an age where real life child molestors and rapists are "re-habilitated" instead of sentenced, I find it hard to believe that any judge would allow spam that you deleted to be entered in as evidence against you...
But our goal isn't to keep from being conquered, it is to exert control over the rest of the world all the time.
You act as if there is a difference. There's not. In today's world, if we sit back and let the world run it's course, we end up with a world where it was in 1939... Europe appeasing scary people who have ambitions of world dominiation, while we in the US sit back and ignore it all. If we lived in a bubble, if it was true that we could defend ourselves against a manaic that had conquered the rest of th world, I might agree with you (global responsibility aside). But Hitler almost beat us. Now we have problems like Iran and believe me, if we just ignore them they will become a threat that our all of our military strength could not defend us against. Your theory sounds good, but we've been there, done that, and it just doesn't work.
Niccolò Machiavelli -- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.
Peace at any price was the mantra of pre-war (WWII) europe, and it didn't exactly work out the way they wanted it. Keeping our nose out of other people's business was the pre-war (WWII) policy of the US government, and it didn't work so well, either. Thankfully, we have a president who learned the lessons of 50 years ago, who is willing to stop problems before they escalate to the point where they cause 62 millinon deaths before it's over.
My car has cruise control, but I can still speed. It does nothing to limit my speed, it merely allows me to maintain a constant speed (which I choose to set).
There is. One requirement of a patent is that it be non-obvious.
Exactly. In classified ads, it's common practice to list a price as "$xxx OBO" (OBO meaning Or Best Offer)... in other words, buy it now for $xxx, or put in your bid. Making this common practice a part of an online auction site seems pretty obvious to me, so what's with giving out a patent for it?
1. A centripital force, based upon the velocity of the object, pulling the object away from the earth, and
2. Gravity, pulling the object back toward earth.
The velocity of the golf ball will determine the altitude at which it orbits. No matter what direction the ball is hit in, all that really matters is it's velocity parallel to the earth, which will slowly diminish due to resistance from what atmosphere there is at that altitude. There certainly is some variability as to the amount of resistance it will encounter based on the exact forces of the golf club swing (hence the 3-4 year window for it's re-entry), but not enough to possibly put the ball into permanent orbit.You have just booted OSX on your non-Apple computer for the last time. You have gotten a sampling of some of what a genuine Mac has to offer. Call xxx-xxx-xxxx or go to www.apple.com to order one. Please save all your files to an external device NOW.
Or it could do like XP and pop up that message whenever you add new hardware...I thought that was the point...
When I wanted to buy a house I went to my friend who is a real estate agent. He got a commision on the house I bought. I have no problem with that -- he was very helpful and earned his money. Google's service is much like a real estate agent. They help you find things (even your own personal things), and in return they get to use information you provide to make a *gasp* profit. Google is not Big Brother, they're simply on the leading edge of where our information/advertising driven economy is inevitably headed anyway.
Big Brother type governments have been able to get information about their people without Google. You pay informants, you turn people against each other for a price, and you can get all the information you need. You can't hide...whether it's google or your neighbor. If (and this is a different debate)... if the government is subverting due process with illegal wiretaps and places like Guantanamo Bay, that's a valid concern. Google is not.
I work for a healthcare company, and we have already attempted to block Google Desktop at our proxies. There are HIPAA concerns with allowing users to transfer personal data between their work machines and . But we're not the only ones, banks and other healthcare companies will eventually do the same.
Sorry, but that has absolutly nothing to do with Google. If your users are allowed to install software like Google Desktop on their own PCs, then your company has serious security issues. NO software of this nature should be allowed, regardless of WHAT the service provider does with the data. In a Windows network what this amounts to is that only the domain admin group should have administrative priviliges (including the ability to install software) on user PCs. That would stop this problem, as well as a wide range of other related issues, far more efficiently than trying to use proxies.Hopefully this will be sufficient. If not, we will need to block access to all of Google, which would seriously upset many people within the company, and of course this will cascade to other organizations. Will Google be happy it's pissing off a bunch of Fortune 50 companies?
More to the point, Google has released a product that inappropriate for many workplace environments. Is this new? bad? No, of course not. Many workplaces would not deem any kind of IM as appropriate, and certainly games would never be deemed suitable for the workplace (you are supposed to be working, after all).
Actually, this was technology that google had to incorporate in order to get Google Talk into China...all chat logs are BCC'd to the chinese government...
So you're saying that we can make the Internet better by introducing more government oversight and regulation?
No, not the entire Internet. The government regulates the power grid (which is good), but does not tell me what I can or cannot plug into my wall sockets (which would be bad). The Internet Backbone is the system of fiber-optic lines, routers, etc. which criss-cross this continent and which were built primarily with taxpayer dollars (and the extravagant charges that the states allowed monopoly (that's important to remember) local telecom companies like Verizon and other baby bell conglomerates to charge. There were no (or very few) free market forces at work in the building of this network, and the consumer has very little choice as to who they pay to access this network. Where you live dictates who you buy your internet access from and so, as with the power grid, the consumer will be best protected if the infastructure of the internet is regulated by the government.OK, now for the part of the internet that will not benefit from government oversight and regulation -- the content providers. Once you are connected to the internet, free market forces drive your entire experience. Compitition on the internet is ruthless, and as a consumer your choices are almost unlimited. Since the consumer has choice, there is no need for government regulation and oversight, which could only server to hurt the experience.
So in conclusion, please remember that there is a place for everything. Government oversight and regulation is important in certain instances (try to think of what your electric bill might look like if the government let them charge whatever they felt like!). In other instances (most, to be sure), government oversight and regulation is opressive and stifling and generally undesirable.
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to receive your newsletter.
Send me $20/month and I'll see what I can do.I do live in PA, and now I'm just pissed off. I've been paying $50/month all this time and it was supposed to be building me a fiber optic network capable of delivering 45 Mbps, and I can't even get DSL? Outrageous...and now they want to create a 2-tiered internet with all that money I've been giving them. I always did think it kind of strange that POTS cost the same as Comcast's 6Mbps internet connection...
ISPs are not public utilities, but given the importance of the internet is approaching and will most likely exceed the importance of POTS, I believe that the internet backbone should be considered a public utility. I fully agree with parent; those running a network should make their money running an efficient network. I believe that the government should mandate a time period for VOIP to replace POTS, much like they are doing with HDTV. POTS is another conflict of interest for ISP/Phone companies like Verizon. In time, everybody should have an IP network connection to their house, for which they will pay a monthly fee. (I pay around $50/month for POTS with Verizon, not including long distance, so this shouldn't be an undue burden to anyone). Entire areas could switch over at once ("on the first of next month, your phone line will become digital. You will need to buy a special adaptor to use your analog phone with it.") Eventually, you would have your monopoly network providers, regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, and your free market content providers (phone service, streaming video, etc), and no conflicts of interest.
Not just congress but also some of the courts.
No, no, no... blame it all on Bush. He lied to us about how patents work...Guys, it's the USPTO, not the USPO. The USPO is the United States Post Office. The USPTO is the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
It's both... btw, the Post Office is usually referred to as USPS (United States Postal Service)