What was going on with the lady screaming for help. I am guessing the people abducting her were security guards, because there was a security guard trying to stop the filming. But what right do they have to assault someone on public property? The didn't look like police officers. And the lady was screaming for help, and this guy was just filming?
His point is NOT entirely valid. For one thing most security cameras don't record audio. So the guy at the table might think it is OK to film someone with a security camera, would still not want someone else to sit down next to him. Maybe the guy at the table decided to go outside, where it is noisier (to drown out security cameras that record sound) to have his conversation. And someone sits down, with a camera and audio recording 2 feet away.
While the point the guy is trying to make is "you are being recorded even when you don't want to." The point he is making is "I'm invading your personal space and listening in on YOUR conversation."
He makes a great point with the biker. Biker says "I don't like to be videod" Psycho says "You came from the store?" Biker shrugs and responds "yeah so..." Very valid point, "you don't like me videoing you, but you don't mind the store."
But to sit down at someone else's table? Camera or no camera, that is a bit rude. If he stood there that would be a bit different, but to sit down?
Videoing the guy through the window.. a bit odd, but ok... To enter the business (what looks like through a back door?) Rude, and probably illegal. Maybe the guy doesn't like to be filmed, so he has his back to the security camera in the room?
I understand this guys point, but he is making it incorrectly.
What the freak is e-waste? Do I have some one bits dribbling out the back of my computer? Is this stuff toxic? Is there some zero bits floating in my drinking water?
How many storms do you know that are 1000 miles across? Irene was considered one of the biggest storms in ages, and was half the size.
But really the problem was that the storm hit AT high tide, with a full moon. Yes there was some wind damage, but MOST of the damage (that I see anyways) was caused by the surge, and flooding.
Because if the latter is the case, do not drive in bad weather in low lying areas.
So what about the people who are driving in normal, sunny weather, and get hit by a flash flood? It happens. It doesn't have to be raining where you are currently standing.
Listen to the weather warnings (there always are) and avoid low water crossings when it's raining hard.
Yep, prudent words. Of course flash floods can come from pretty far away. It doesn't have to be raining where you are for you to run into a flash flood.
Totaled does not mean not working. It means worthless
No it doesn't. A totaled car can still have value. Shoot it can still be driveable. It just means the cost to repair the damage is more than the cost to replace the car.
...which is to say, the one we've had for a long, long time.
That didn't answer the question.
i don't think anyone suggested or implied that the logo would switch (but boy, did some people infer it)
Nothing wrong with changing the look for a bit, look at how successful Google Doodles are. I've enjoyed the logo contest, and seeing some of the creative ideas. Of course I don't want the logo to CHANGE to one of them. But nothing wrong with changing the logo for a day every now and then.
What you could do is advertise your product. Then stop advertising it, then advertise it again. And see the drop in sales when you stop advertising it.
That is essentially what happened here.
It could be abused, but that is why we have judges. You get a search warrant (or in this case a subpoena) issued by a judge. In this case they newspaper refused, and the judge insisted. This wasn't a case of some random cop going and getting the information. It went through due process.
Of course I don't know why there was enough suspicion for the judge to issue the subpoena.
I'm curious why they suspect this person to be a juror.
What does it have to do with the case? (I assume you mean the trial the juror was a part of?) Well other than the fact the juror broke the rules, not much. But as a juror you aren't allowed to read news on the trial you are a jury on. They want to make sure what the jury decides is based on the facts presented in the trial, not "facts" presented by some random reporter.
And it makes perfect sense. Maybe something happened in the courtroom, the the jury isn't supposed to hear. And the news reported it?
The request is reasonable, but the only reasonable response is: "We're sorry your honour, but we do not require contributors to register under their real name, and we do not record IP addresses of visitors".
That is the only reasonable response if you don't keep the peoples names or IP addresses. But since most sites require you to register to comment, they have SOMETHING and they have to release it, or pay the penalty.
As a juror you aren't supposed to be reading news on the trial. IF you comment about the news, there is an implication you read the news.
Also you are not allowed to talk about the trial, even anonymously. This isn't an infringement of your first amendment rights anymore than signing an NDA. You agree to do this to serve on the trial. AFTER the trial is over you are allowed to speak all you want about the trial.
Yeah but anyone too dumb to get out of jury duty is not credible.
Anyone too dumb to get out of jury duty should have their citizenship revoked.
Jury Duty is one of our duties as a citizen. if you are gaming the system to get out, you aren't being American.
All of these arguments are moot once the patent system moves to a first-to-file system.
All what arguments? That prior art existed? Prior art (especially from a previous decade) can still over rule first to file.
The the invention isn't novel? First to file has nothing to do with that
The issues we have today, that the majority of software "patents" shouldn't exist, will still be around when the system moves to first-to-file.
Slashdot Mirror
What was going on with the lady screaming for help. I am guessing the people abducting her were security guards, because there was a security guard trying to stop the filming. But what right do they have to assault someone on public property? The didn't look like police officers. And the lady was screaming for help, and this guy was just filming?
I love this guy. His point is entirely valid.
His point is NOT entirely valid. For one thing most security cameras don't record audio. So the guy at the table might think it is OK to film someone with a security camera, would still not want someone else to sit down next to him. Maybe the guy at the table decided to go outside, where it is noisier (to drown out security cameras that record sound) to have his conversation. And someone sits down, with a camera and audio recording 2 feet away.
While the point the guy is trying to make is "you are being recorded even when you don't want to." The point he is making is "I'm invading your personal space and listening in on YOUR conversation."
He makes a great point with the biker. Biker says "I don't like to be videod" Psycho says "You came from the store?" Biker shrugs and responds "yeah so..." Very valid point, "you don't like me videoing you, but you don't mind the store."
But to sit down at someone else's table? Camera or no camera, that is a bit rude. If he stood there that would be a bit different, but to sit down?
Videoing the guy through the window.. a bit odd, but ok... To enter the business (what looks like through a back door?) Rude, and probably illegal. Maybe the guy doesn't like to be filmed, so he has his back to the security camera in the room?
I understand this guys point, but he is making it incorrectly.
What makes me wonder is that pretty much NOBODY managed to handle the issue gracefully.
Its called "editing"
What the freak is e-waste? Do I have some one bits dribbling out the back of my computer? Is this stuff toxic? Is there some zero bits floating in my drinking water?
Exactly?
I've replaced several fuel pumps in cars... I've never had to do anything with the tank. Must have been doing it wrong.
Rural data centers have their own problems.
How many storms do you know that are 1000 miles across? Irene was considered one of the biggest storms in ages, and was half the size.
But really the problem was that the storm hit AT high tide, with a full moon. Yes there was some wind damage, but MOST of the damage (that I see anyways) was caused by the surge, and flooding.
Because if the latter is the case, do not drive in bad weather in low lying areas.
So what about the people who are driving in normal, sunny weather, and get hit by a flash flood? It happens. It doesn't have to be raining where you are currently standing.
Listen to the weather warnings (there always are) and avoid low water crossings when it's raining hard.
Yep, prudent words. Of course flash floods can come from pretty far away. It doesn't have to be raining where you are for you to run into a flash flood.
These cars BURNED by being put in water and you dont think that is cause for alarm? Not one or two but over a DOZEN.
I'm curious, how often do you put your car in water? And I mean IN water, not just let some of the water falling from the sky hit it?
Totaled does not mean not working. It means worthless
No it doesn't. A totaled car can still have value. Shoot it can still be driveable. It just means the cost to repair the damage is more than the cost to replace the car.
"Tell Jimmy you are sorry."
"I'm sorry"
"Say it like you mean it!"
...which is to say, the one we've had for a long, long time.
That didn't answer the question.
i don't think anyone suggested or implied that the logo would switch (but boy, did some people infer it)
Nothing wrong with changing the look for a bit, look at how successful Google Doodles are. I've enjoyed the logo contest, and seeing some of the creative ideas. Of course I don't want the logo to CHANGE to one of them. But nothing wrong with changing the logo for a day every now and then.
I guess I would throw it back to the slashdot team and ask, what is it you hope to achieve with rebranding?
I understand no one here bothers to read the article... but at least read the freaking summary:
we'd like your help in figuring out which one of the selected artists will receive a Nexus 7 tablet
What you could do is advertise your product. Then stop advertising it, then advertise it again. And see the drop in sales when you stop advertising it.
That is essentially what happened here.
Yeah, but people have to know about the browser first. This was just court ordered free advertising
Yep, take away free advertising, and guess what...
It could be abused, but that is why we have judges. You get a search warrant (or in this case a subpoena) issued by a judge. In this case they newspaper refused, and the judge insisted. This wasn't a case of some random cop going and getting the information. It went through due process.
Of course I don't know why there was enough suspicion for the judge to issue the subpoena.
I'm curious why they suspect this person to be a juror.
What does it have to do with the case? (I assume you mean the trial the juror was a part of?) Well other than the fact the juror broke the rules, not much. But as a juror you aren't allowed to read news on the trial you are a jury on. They want to make sure what the jury decides is based on the facts presented in the trial, not "facts" presented by some random reporter.
And it makes perfect sense. Maybe something happened in the courtroom, the the jury isn't supposed to hear. And the news reported it?
The request is reasonable, but the only reasonable response is: "We're sorry your honour, but we do not require contributors to register under their real name, and we do not record IP addresses of visitors".
That is the only reasonable response if you don't keep the peoples names or IP addresses. But since most sites require you to register to comment, they have SOMETHING and they have to release it, or pay the penalty.
As a juror you aren't supposed to be reading news on the trial. IF you comment about the news, there is an implication you read the news.
Also you are not allowed to talk about the trial, even anonymously. This isn't an infringement of your first amendment rights anymore than signing an NDA. You agree to do this to serve on the trial. AFTER the trial is over you are allowed to speak all you want about the trial.
What are these "voting places" you speak of?
My voting place is right here at my desk.
Yeah but anyone too dumb to get out of jury duty is not credible.
Anyone too dumb to get out of jury duty should have their citizenship revoked.
Jury Duty is one of our duties as a citizen. if you are gaming the system to get out, you aren't being American.
All of these arguments are moot once the patent system moves to a first-to-file system.
All what arguments? That prior art existed? Prior art (especially from a previous decade) can still over rule first to file.
The the invention isn't novel? First to file has nothing to do with that
The issues we have today, that the majority of software "patents" shouldn't exist, will still be around when the system moves to first-to-file.