Hmm. You raise the intriguing question of how successful prosecution under anti-stalking legislation might be.
DNT is a clear warning that the attention is not appreciated, and being tracked by company A while visiting the sites of companies B, C and D shouldn't constitute an approach to company A.
Yeah, everything except the telnet and the torrents is encrypted from me to the server. I don't telnet on open connections either, I ssh through to a box that I telnet from - the service doesn't support a secure connection.
My point is that the internet is not just the world wide web, secured or otherwise.
Actually, I'm not sure my steam downloads are secured either. Frankly I don't even care - my sign-in to steam is the bit that matters.
Oh, how sweet. Someone that thinks the Internet is only for browsing the web.
While I could tunnel my email, my ssh/sftp, my torrent downloads and the good old fashioned telnet that I use for one specific online service through HTTPS it's frankly just not worth the hassle.
It's a tad harsh pinning the 'rape of nanking' on South Korea.
It's like saying America's violent because of the Russian abuses in Chechnya. Two very different countries, just that one of them's quite close to the US.
There's a difference between performing a perfectly reasonable act to which other people will choose to react violently, and perfoming an act with no intention other than to provoke a violent reaction
Mocking ignorant fuckwits by insulting some dead pedophile is a perfectly reasonable act.
Can I suggest that the union isn't the right answer. Your management chain is.
Why didn't you raise this as a health and safety concern? Why didn't your manager raise hell about it? Why didn't you keep escalating up the management chain until someone listened?
This isn't rocket science. This is a dead rat. Fucking deal with it.
"Ooh, I need my mummy. I mean, my union guy." Grow up.
No idea, but my bmw didn't come with USB or any other dock. It came with an audio in socket, which I attach to the headphone socket of whichever phone I happen to be carrying.
If I'd paid a little more I'd have bluetooth connectivity, which would let me control my phone (and the music it's playing) from the steering wheel. It wasn't worth it for me.
Pure ceramic, maybe not. Fibre-wrapped ceramic, maybe - if it maintains integrity sufficiently long for the bullet to leave in a straight line, and a tightly woven fabric catches the splinters trying to leave in a non-frontal direction, as a one-off device it could work.
Sadly it's against the law for me to experiment and find out in this country:(
Which is why if I lived in France, I'd become an ISP. Hell, I have an open access point in my house, so I am intentionally providing internet services to people walking past or living nearby anyway.
But I'm also not a fan very of sloppy editing and poor journalism
Then wtf are you reading Slashdot? Half the stories on here are unsubstantiated and always have been, and a far higher percentage have had poor editorial control.
The mere fact that Alibaba are making the claim is interesting. If it turns out they've fabricated it, that will also be interesting. The discussion on whether Google sending such a notice would be ethical is an interesting discussion whether Google sent a notice or not.
Slashdot helps people explore, discuss and yes, argue about various issues. Provoking a discussion isn't a bad thing, and this has been an interesting discussion.
Depends how you measure it. Sure, Microsoft have a higher market capitalisation, higher revenue, a higher profit margin and (obviously, given the previous facts) a higher profit (disregarding the previous quarter's write-off).
However, Microsoft don't have as many customers. A billion different people use Google services in any given month. A billion. I'd say that's pretty big.
The relative size of the two is also fairly irrelevant. Monopolistic exploitation doesn't require significant size, and both are substantially larger than most other companies on the planet.
Baidu is the only serious challenger to Google in internet search at the moment, and Google has a strong presence in several other interrelated markets - internet advertising, mobile advertising, mobile operating systems, mobile content delivery, mobile application sales, SaaS, etc. Collectively those services give Google overwhelming bargaining power and seeking to leverage that to block competition can easily be deemed to be monopolistic and is exactly the type of behaviour exhibited by Microsoft, and that led to Microsoft becoming a 'convicted monopolist' (to use your term).
A good lawyer could indeed argue that the filmed rape in the park is not pornography at all, but instead a dispassionate capture of evidence of a crime.
And the violent intrusion of the person recording it into the scene, as they forcibly remove the rapist from the 12 year old.
In the UK they wouldn't get charged with possessing child pornography.
(They might get charged with assault if they hit the rapist).
Given most child pornography being produced these days is probably kids sending naked pictures of themselves to each other, I'm struggling to understand the exploitation element.
Anyway, the article didn't demand the legalisation of creating child pornography. It demanded the legalisation of possessing it.
How about you read, understand and discuss the arguments being made, not dismiss it based on your prejudice and ignorance?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. You raise the intriguing question of how successful prosecution under anti-stalking legislation might be.
DNT is a clear warning that the attention is not appreciated, and being tracked by company A while visiting the sites of companies B, C and D shouldn't constitute an approach to company A.
Could be an interesting test case.
Yeah, everything except the telnet and the torrents is encrypted from me to the server. I don't telnet on open connections either, I ssh through to a box that I telnet from - the service doesn't support a secure connection.
My point is that the internet is not just the world wide web, secured or otherwise.
Actually, I'm not sure my steam downloads are secured either. Frankly I don't even care - my sign-in to steam is the bit that matters.
Oh, how sweet. Someone that thinks the Internet is only for browsing the web.
While I could tunnel my email, my ssh/sftp, my torrent downloads and the good old fashioned telnet that I use for one specific online service through HTTPS it's frankly just not worth the hassle.
While I've never seen its use before, I read it as a tremendous and worthy compliment to Adams.
I wouldn't have picked it up as being Adams without his name specifically being given though :)
It's a tad harsh pinning the 'rape of nanking' on South Korea.
It's like saying America's violent because of the Russian abuses in Chechnya. Two very different countries, just that one of them's quite close to the US.
Hang on. You think the Saudis are trying to start a war that they'd lose, against one of their biggest customers?
One day the oil will run out. Then the Saudis are fucked, and frankly, about time too.
There's a difference between performing a perfectly reasonable act to which other people will choose to react violently, and perfoming an act with no intention other than to provoke a violent reaction
Mocking ignorant fuckwits by insulting some dead pedophile is a perfectly reasonable act.
Can I suggest that the union isn't the right answer. Your management chain is.
Why didn't you raise this as a health and safety concern? Why didn't your manager raise hell about it? Why didn't you keep escalating up the management chain until someone listened?
This isn't rocket science. This is a dead rat. Fucking deal with it.
"Ooh, I need my mummy. I mean, my union guy." Grow up.
No idea, but my bmw didn't come with USB or any other dock. It came with an audio in socket, which I attach to the headphone socket of whichever phone I happen to be carrying.
If I'd paid a little more I'd have bluetooth connectivity, which would let me control my phone (and the music it's playing) from the steering wheel. It wasn't worth it for me.
The UK. I guess I could establish a business, acquire the appropriate permits, fill in the healthy & safety forms and pass the security clearances.
But the barriers to entry are just too high for someone as lazy as me, and having a bash in my back garden is indeed illegal.
Given sufficiently expensive legal team
or corrupt/stupid jury..
Pure ceramic, maybe not. Fibre-wrapped ceramic, maybe - if it maintains integrity sufficiently long for the bullet to leave in a straight line, and a tightly woven fabric catches the splinters trying to leave in a non-frontal direction, as a one-off device it could work.
Sadly it's against the law for me to experiment and find out in this country :(
Which is why if I lived in France, I'd become an ISP. Hell, I have an open access point in my house, so I am intentionally providing internet services to people walking past or living nearby anyway.
Except that someone's said the infringer provided a written statement admitting the infringement.
Tell me, how would you secure your wireless connection from your wife, who you live with, who you sleep with, who you share your entire life with?
I ask only because that appears to be what the French authorities are demanding.
No, but it is a troll to advocate a woman smacking her partner around because he's fiscally irresponsible.
Men are often the victims of domestic violence. Men are more likely to be the victims of violent attacks than women.
Domestic violence is bad. Don't do it. But don't assume it's unilateral.
But I'm also not a fan very of sloppy editing and poor journalism
Then wtf are you reading Slashdot? Half the stories on here are unsubstantiated and always have been, and a far higher percentage have had poor editorial control.
The mere fact that Alibaba are making the claim is interesting. If it turns out they've fabricated it, that will also be interesting. The discussion on whether Google sending such a notice would be ethical is an interesting discussion whether Google sent a notice or not.
Slashdot helps people explore, discuss and yes, argue about various issues. Provoking a discussion isn't a bad thing, and this has been an interesting discussion.
In the recent Oracle vs Google court case Google stated in a court of law that they did not pay shills to comment on the case.
I can't comment on apologists though.
You mean, entities set up for content distribution like Alibaba? Who Acer are in partnership with on this very device?
Depends how you measure it. Sure, Microsoft have a higher market capitalisation, higher revenue, a higher profit margin and (obviously, given the previous facts) a higher profit (disregarding the previous quarter's write-off).
However, Microsoft don't have as many customers. A billion different people use Google services in any given month. A billion. I'd say that's pretty big.
The relative size of the two is also fairly irrelevant. Monopolistic exploitation doesn't require significant size, and both are substantially larger than most other companies on the planet.
Baidu is the only serious challenger to Google in internet search at the moment, and Google has a strong presence in several other interrelated markets - internet advertising, mobile advertising, mobile operating systems, mobile content delivery, mobile application sales, SaaS, etc. Collectively those services give Google overwhelming bargaining power and seeking to leverage that to block competition can easily be deemed to be monopolistic and is exactly the type of behaviour exhibited by Microsoft, and that led to Microsoft becoming a 'convicted monopolist' (to use your term).
So remind me, who was astroturfing?
I'm noticing no issues with screen updates on mine.
You mean, other than the Asus screen being brighter and having better viewing angles?
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Where's the link between telephone dimensions and a healthy happy homosexual relationship?
silverlight is 100% unused on the web aside from netflix
..and LoveFilm and Sky Go, to name two of the three commercial video services I use.
A good lawyer could indeed argue that the filmed rape in the park is not pornography at all, but instead a dispassionate capture of evidence of a crime.
And the violent intrusion of the person recording it into the scene, as they forcibly remove the rapist from the 12 year old.
In the UK they wouldn't get charged with possessing child pornography.
(They might get charged with assault if they hit the rapist).
Given most child pornography being produced these days is probably kids sending naked pictures of themselves to each other, I'm struggling to understand the exploitation element.
Anyway, the article didn't demand the legalisation of creating child pornography. It demanded the legalisation of possessing it.
How about you read, understand and discuss the arguments being made, not dismiss it based on your prejudice and ignorance?