How are the XKCD comics funny? I've looked at all of them, and they just plain aren't good at all. Referring to "ninjas" or some other Internet meme shouldn't bring out the laughs, and often it doesn't. Oh, go fly a kite.
In this case, it'd probably have to resort the part (iii), which usually is about one competitor registering another competitor's site. It's not a matter of choosing one part. It clearly states that subsections i, ii, AND iii must be met to make a cybersquatting claim.
You won't be complaining about BBC fees when you've got American taxmen jonesing for more money;) Am I totally missing something here, or are you and PP actually implying that taxes are higher in the US than in the UK?
Because if you are, I'll stop holding my laughter.
- RG>
Re:This is HIGHLY illegal in the US
on
eBay The Vote
·
· Score: 1
You're absolutely right.
The government should just keep our money to itself.
Did he find "THIS IS A FAKE" written on the canvas in felt tipped marker under all that paint? He didn't need to--the Mona Lisa is painted on poplar, not canvas.
Then millions of people need to follow them in stringing those responsible for this circus up by the neck. I think the only thing that will motivate millions of people to string someone's neck nowadays is if someone cancels a football game or an episode of American Idol.
Declare everyone that did not vote to be hereby removed AND forbidden from upgrading to P class within a period of 5 years. Catch-22: In order to establish this rule, you'll need a good quorum of members to vote (a majority of them in favour).
Banks do the same sort of thing. Allocating/spending/investing more money than they have because the chances of everybody withdrawing all their stored money at the same time is fairly low.
In Argentina, when there was a run on the banks, their entire economy pretty much died and nobody could get access to their money.
The good news is that more storage can be added fairly easily, and you can't allocate storage again once stuff has been stored on it (and not deleted). The bad news is, I'd be much more worried about losing my life savings than losing my e-mail.
.. then how do they filter out spam? It's really a complex process involving genetically modified chimpanzees, ten thousand typewriters, and a whole lotta Cheez Whiz.
I click on a context-sensitive advertisement that's based on the content of my emails, the advertiser now knows something about me that he didn't know before. That gives the advertiser the opportunity to treat me differently from other enquirers. Funny, I thought that was how all ads worked. By clicking on the ad, I'd naturally assume that it's because the topic of the ad interests you.
How long until advertisers discover that it's more profitable to withhold information about cheap or steeply discounted products from potential customers who've previously received emails from luxury car manufacturers, for example? I don't know if it's possible with the present generation of Google's technology, but is there anything ion the Gmail terms and conditions that prevent it? This form of marketing is already possible. Someone posited the idea in an interview a few years back on TechTV.
The ideal position from a seller's perspective is to charge each person as much as they're willing to pay. But you have to charge one price--when you charge more, fewer people will buy it, but you'll get more profit, and vice-versa.
With all the store credit cards or points cards, they can track to see if you only buy product X when it's at, say $3. They can then raise the price to $4, to get more profits from people who would buy it anyway, then send you a coupon to get a dollar off, so they will still get the sale out of you.
tl;dr version: You don't need contextual ads to charge people the maximum amount they will pay.
Y'know, back a couple hundred years ago, when the punishment for just about anything was a brutal public death, juries often refrained from convicting people because they felt the punishment was excessive. Eventually, new punishment systems had to be developed (i.e. prisons) to relieve this.
Why can't juries today do the same thing for these excessive punishments?
I would expect that that wouldn't be too much of a problem.
Google isn't letting people just browse it at will; such an algorithm (assuming it is possible with the method Google uses) would require the end-user to take an action on their part to view this private info. The end-user would then be guilty of the privacy violation, and there is clear intent because they applied the algorithm.
It's my understanding that most of the rulers of poor countries--particularly those who sign off on IMF/World Bank schemes that guarantee the impoverishment of their countries--were educated in the US.
I haven't looked myself recently, but I know this used to be the case during the so-called "green revolution" of the '70s.
Just airdrop a couple hundred thousand AK-47s, ammo, and green robes and see just how long the junta lasts. Yeah, cause that really worked well in Afghanistan.
the mobile network has been shut down, and so had the national ISP No, that's an unrelated thing. The Burmese had criticized AT&T, which promptly shut down the nation's internet service on a terms of use violation.
Slashdot Mirror
- RG>
- RG>
Because if you are, I'll stop holding my laughter.
- RG>
You're absolutely right.
The government should just keep our money to itself.
- RG>
Yeah, but try getting lawyers to put anything in layman's terms.
- RG>
(I know, buzzkill, etc.)
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
Banks do the same sort of thing. Allocating/spending/investing more money than they have because the chances of everybody withdrawing all their stored money at the same time is fairly low.
In Argentina, when there was a run on the banks, their entire economy pretty much died and nobody could get access to their money.
The good news is that more storage can be added fairly easily, and you can't allocate storage again once stuff has been stored on it (and not deleted). The bad news is, I'd be much more worried about losing my life savings than losing my e-mail.
- RG>
.. then how do they filter out spam? It's really a complex process involving genetically modified chimpanzees, ten thousand typewriters, and a whole lotta Cheez Whiz.- RG>
Exactly. Google's activities are not illegal, and they could arguably go much further without doing anything illegal.
Which is Ballmer's original point: caveat emptor.
(Although the same could be said of Hotmail and MSN)
- RG>
The ideal position from a seller's perspective is to charge each person as much as they're willing to pay. But you have to charge one price--when you charge more, fewer people will buy it, but you'll get more profit, and vice-versa.
With all the store credit cards or points cards, they can track to see if you only buy product X when it's at, say $3. They can then raise the price to $4, to get more profits from people who would buy it anyway, then send you a coupon to get a dollar off, so they will still get the sale out of you.
tl;dr version: You don't need contextual ads to charge people the maximum amount they will pay.
- RG>
Y'know, back a couple hundred years ago, when the punishment for just about anything was a brutal public death, juries often refrained from convicting people because they felt the punishment was excessive. Eventually, new punishment systems had to be developed (i.e. prisons) to relieve this.
Why can't juries today do the same thing for these excessive punishments?
- RG>
But who wouldn't want an exciting career in boring?
- RG>
- RG>
How about naming the next release of one of the big distros "Saffron"?
- RG>
As someone who's only been on /. for a couple years, I'd be interested to see what it used to look like ten years ago.
Like, was the dupe article around from the start, or is it a more recent development?
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
I would expect that that wouldn't be too much of a problem.
Google isn't letting people just browse it at will; such an algorithm (assuming it is possible with the method Google uses) would require the end-user to take an action on their part to view this private info. The end-user would then be guilty of the privacy violation, and there is clear intent because they applied the algorithm.
- RG>
It's my understanding that most of the rulers of poor countries--particularly those who sign off on IMF/World Bank schemes that guarantee the impoverishment of their countries--were educated in the US.
I haven't looked myself recently, but I know this used to be the case during the so-called "green revolution" of the '70s.
- RG>
So are you saying we should lock up Scientologists?
Just because a cult gives you the creeps doesn't mean they should be oppressed.
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
According to the AP newswire video, it's the AAAS (publisher of the journal Science) that did the work.
Here's the news release with photos on their website. There are links to other resources at the bottom of the page.
- RG>