Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Goodbye free speech (Score 1) 181 181

I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta. When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?

Right after you: 1) File a lawsuit against Google for this, 2) prove just WHY Google must pay you money using currently applicable laws (bonus if you cite legal precedents), 3) win said lawsuit against Google and get a judgement awarded.

Step 1 is easy. Anyone can do this. Step 2 is a bit harder. Especially if your claim has no legal merit (for example "Google should pay me for all of their freely available products"). You might be able to spin some law to fit, though. Step 3 would be even harder.

In the case of the Yelp reviews, the company is claiming that these reviews were fake reviews by one individual. The court should order Yelp to turn over the information on these users to a third party - chosen by the court and sworn to secrecy. This party would review the records (perhaps in cross referencing the company's customer list) and come back with a report detailing whether or not they were one person and whether or not they were customers. The report wouldn't personally identify anyone. If the company's claims were disproved by the report, the case would be tossed (and the company would need to pay costs for the third party). If their claims held up, the case could proceed and the Yelp identities might be revealed to the company (and Yelp might wind up on the hook for the third party's report costs).

Comment: Sounds Like A Scumbag Company (Score 5, Interesting) 167 167

Jason Kneen (the domain name owner) posted some details in the comments section on the first link. First of all, he apparently hasn't been served with this lawsuit. The first he heard of it was online. Secondly, apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization. When caught on this, they claimed it was a mistake and cancelled the transfer. They tried to get him to sell the domain name, but he wasn't interested. Now, apparently, they're suing to get it.

Also, claiming that renewing the domain name was "in bad faith"? This assumes:

1) Everyone renewing a domain name must automatically look to see if any trademarks have been filed on said domain name and then transfer the domain name to said trademark holders or let the domain expire.

2) Anyone in any form of negotiations to transfer a domain name can't renew it. (Thus enabling the people you are transferring it to the opportunity to just "run out the clock" and grab the domain when it expires.)

Here's hoping the court smacks this lawsuit down fast.

Comment: Re:If we only set a string precedent... (Score 1) 90 90

They can easily change the agreement by updating the TOS and have a statement in said link that continued use of the site constitutes acceptance of the new terms.

This led me to wonder about the following scenario:

- You sign up with SomeCompany.com and enter some personal information. They promise never to sell your information.
- You stop using SomeCompany.com.
- SomeCompany.com updates their TOS saying "We can now sell your info. Your continued use of this site is acceptance of this new TOS."
- You still don't go to SomeCompany.com
- SomeCompany.com sells your information.

Has SomeCompany.com violated any laws? My guess is that even if the answer is "yes", the chances of getting any meaningful judgement from them is nearly zero. Even if you sue them and even if they don't drag it on and even if you win, chances are the penalty for their actions will be less than what they get for selling the data.

Comment: Munchkin Crossovers You'd Love To Do (Score 3, Interesting) 109 109

My boys and I love playing Munchkin. Recently, my oldest got Munchkin Adventure Time. Being big fans of both, we loved playing it. This led me to wonder: Assuming you could get licensing for any ONE franchise (e.g. Star Wars, BTTF, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc), which would you make into a Munchkin game?

Comment: Re:What Wu does not write: (Score 3, Funny) 131 131

That goes counter the fact that people in general hate change. No I think the majority would continue to use Google. It is very hard to change societies momentum.

Which is why everyone announces on MySpace about the new Geocities page they just set up.

Comment: Re:Prior art (Score 2) 80 80

My main source of knowing what "twerking" is comes from the Weird Al music video for Tacky (a parody of Pharrell Williams' Happy) when Jack Black "practices his twerking moves in line at the DMV." You are totally right about there being some things you just can't unsee.

Comment: Re:That's nuthin (Score 1) 80 80

When I find the pounds creeping back on (like they have been recently), I use an app called MyFitnessPal to record the food I'm eating and watch my caloric intake. This keeps me honest and usually results in at least and average of 1 pound per week weight loss. Add in exercise - which MyFitnessPal also records - and it's even more. Over 6 months, I'd lose about 26 pounds, not the 4 or 5 that this game is claiming.

Put the game down, watch the food you're consuming, and get your body moving. You'll shed a lot more than 8 to 10 pounds per year.

Comment: Dangerous (Score 4, Insightful) 176 176

Selfie sticks are, at best, narcissistic nonsense, but the person who whipped one out on a rollercoaster was risking injury to himself and his fellow riders. How much of a grip can you have on a stick with a weight on the end while hurtling through twists and turns? And if you lose your grip, the best case scenario is that your phone falls and shatters below. Worst case scenario is it hits into someone and injures them. All because he "needed" to get a photo of himself.

Great work on Disney's part shuttig down the ride until that selfie stick was confiscated.

Comment: Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score 1) 1069 1069

Whenever a religious right type tries to argue that $SOME_RELIGION should be the law of the land - beyond this history lesson - one of the first things I think of is: Do you REALLY want this? Do you REALLY want POLITICIANS to decide how you practice your religion? Because even if they choose your religion as the Official State Religion, chances are they'll be as "successful" implementing it as they are successful at anything.

By the way, mass is now held at the Blu-Ray/DVD aisle in Wal-Mart. You must buy at least seven Blu-Rays/DVDs to atone for your sins. Thus saith the prophets of the MPAA and their lobbyists... I mean, disciples.

Comment: Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score 1) 1069 1069

It's not just having sex and children. Married couples get hospital visitation rights, get inheritance rights, and get certain burial rights. Before this ruling, a state could say "We know you've been in a relationship for 30 years and would get married if you could, but you two are the same gender so you don't get to see your partner when they get sick, must pay more taxes when they die, and can't be buried next to them if they are buried as a soldier. But that couple who met last month and took a quick trip to Vegas get all those rights (until they get divorced a month from now) because they are different genders.".

Comment: Re:Another great Scalia line (Score 1) 1069 1069

"Endowed by their Creator" is a fancy way of saying "these rights aren't granted by any people." Thus, nobody can say "well, I just decided NOT to grant you these rights because I decide what rights you have." "The Creator" is a concept beyond any human's control. You can picture that to mean the god of Christianity, the god of Judaism, the god of Islam, the god of some other religion, or just an abstract concept and not any actual being at all. Either way, these are rights that are ingrained in our very existence and thus cannot be violated by a person's laws.

Comment: Re:Another great Scalia line (Score 1) 1069 1069

Specifically, when this country was formed, we were breaking away from a country (England) that had a ruling monarch who was also the head of the state religion. The founding fathers made sure that this wouldn't happen with the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances - to keep one branch of government from becoming too powerful - and the First Amendment - to prevent any Official Government Religion.

If anyone wants to practice their religion, that's great. Go right ahead. But they'd better not think that their religious freedom means the ability to tell me how to live my life.

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Working...