No. No, it really is the flamethrower that frightens me. If the asshole didn't have a flamethrower, I wouldn't be frightened.
Right, but if he puts it down and picks up a pointy stick, the fear of him remains. The flamethrower won't look very scary just sitting there unless you're exceptionally fearful. It is certainly still something to be concerned with regarding safety, just like a pile of dynamite or a propane tank.
But even if the flamethrower remains a safety concern, getting poked with the stick is much scarier. And that too goes away as soon as he puts it down.
Attaching the fear to the tool instead of the operator is pretty silly here. Especially since the tool has such limited range. A train or airplane is more dangerous.
That's exceptionally derpy, pointing to internet comments to claim your view isn't extreme or unusual.
It is also particularly... odd for a German to saying things like that about Poland. If Poland deserves something bad for "CIA torture prisons," I guess we should be asking what you deserve for Germany's much more significant... history regarding torture. I guess you'd just blame Poland for being invaded, since you're blaming them for what the US did there in secret.
You seem like a nazi sympathizer to me. I'm not surprised you chafe at the troops. But you're pretty clueless about the world you whine about. Hating America won't stop your neighbors from protesting troop reductions.
Most algorithms are not patentable in the US either, post-Alice. I don't doubt thousands of patents have been issued, but that doesn't automatically make them valid.
If ever there was a weapon that would be classified as only a weapon of terror with no practical application beyond fear.
This is it.
I hope this fails, and i'm an NRA member who is often caught saying things like "from my cold dead hand"
The only time I ever used a flame thrower was to put out a forest fire. I don't doubt that the deer were frightened of me, but in my defense I was trying to protect their home.
Why are NRA members so dim-witted? Do you even understand your own propaganda, or do you just spew it like a mindless zombie? It isn't the flame-thrower that scares people, it is the asshole waving it around.
When the big changeover from SVN being the #1 VCS to git taking the crown happened, SVN did not have those features. You couldn't check in changes without talking to the server. If the server was down, you'd have to wait and check in all your changes at once. That was one of the big features of git that had people excited; they could still do local checkins. The only thing they were missing when the server was down was sharing the code and handling any conflicting changes. But actually checking the changes in doesn't get messed up.
Sure, after "everybody" switched, then SVN finally added the needed parts of de-centralization. I actually enjoyed using svn more than git, but I sure don't regret switching. If nobody had switched, we'd still be without modern features...
The general theory is that if it costs them more than they think the policy saved them, then it will moderate their behavior because they'll have wished they made more money, and they would have.
The problem with small penalties isn't related to the company being able to survive them, but to the fact that the penalties for things are often smaller than the perceived profit from having done it. Here, there is no obvious large profit. If they reduced turnover by some percent that would save them money, but not huge amounts. It might not have to be a huge fine.
Unless the court is going to slap them with a $40+ billion fine, Amazon will have reaped in magnitudes more in revenue from these workers than they will pay out in a fine.
That presumes that they have a worker shortage, and if they could just hire more workers, they'd make more money. It is highly unlikely for that to be true.
More likely, they already hire the number of workers they want, they could hire more workers at the same pay rate, and keeping unhappy people from quitting doesn't actually increase their profits at all.
Companies don't wait for a cost/benefit analysis to put asshole bullshit into the contract. A lot of companies start off with that sort of thing just because the lawyer said it is a standard practice, without ever having a business analysis, or even an actual legal concern.
If the company actually sues you, these types of cases are easy to get a lawyer for on contingency for the counter-suit.
It is a tort to cause somebody to be unable to work. Trying to ban them from the industry they have experience in, when they're not a worker with specialized knowledge about the company's professional whatthewhat, is a giant counter-suit.
And, did they give these workers a pay raise when they added the clause, that they can argue in court was worth 18 months of work? No? Then it isn't enforceable in any state, because of the basic common-law requirement for contracts to be based on a "consideration" given. If they argue some tiny amount counts as consideration, they'll be admitting to an unfair business practice that denies somebody the right to work.
They wouldn't just lose, they'd get shafted on the counter-suit. Except that they would actually just pay lots of money and settle.
This is a clause added entirely because Amazon's lawyers are assholes. Luckily, asshole lawyers don't get to file suits without the permission of the senior execs.
I predict somebody will quit, and then sue them for 18 months of pay because they're only experienced in warehouse work. They'll not only get an easy settlement, (these contracts are only legal for professional employees, not for laborers) they'll also throw it out for everybody else. They'll still probably have to pay settlements to a bunch of people who quit or were fired during the policy, and then didn't find work immediately afterwards.
They should really hire some competent lawyers instead of these "full asshole" guys, because they're creating a giant pile of needless liability for nothing.
If it was really semantic content, then your client (browser) could walk the graph of related (advertised) documents from those links and provide all sorts of information. For the advertising to be semantic, it would need to be wrapped in some sort of standard API or descriptive (semantic) access method that flagged it as advertising. You could then, in a good client, turn off all the advertising links, and even substitute dictionary entries with the same keyword.
Semantic access is exactly that; providing the data for the client to make decisions based on, so that you can choose between different things that have the same keywords, depending on their meaning. If it isn't associated with a new browser feature, it probably isn't a semantic document at all, unless it is just a REST-based catalog that is easily client-walkable. Then it might be primitive "semantic web."
Well, if it was actual semantic content provided as such to an aware browser, then it would decrease annoyance by giving the user more control.
Unfortunately for the summary, links are not in fact semantic content. You can have more, or less, links, and you haven't done anything with regards to semantic content. What you need is computer-understood meta-data, including links, that is separate from the main content, follows standard conventions, and can be used by the client software to give semantic information to the user.
Links at the end of a story... that is just links at the end of a story. I know it is amazing, but the jargon in this case is actual jargon, not just a meaningless fluff word.
The part you're missing is that google's algorithms don't attempt to understand the words. That is why they actually can index and search foreign language pages effectively. My wife searches for stuff in Thai all the time. Google didn't have to add any special Thai support for that. All they do identify strings and substrings. It is all based on what patterns exist. It is all just identifying lexical units and what other lexical units are used in relation to them, with no attempt at all at semantic understanding. So in your example, it tells you that in English it is more common to talk about "male scientists" than "female scientists." Indeed, even news articles reporting on the gender imbalance in science is likely to use the term "male scientists" and not the phrase "female scientists." Even without any sexism, just the nature of having an imbalance means that in many cases you would pair one group with the position that lacks parity, and the other group with the people not choosing that position. So you might talk about "male scientists," and then about "female students" not choosing a career in science. Once you understand that, then you can just click on the link and get to your results without embarrassment.
In the old days when google had a clear and literal search syntax, you could avoid those problems by just quoting phrases or word groups, but that doesn't work well anymore.
If the problem is that the competition is inferior, you should be blaming the competition. It is like when the loser of the race complains, "gosh, he shouldn't have won, he's so fast it just isn't fair!"
What you're describing is a "natural monopoly" where they're used because they're better. It is totally approved of by US law. They're also allowed to enjoy the natural benefits of their position. They're not allowed to harm consumers, defined as making them pay more. Search is free, nobody had to over pay. They're not allowed to use tactics to keep the competition out. And they're not accused of that. They are absolutely allowed to be more successful than the competition. They're allowed to be more profitable. And they're allowed to put their own needs first. If they buy up the ISPs and refuse service or raise prices on the other search companies, that is when there would be an issue of preventing competition. Preventing competition never means just that you didn't help them out, or give them free advertising.
Search is free, and they're not compelling anybody to use it. Being a natural monopoly is in no way illegal. And you're allowed to enjoy the natural benefits of that. What is banned is only using it to harm consumers, as defined by price, and ability to compete. Listing your own stuff first doesn't affect anybody else's ability to have a search engine and order their own rankings. It doesn't stop them from doing anything. And since it is free, they can't be accused of gouging consumers.
It is just that simple. Customers have to be over-paying, or the competition has to be excluded, for there to be a problem. Google could totally leave the competition out of their search listing, and pretend they don't exist, and the competition could still run their own search engine, and advertise it, etc. To be doing something wrong, google would have to take control of some supplier, create a bottleneck, and use it as a choke point to keep the competition out of the market. If, for example, they were buying ISPs and dropping packets of search competitors, that would be illegal. Or if they intentionally bought up all the ISP service available, so the competition couldn't get internet hosting, and they were actually just idling the servers, or didn't need them, then that would be illegal. If they were using contracts with advertisers to prevent those people doing business with the competition, that would be illegal (for a monopoly, but legal for the little guy!).
None of that is accused.
There is nothing to accuse. It sounds like the document describes some legal things google is doing, that were investigated and found to be acceptable.
Where did they dredge up this Soulskill guy? Are they sure he's a nerd? Since when is, "Golly gee, they're such a big company I just assumed they'd keep my stuff safe for me" something that we care about?
Some idiot used a giant corporation and got treated like a cog. Good news for him, then; nothing went wrong, you're just experiencing the expected life of a cog. Some wear is expected. And when you're worn, you can be replaced.
If you want to choose from one of the large registrars, at least check various consumer reporting entities. I doubt you'll find great reviews of "GoDaddy." The reviews might be what you would expect if you just looked at their name and stereotyped the sort of company that would name themselves that.
Stallman came out against buying stuff at Amazon. I don't think he actually came out against returning them, which is what was said.
If you find yourself in the situation of having bought something from Amazon, received it, and felt less free, I think Stallman might agree that the right to return the item "is a freedom we can defend." Hopefully then you'll buy something somewhere else.
I know it isn't Amazon granting my right to return, it is consumer protection laws.
Historically, MS achieved market dominance by other means, and before there was widespread copying-with-a-license.
And the period when unlicensed copies were increasing the most also lines up with Apple's renewed market share, and with open source offerings being widely known about.
It may or may not be true that the unlicensed windows installs prevented people in various countries with low cost of living from switching to OSS. It makes sense that it would be true. But it is guaranteed to have taken place well after the peak of MS market share, and isn't available as a potential cause of said market share.
That isn't what they actually said. That is just what people are mindlessly assuming. What they have said is that even machines without a valid license will be able to download and install the upgrade. That is all they're really saying. Their only clarification was to say that if you didn't have a license, you still don't. They haven't promised any forgiveness. They can still shut you off later, or send you a bill.
Considering the technical problems they've had with legit users having to fight the license checks, it is not really any surprise that they're moving away from tying the physical upgrade capability to the license check. That tells us nothing at all about what they will do instead to enforce the licenses.
Maybe nothing, maybe something harsh. We don't know. And from the history of the company, that could go either way. Believing anything before we get more information is ill advised.
Slashdot Mirror
No. No, it really is the flamethrower that frightens me. If the asshole didn't have a flamethrower, I wouldn't be frightened.
Right, but if he puts it down and picks up a pointy stick, the fear of him remains. The flamethrower won't look very scary just sitting there unless you're exceptionally fearful. It is certainly still something to be concerned with regarding safety, just like a pile of dynamite or a propane tank.
But even if the flamethrower remains a safety concern, getting poked with the stick is much scarier. And that too goes away as soon as he puts it down.
Attaching the fear to the tool instead of the operator is pretty silly here. Especially since the tool has such limited range. A train or airplane is more dangerous.
That's exceptionally derpy, pointing to internet comments to claim your view isn't extreme or unusual.
It is also particularly... odd for a German to saying things like that about Poland. If Poland deserves something bad for "CIA torture prisons," I guess we should be asking what you deserve for Germany's much more significant... history regarding torture. I guess you'd just blame Poland for being invaded, since you're blaming them for what the US did there in secret.
You seem like a nazi sympathizer to me. I'm not surprised you chafe at the troops. But you're pretty clueless about the world you whine about. Hating America won't stop your neighbors from protesting troop reductions.
Most algorithms are not patentable in the US either, post-Alice. I don't doubt thousands of patents have been issued, but that doesn't automatically make them valid.
If ever there was a weapon that would be classified as only a weapon of terror with no practical application beyond fear.
This is it.
I hope this fails, and i'm an NRA member who is often caught saying things like "from my cold dead hand"
The only time I ever used a flame thrower was to put out a forest fire. I don't doubt that the deer were frightened of me, but in my defense I was trying to protect their home.
Why are NRA members so dim-witted? Do you even understand your own propaganda, or do you just spew it like a mindless zombie? It isn't the flame-thrower that scares people, it is the asshole waving it around.
Gravel may be all you can grow, but that isn't a garden. That isn't even a rock garden.
When the big changeover from SVN being the #1 VCS to git taking the crown happened, SVN did not have those features. You couldn't check in changes without talking to the server. If the server was down, you'd have to wait and check in all your changes at once. That was one of the big features of git that had people excited; they could still do local checkins. The only thing they were missing when the server was down was sharing the code and handling any conflicting changes. But actually checking the changes in doesn't get messed up.
Sure, after "everybody" switched, then SVN finally added the needed parts of de-centralization. I actually enjoyed using svn more than git, but I sure don't regret switching. If nobody had switched, we'd still be without modern features...
Reminds me of Carmageddon, the traffic disaster that finished ahead of schedule and without any disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Get better road workers. I recommend putting the engineers in charge.
This is an example of what I get:
http://oregon.apwa.net/PageDet...
The general theory is that if it costs them more than they think the policy saved them, then it will moderate their behavior because they'll have wished they made more money, and they would have.
The problem with small penalties isn't related to the company being able to survive them, but to the fact that the penalties for things are often smaller than the perceived profit from having done it. Here, there is no obvious large profit. If they reduced turnover by some percent that would save them money, but not huge amounts. It might not have to be a huge fine.
Unless the court is going to slap them with a $40+ billion fine, Amazon will have reaped in magnitudes more in revenue from these workers than they will pay out in a fine.
That presumes that they have a worker shortage, and if they could just hire more workers, they'd make more money. It is highly unlikely for that to be true.
More likely, they already hire the number of workers they want, they could hire more workers at the same pay rate, and keeping unhappy people from quitting doesn't actually increase their profits at all.
Companies don't wait for a cost/benefit analysis to put asshole bullshit into the contract. A lot of companies start off with that sort of thing just because the lawyer said it is a standard practice, without ever having a business analysis, or even an actual legal concern.
If the company actually sues you, these types of cases are easy to get a lawyer for on contingency for the counter-suit.
It is a tort to cause somebody to be unable to work. Trying to ban them from the industry they have experience in, when they're not a worker with specialized knowledge about the company's professional whatthewhat, is a giant counter-suit.
And, did they give these workers a pay raise when they added the clause, that they can argue in court was worth 18 months of work? No? Then it isn't enforceable in any state, because of the basic common-law requirement for contracts to be based on a "consideration" given. If they argue some tiny amount counts as consideration, they'll be admitting to an unfair business practice that denies somebody the right to work.
They wouldn't just lose, they'd get shafted on the counter-suit. Except that they would actually just pay lots of money and settle.
This is a clause added entirely because Amazon's lawyers are assholes. Luckily, asshole lawyers don't get to file suits without the permission of the senior execs.
I predict somebody will quit, and then sue them for 18 months of pay because they're only experienced in warehouse work. They'll not only get an easy settlement, (these contracts are only legal for professional employees, not for laborers) they'll also throw it out for everybody else. They'll still probably have to pay settlements to a bunch of people who quit or were fired during the policy, and then didn't find work immediately afterwards.
They should really hire some competent lawyers instead of these "full asshole" guys, because they're creating a giant pile of needless liability for nothing.
If it was really semantic content, then your client (browser) could walk the graph of related (advertised) documents from those links and provide all sorts of information. For the advertising to be semantic, it would need to be wrapped in some sort of standard API or descriptive (semantic) access method that flagged it as advertising. You could then, in a good client, turn off all the advertising links, and even substitute dictionary entries with the same keyword.
Semantic access is exactly that; providing the data for the client to make decisions based on, so that you can choose between different things that have the same keywords, depending on their meaning. If it isn't associated with a new browser feature, it probably isn't a semantic document at all, unless it is just a REST-based catalog that is easily client-walkable. Then it might be primitive "semantic web."
Well, if it was actual semantic content provided as such to an aware browser, then it would decrease annoyance by giving the user more control.
Unfortunately for the summary, links are not in fact semantic content. You can have more, or less, links, and you haven't done anything with regards to semantic content. What you need is computer-understood meta-data, including links, that is separate from the main content, follows standard conventions, and can be used by the client software to give semantic information to the user.
Links at the end of a story... that is just links at the end of a story. I know it is amazing, but the jargon in this case is actual jargon, not just a meaningless fluff word.
And the average person cares about what Stallman thinks because....???
Because the average person can't think for themselves.
Oh wait, you're right, they also don't care if anybody is thinking.
Perhaps only the above average care.
The part you're missing is that google's algorithms don't attempt to understand the words. That is why they actually can index and search foreign language pages effectively. My wife searches for stuff in Thai all the time. Google didn't have to add any special Thai support for that. All they do identify strings and substrings. It is all based on what patterns exist. It is all just identifying lexical units and what other lexical units are used in relation to them, with no attempt at all at semantic understanding. So in your example, it tells you that in English it is more common to talk about "male scientists" than "female scientists." Indeed, even news articles reporting on the gender imbalance in science is likely to use the term "male scientists" and not the phrase "female scientists." Even without any sexism, just the nature of having an imbalance means that in many cases you would pair one group with the position that lacks parity, and the other group with the people not choosing that position. So you might talk about "male scientists," and then about "female students" not choosing a career in science. Once you understand that, then you can just click on the link and get to your results without embarrassment.
In the old days when google had a clear and literal search syntax, you could avoid those problems by just quoting phrases or word groups, but that doesn't work well anymore.
Your "can not"s are made up entirely by you, those aren't the rules here in the USA, where this story is from.
If the problem is that the competition is inferior, you should be blaming the competition. It is like when the loser of the race complains, "gosh, he shouldn't have won, he's so fast it just isn't fair!"
What you're describing is a "natural monopoly" where they're used because they're better. It is totally approved of by US law. They're also allowed to enjoy the natural benefits of their position. They're not allowed to harm consumers, defined as making them pay more. Search is free, nobody had to over pay. They're not allowed to use tactics to keep the competition out. And they're not accused of that. They are absolutely allowed to be more successful than the competition. They're allowed to be more profitable. And they're allowed to put their own needs first. If they buy up the ISPs and refuse service or raise prices on the other search companies, that is when there would be an issue of preventing competition. Preventing competition never means just that you didn't help them out, or give them free advertising.
Deceptive business practices are not legal.
Search is free, and they're not compelling anybody to use it. Being a natural monopoly is in no way illegal. And you're allowed to enjoy the natural benefits of that. What is banned is only using it to harm consumers, as defined by price, and ability to compete. Listing your own stuff first doesn't affect anybody else's ability to have a search engine and order their own rankings. It doesn't stop them from doing anything. And since it is free, they can't be accused of gouging consumers.
It is just that simple. Customers have to be over-paying, or the competition has to be excluded, for there to be a problem. Google could totally leave the competition out of their search listing, and pretend they don't exist, and the competition could still run their own search engine, and advertise it, etc. To be doing something wrong, google would have to take control of some supplier, create a bottleneck, and use it as a choke point to keep the competition out of the market. If, for example, they were buying ISPs and dropping packets of search competitors, that would be illegal. Or if they intentionally bought up all the ISP service available, so the competition couldn't get internet hosting, and they were actually just idling the servers, or didn't need them, then that would be illegal. If they were using contracts with advertisers to prevent those people doing business with the competition, that would be illegal (for a monopoly, but legal for the little guy!).
None of that is accused.
There is nothing to accuse. It sounds like the document describes some legal things google is doing, that were investigated and found to be acceptable.
Where did they dredge up this Soulskill guy? Are they sure he's a nerd? Since when is, "Golly gee, they're such a big company I just assumed they'd keep my stuff safe for me" something that we care about?
Some idiot used a giant corporation and got treated like a cog. Good news for him, then; nothing went wrong, you're just experiencing the expected life of a cog. Some wear is expected. And when you're worn, you can be replaced.
If you want to choose from one of the large registrars, at least check various consumer reporting entities. I doubt you'll find great reviews of "GoDaddy." The reviews might be what you would expect if you just looked at their name and stereotyped the sort of company that would name themselves that.
You're in such a tiny minority that there is no chance at all your government will agree with you.
Go tell them, don't tell me.
Poles have a good reason to whine, they're scared of Russia.
Stallman came out against buying stuff at Amazon. I don't think he actually came out against returning them, which is what was said.
If you find yourself in the situation of having bought something from Amazon, received it, and felt less free, I think Stallman might agree that the right to return the item "is a freedom we can defend." Hopefully then you'll buy something somewhere else.
I know it isn't Amazon granting my right to return, it is consumer protection laws.
Historically, MS achieved market dominance by other means, and before there was widespread copying-with-a-license.
And the period when unlicensed copies were increasing the most also lines up with Apple's renewed market share, and with open source offerings being widely known about.
It may or may not be true that the unlicensed windows installs prevented people in various countries with low cost of living from switching to OSS. It makes sense that it would be true. But it is guaranteed to have taken place well after the peak of MS market share, and isn't available as a potential cause of said market share.
No - They've given you an amnesty license.
That isn't what they actually said. That is just what people are mindlessly assuming. What they have said is that even machines without a valid license will be able to download and install the upgrade. That is all they're really saying. Their only clarification was to say that if you didn't have a license, you still don't. They haven't promised any forgiveness. They can still shut you off later, or send you a bill.
Considering the technical problems they've had with legit users having to fight the license checks, it is not really any surprise that they're moving away from tying the physical upgrade capability to the license check. That tells us nothing at all about what they will do instead to enforce the licenses.
Maybe nothing, maybe something harsh. We don't know. And from the history of the company, that could go either way. Believing anything before we get more information is ill advised.