Do you honestly think locking out every mechanic on the face of the earth except those that work for the dealer is a good idea?
It's not just that the car companies are locking out aftermarket parts, they are locking down the repair process using patented tools. More and more basic service (for instance an oil change on a new Mercedes) on new cars must be performed at the dealer, which pretty well means you are locked in to working with one shop, regardless of reputation, in your area.
I'm not saying every dealer is shady, but one would think, considering the value of the car you purchased, and the value of repairs performed, that we would want to keep the market honest and competitive.
misconfigured his profile so that it revealed the answers to the security questions on his personal e-mail account.
they meant that he answered all of the personal questions on his profile, some of which are used as security questions to unlock accounts, such as his e-mail account.
That might make sense, though I would argue the use of the word "misconfigured" was a little nebulous were that true.
Still, if he did put that level of detail on his Facebook page, this is the type of guy that needs a check-box for abject mental disabilities.
The teacher is/should be better equipped to handle mis-uses of technology in the classroom than legislation.
I agree. For instance they should top off their coffee-brandy beverage before administering an exam to reduce the amount of time spent staggering off to the staff lounge.
A contractor with the NRO who connected with her had misconfigured his profile so that it revealed the answers to the security questions on his personal e-mail account.
I'm curious... if this is true just how does did he do this? Is there a check-box for abject mental deficiencies?
I'm doubtful BP could actually lock up every competent geologist on the Gulf Coast, but if they did the public could use specialists from a different region. Certainly a familiarity with the specific environment is big, but in theory a competent scientist could make useful analysis regardless of regional specialty... provided the data is there.
The problem is that the U.S. is not helping to open up the monitoring methodologies, or the data for public review. Considering the potential is there for a significant event, this is irresponsible on a global scale. We should stop worrying about everyone getting in a panic, and put an all-out effort into trying to find a way to secure our butts.
Let BP do what they want with their own studies. In the meantime, what we need are neutral geologists and physicists to come in and actually assess the situation from a ... you know... scientific standpoint.
Open the site, the monitoring equipment and the data to public review.
Re: Re: Re: Hope "informative" letter includes that ignoring it is possible.
As the litigation progresses, the cost of defending yourself or settling the suit increase.
Which is exactly why it is immoral to engage in mass - anonymous lawsuits where proof of infringement is not required until trial has commenced.
Ordinary people do not make enough money to defend themselves against this type of exploitation of the system. Allowing this abuse to continue will not garner copyright any more supporters, that is for certain.
In my opinion, the USCG needs to be smacked down and run out of town.
Please subscribe to the Times and report back to us on how many reporters are still working there. There is no other way to get a direct measurement, and we need a brave, well-funded soul to put some feet on the ground.
You are quite correct this has nothing to do with search neutrality.
Google is the only one called out because it is by far the most capitalized of the search engines. These are not ideals being chased, just dollar signs.
We've tried debunking the ridiculous concept of "search neutrality" a few times now. It's an invention by a few telcos who were upset that Google was supporting net neutrality rules
I agree the term search neutrality is currently (since 2009) being used as a pretense to allow large commercial interests to pressure Google into cooperation with their agenda. The site searchneutrality.org is as a good a reference for this fact as any.
This pretense is as disingenuous as governments constantly using red herrings to implement draconian policies, such as Australia's Net filter which is supposed to purge the continent of child pornography.
The very last thing the people of the world need is for governments to step in and start calling the shots on search algorithms. Even more absurd is notion of having the government step in to regulate commercial search engines such as Google under the pretense of "search neutrality".
The real issue the NY Times has is that they are less and less relevant to the real world, and they want a nice dose of U.S. commercial welfare by forcing Google to make them more visible in their paid results without having to bid more, or go through countless SEO cycles. That's just the way it works and they need to get used to it.
If the people want a truly open search engine, without biasing towards commercial or "approved" sources it needs to come from a different, community service (funded by donation) style source or under a different advertisement supported model.
But why do some here comport that search-neutrality would mean listing every site for every search regardless of linguistic algorithmic relevance? To me this argument smacks of inane schilling. Just cut to the chase: the ideal of search neutrality does not and cannot exist with advertisements favored in the results.
The whole "story" of search-neutrality you've been following here is a bunch of bullshit. It's about profiteering, nothing more. It has nothing to do with an ideal of inclusiveness by relevance.
You guys are crazy! Don't you know how much work fact-checking involves? This writeup is blatant discrimination against journalists with lives, families, tee times, constrained happy hours, and the thirst to be first in print.
That's what she said, and that's a scientific fact!
(A moral panic about smoking beetroot actually makes more sense than "i-dosing".)
See this is why I read the comments here. Now I know I can feel good and reduce the risk of heart disease at the same time. A long lived moral panic is the very best kind.
Now just how do I prep this smoked beetroot, chorizo and liver salad...
Definitely contact your U.S. Senators and your representative in the House. You may also consider a letter to the White House or the USTR. The concern many have is that by labeling this as an "executive agreement", its acceptance does not require debate or ratification in Congress. Let your reps know you don't appreciate their being sidelined in legal debates that affect their constituents.
Many other people take issue that the very name "Anti Counterfeiting Trade (executive) Agreement" implies that the discussions are focusing only on criminals profiteering on counterfeited goods. The formal draft release made it perfectly clear that copyright enforcement is a major subject.
I'm reading the latest draft and kind of amused they're retaining the "copyright piracy" term (right after counterfeiting) to describe all copyright infringement. Again this is misleading, as mass copyright infringement for personal use is freeloading gluttony, not theft or profiteering - no actual product is lost, nor any sale intercepted.
Oh come on. How can a 'stache-wearing nazi warlock possibly imitate a 2 foot mage with dwarfism (btw: why doesn't the dwarf race have dwarfism?) Where is your moron in a hurry now?
if it was about the money, they would have not repeatedly offered to settle with jammie thomas for a very small amount, or with tenenbaum for a very small amount.
...
mike, are you attempting to discredit the riaa? why be so blatant?
LOL this has got to be a TAM imposter. That was funny though.
On the post: Massachusetts May Be The First To Get A Right To Repair Law
Re: What gives non oem dealers any right
Do you honestly think locking out every mechanic on the face of the earth except those that work for the dealer is a good idea?
It's not just that the car companies are locking out aftermarket parts, they are locking down the repair process using patented tools. More and more basic service (for instance an oil change on a new Mercedes) on new cars must be performed at the dealer, which pretty well means you are locked in to working with one shop, regardless of reputation, in your area.
I'm not saying every dealer is shady, but one would think, considering the value of the car you purchased, and the value of repairs performed, that we would want to keep the market honest and competitive.
On the post: To Find Needles In Haystacks, US Gov't Has Built Hundreds Of New Haystacks
Re: Re: Re: Feature Rich Social Networking
they meant that he answered all of the personal questions on his profile, some of which are used as security questions to unlock accounts, such as his e-mail account.
That might make sense, though I would argue the use of the word "misconfigured" was a little nebulous were that true.
Still, if he did put that level of detail on his Facebook page, this is the type of guy that needs a check-box for abject mental disabilities.
On the post: Removing iPods And Mobile Phones From Students Is 'Discipline Theater'
Re: Re:
I agree. For instance they should top off their coffee-brandy beverage before administering an exam to reduce the amount of time spent staggering off to the staff lounge.
On the post: To Find Needles In Haystacks, US Gov't Has Built Hundreds Of New Haystacks
Feature Rich Social Networking
I'm curious... if this is true just how does did he do this? Is there a check-box for abject mental deficiencies?
On the post: BP Hiring Scientists To 'Study' Oil Spill... But Prohibits Them From Publishing Or Sharing Research
Re: Re: That's all good...
The problem is that the U.S. is not helping to open up the monitoring methodologies, or the data for public review. Considering the potential is there for a significant event, this is irresponsible on a global scale. We should stop worrying about everyone getting in a panic, and put an all-out effort into trying to find a way to secure our butts.
On the post: BP Hiring Scientists To 'Study' Oil Spill... But Prohibits Them From Publishing Or Sharing Research
That's all good...
Open the site, the monitoring equipment and the data to public review.
On the post: File Sharing Is Not Pollution, And You Don't Need An ISP 'Tax' To Deal With It
Re: Go Ahead... Levy the Tax.
On the post: US Copyright Group Kicking Off Next Round Of Lawsuits [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Hope "informative" letter includes that ignoring it is possible.
Which is exactly why it is immoral to engage in mass - anonymous lawsuits where proof of infringement is not required until trial has commenced.
Ordinary people do not make enough money to defend themselves against this type of exploitation of the system. Allowing this abuse to continue will not garner copyright any more supporters, that is for certain.
In my opinion, the USCG needs to be smacked down and run out of town.
On the post: Early Indications Say Paywall For The Times Is A Dreadful Failure
Re:
On the post: Journalism Neutrality Now! Why The Government Needs To Oversee The NY Times' Editorial Neutrality
Re:
Google is the only one called out because it is by far the most capitalized of the search engines. These are not ideals being chased, just dollar signs.
On the post: Journalism Neutrality Now! Why The Government Needs To Oversee The NY Times' Editorial Neutrality
Tosser Search
I agree the term search neutrality is currently (since 2009) being used as a pretense to allow large commercial interests to pressure Google into cooperation with their agenda. The site searchneutrality.org is as a good a reference for this fact as any.
This pretense is as disingenuous as governments constantly using red herrings to implement draconian policies, such as Australia's Net filter which is supposed to purge the continent of child pornography.
The very last thing the people of the world need is for governments to step in and start calling the shots on search algorithms. Even more absurd is notion of having the government step in to regulate commercial search engines such as Google under the pretense of "search neutrality".
The real issue the NY Times has is that they are less and less relevant to the real world, and they want a nice dose of U.S. commercial welfare by forcing Google to make them more visible in their paid results without having to bid more, or go through countless SEO cycles. That's just the way it works and they need to get used to it.
If the people want a truly open search engine, without biasing towards commercial or "approved" sources it needs to come from a different, community service (funded by donation) style source or under a different advertisement supported model.
But why do some here comport that search-neutrality would mean listing every site for every search regardless of linguistic algorithmic relevance? To me this argument smacks of inane schilling. Just cut to the chase: the ideal of search neutrality does not and cannot exist with advertisements favored in the results.
The whole "story" of search-neutrality you've been following here is a bunch of bullshit. It's about profiteering, nothing more. It has nothing to do with an ideal of inclusiveness by relevance.
On the post: Scary: It's 'Newsworthy' That A Newspaper Prints Facts
Hot News Rules!
That's what she said, and that's a scientific fact!
de-sarc
On the post: Motorola Does Openness Wrong; Bricks Your Droid X If You Tamper
Re: Re: Re:
GTA got bricked because people were accessing its unpublicized capabilities.
On the post: Oh No! Run And Hide! Kids Getting High With MP3s! Moral Panic! Moral Panic!
Re: Binaural beats
See this is why I read the comments here. Now I know I can feel good and reduce the risk of heart disease at the same time. A long lived moral panic is the very best kind.
Now just how do I prep this smoked beetroot, chorizo and liver salad...
On the post: YouTube's Three Strikes Rule Hits Again; Dance Company Has Over 300 Videos Taken Down
Re: I have even better examples
Another fine example of how a DMCA take-down (regardless of credibility) trumps everything when it comes to online access and "rights".
Is there no recourse at all for this situation, where a license was in effect, but some SLAPP happy jerk files a DMCA?
There needs to be some two-way accountability or the entire DMCA needs to go.
On the post: If Negotiators Still Don't Want To Release ACTA, It'll Still Get Leaked
Re: What should we do?
Many other people take issue that the very name "Anti Counterfeiting Trade (executive) Agreement" implies that the discussions are focusing only on criminals profiteering on counterfeited goods. The formal draft release made it perfectly clear that copyright enforcement is a major subject.
I'm reading the latest draft and kind of amused they're retaining the "copyright piracy" term (right after counterfeiting) to describe all copyright infringement. Again this is misleading, as mass copyright infringement for personal use is freeloading gluttony, not theft or profiteering - no actual product is lost, nor any sale intercepted.
On the post: Financial Columnist Stands By Her Claim That Kids Giving Away Lemonade Are Destroying America
Trumped by 7 Year Olds
Does Savage even qualify as a moron in a hurry?
On the post: eBay Sued For Patent Infringement... With Added Conspiracy Theory
Re: My WoW char...
Oh come on. How can a 'stache-wearing nazi warlock possibly imitate a 2 foot mage with dwarfism (btw: why doesn't the dwarf race have dwarfism?) Where is your moron in a hurry now?
On the post: RIAA Spent $17.6 Million In Lawsuits... To Get $391,000 In Settlements?
Re:
LOL this has got to be a TAM imposter. That was funny though.
On the post: Old Spice Man Is Horsing Around On Social Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know ignoring the 'by-line' is often the first step to wanton copyright infringement...
How long are you going to stay in the closet, TAM?
Next >>