Talk:1207: AirAware - Revision history

CalibansCreations at 08:49, 7 February 2025

2025-02-07T08:49:39Z

Davidy22 at 09:01, 17 January 2016

2016-01-17T09:01:39Z

141.101.80.82 at 08:47, 17 January 2016

2016-01-17T08:47:30Z

Orazor at 06:12, 25 September 2014

2014-09-25T06:12:47Z

Orazor at 05:46, 25 September 2014

2014-09-25T05:46:44Z

Orazor at 05:31, 25 September 2014

2014-09-25T05:31:09Z

123.243.217.72 at 05:21, 17 May 2013

2013-05-17T05:21:59Z

64.20.186.2 at 18:04, 6 May 2013

2013-05-06T18:04:56Z

Wrybred at 12:48, 6 May 2013

2013-05-06T12:48:02Z

Wrybred at 12:45, 6 May 2013

2013-05-06T12:45:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:49, 7 February 2025
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:The relationship between a lawyer and the person/entity s/he represents is a little bit (and by little bit I mean a lot) different from that of a company and its share holders. I think the question in this case is to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. And for a lawyer, it is always his or her client. Sure, donors to IP keep the organization running, and maybe the lawyer might consult with the board of directors (or whatever steering comittee structure IP has set up) to determine whether to take a particular case. Once that case is selected and the prisoner agrees, however, the attorney/client privilege only exists between the lawyer and the prisoner in this case. As an aside, I'm sure IP does employ a staff attorney(s) whose sole job is to look out for IP's interests, and with whom an attorney/client privilege exists. But that's a different story. While corporations only care about money, that's not always true for lawyers. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)		:The relationship between a lawyer and the person/entity s/he represents is a little bit (and by little bit I mean a lot) different from that of a company and its share holders. I think the question in this case is to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. And for a lawyer, it is always his or her client. Sure, donors to IP keep the organization running, and maybe the lawyer might consult with the board of directors (or whatever steering comittee structure IP has set up) to determine whether to take a particular case. Once that case is selected and the prisoner agrees, however, the attorney/client privilege only exists between the lawyer and the prisoner in this case. As an aside, I'm sure IP does employ a staff attorney(s) whose sole job is to look out for IP's interests, and with whom an attorney/client privilege exists. But that's a different story. While corporations only care about money, that's not always true for lawyers. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

−	:Do you think the similarity between AirAware and Airware is too obvious to mention? {{unsigned ip\|141.101.80.82]}	+	:Do you think the similarity between AirAware and Airware is too obvious to mention? {{unsigned ip\|141.101.80.82\|08:47, 17 January 2016‎}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 17 January 2016
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:The relationship between a lawyer and the person/entity s/he represents is a little bit (and by little bit I mean a lot) different from that of a company and its share holders. I think the question in this case is to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. And for a lawyer, it is always his or her client. Sure, donors to IP keep the organization running, and maybe the lawyer might consult with the board of directors (or whatever steering comittee structure IP has set up) to determine whether to take a particular case. Once that case is selected and the prisoner agrees, however, the attorney/client privilege only exists between the lawyer and the prisoner in this case. As an aside, I'm sure IP does employ a staff attorney(s) whose sole job is to look out for IP's interests, and with whom an attorney/client privilege exists. But that's a different story. While corporations only care about money, that's not always true for lawyers. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)		:The relationship between a lawyer and the person/entity s/he represents is a little bit (and by little bit I mean a lot) different from that of a company and its share holders. I think the question in this case is to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. And for a lawyer, it is always his or her client. Sure, donors to IP keep the organization running, and maybe the lawyer might consult with the board of directors (or whatever steering comittee structure IP has set up) to determine whether to take a particular case. Once that case is selected and the prisoner agrees, however, the attorney/client privilege only exists between the lawyer and the prisoner in this case. As an aside, I'm sure IP does employ a staff attorney(s) whose sole job is to look out for IP's interests, and with whom an attorney/client privilege exists. But that's a different story. While corporations only care about money, that's not always true for lawyers. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

−	:Do you think the similarity between AirAware and Airware is too obvious to mention?	+	:Do you think the similarity between AirAware and Airware is too obvious to mention? {{unsigned ip\|141.101.80.82]}

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 17 January 2016
Line 39:		Line 39:

	:The relationship between a lawyer and the person/entity s/he represents is a little bit (and by little bit I mean a lot) different from that of a company and its share holders. I think the question in this case is to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. And for a lawyer, it is always his or her client. Sure, donors to IP keep the organization running, and maybe the lawyer might consult with the board of directors (or whatever steering comittee structure IP has set up) to determine whether to take a particular case. Once that case is selected and the prisoner agrees, however, the attorney/client privilege only exists between the lawyer and the prisoner in this case. As an aside, I'm sure IP does employ a staff attorney(s) whose sole job is to look out for IP's interests, and with whom an attorney/client privilege exists. But that's a different story. While corporations only care about money, that's not always true for lawyers. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)		:The relationship between a lawyer and the person/entity s/he represents is a little bit (and by little bit I mean a lot) different from that of a company and its share holders. I think the question in this case is to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. And for a lawyer, it is always his or her client. Sure, donors to IP keep the organization running, and maybe the lawyer might consult with the board of directors (or whatever steering comittee structure IP has set up) to determine whether to take a particular case. Once that case is selected and the prisoner agrees, however, the attorney/client privilege only exists between the lawyer and the prisoner in this case. As an aside, I'm sure IP does employ a staff attorney(s) whose sole job is to look out for IP's interests, and with whom an attorney/client privilege exists. But that's a different story. While corporations only care about money, that's not always true for lawyers. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Do you think the similarity between AirAware and Airware is too obvious to mention?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:12, 25 September 2014
Line 36:		Line 36:
	So the Innocence Project, say, has wrongly convicted prisoners as its stock-in-trade (since they don't pay for the representation). So, following the money trail, it must be the donors to the Innocence Project who are the clients, since they are paying. So the IP attorneys should consult with the donors about the defense strategy, not the prisoners. In fact, attorney-client privilege in this case must cover communication between the IP attorney and the donor, not the prisoner represented. It's all so clear to me now! [[Special:Contributions/64.20.186.2\|64.20.186.2]] 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)larK		So the Innocence Project, say, has wrongly convicted prisoners as its stock-in-trade (since they don't pay for the representation). So, following the money trail, it must be the donors to the Innocence Project who are the clients, since they are paying. So the IP attorneys should consult with the donors about the defense strategy, not the prisoners. In fact, attorney-client privilege in this case must cover communication between the IP attorney and the donor, not the prisoner represented. It's all so clear to me now! [[Special:Contributions/64.20.186.2\|64.20.186.2]] 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)larK

−	:I don't think your analogy quite holds up, and I'm not entirely sure about the point you are trying to make. The relationship between a lawyer and the person/entity s/he represents is a little bit (and by little bit I mean a lot) different from that of a company and its share holders. I think the question in this case is to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. And for a lawyer, it is always his or her client. Sure, donors to IP keep the organization running, and maybe the lawyer might consult with the board of directors (or whatever steering comittee structure IP has set up) to determine whether to take a particular case. Once that case is selected and the prisoner agrees, however, the attorney/client privilege only exists between the lawyer and the prisoner in this case. As an aside, I'm sure IP does employ a staff attorney(s) whose sole job is to look out for IP's interests, and with whom an attorney/client privilege exists. But that's a different story. While corporations only care about money, that's not always true for lawyers. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)	+	:I don't think your analogy quite holds up, <s>and I'm not entirely sure about the point you are trying to make</s>. (NOTE: sorry -- didn't mean to make that sound so deprecating. Please help me to understand your point.)
		+
		+	:The relationship between a lawyer and the person/entity s/he represents is a little bit (and by little bit I mean a lot) different from that of a company and its share holders. I think the question in this case is to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. And for a lawyer, it is always his or her client. Sure, donors to IP keep the organization running, and maybe the lawyer might consult with the board of directors (or whatever steering comittee structure IP has set up) to determine whether to take a particular case. Once that case is selected and the prisoner agrees, however, the attorney/client privilege only exists between the lawyer and the prisoner in this case. As an aside, I'm sure IP does employ a staff attorney(s) whose sole job is to look out for IP's interests, and with whom an attorney/client privilege exists. But that's a different story. While corporations only care about money, that's not always true for lawyers. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 : I have not seen those yet, maybe because I'm living in a rural area. But it always shows me the weather, upcoming appointments (and when to leave for them) and traffic on my way to work. At work (smaller city) it also shows me places nearby to visit, but no ads, only POIs. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 15:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
-::Yes, and how do you think Google determines *which* POIs to show you? It's essentially an ad that's embedded so deeply into the user experience that you don't even realize it's an ad.
+::Yes, and how do you think Google determines *which* POIs to show you? It's essentially an ad that's embedded so deeply into the user experience that you don't even realize it's an ad. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 The bit about "must nake money" being WRONG is probably a reference to the scores of dotcoms who came to market with the idea that "We'll make something cool now, figure out how to make money from it later" [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 IMHO, there is only one kind of organization that collect tons of dollars "just yelling at stranger from the sky": churches (in addition, churches are non profit organizations). [[User:Andcoz|Andcoz]] ([[User talk:Andcoz|talk]]) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 Big Brother 1984 (from 1948 by George Orwell) is just a Child's Birthday comparing to Goooogle.
@@ Line 33: / Line 35: @@
 So the Innocence Project, say, has wrongly convicted prisoners as its stock-in-trade (since they don't pay for the representation). So, following the money trail, it must be the *donors* to the Innocence Project who are the clients, since they are paying. So the IP attorneys should consult with the donors about the defense strategy, not the prisoners.  In fact, attorney-client privilege in this case must cover communication between the IP attorney and the donor, not the prisoner represented. It's all so clear to me now! [[Special:Contributions/64.20.186.2|64.20.186.2]] 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)larK

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:31, 25 September 2014
Line 14:		Line 14:

	: I have not seen those yet, maybe because I'm living in a rural area. But it always shows me the weather, upcoming appointments (and when to leave for them) and traffic on my way to work. At work (smaller city) it also shows me places nearby to visit, but no ads, only POIs. --[[User:SlashMe\|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe\|talk]]) 15:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)		: I have not seen those yet, maybe because I'm living in a rural area. But it always shows me the weather, upcoming appointments (and when to leave for them) and traffic on my way to work. At work (smaller city) it also shows me places nearby to visit, but no ads, only POIs. --[[User:SlashMe\|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe\|talk]]) 15:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Yes, and how do you think Google determines which POIs to show you? It's essentially an ad that's embedded so deeply into the user experience that you don't even realize it's an ad.

	The bit about "must nake money" being WRONG is probably a reference to the scores of dotcoms who came to market with the idea that "We'll make something cool now, figure out how to make money from it later" [[User:Gardnertoo\|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo\|talk]]) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)		The bit about "must nake money" being WRONG is probably a reference to the scores of dotcoms who came to market with the idea that "We'll make something cool now, figure out how to make money from it later" [[User:Gardnertoo\|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo\|talk]]) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 I think that this explanation is wrong. This strip is about giving too much privacy. Google or Facebook knows much more about us than anybody else, and information is money, so this IS a huge business even if you dont pay anything --[[Special:Contributions/89.70.180.131|89.70.180.131]] 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 :so fix it [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 Any good business makes decisions to please or entice it's paying customers.  You are not google's customer, or facebook's.  If you didn't pay, you're not the customer, you're the stock-in-trade.  The hardware store owner doesn't ask the hammers where he should display them.  The grocer doesn't ask the watermelon for advice on marketing policy. ~wrybred
 So the Innocence Project, say, has wrongly convicted prisoners as its stock-in-trade (since they don't pay for the representation). So, following the money trail, it must be the *donors* to the Innocence Project who are the clients, since they are paying. So the IP attorneys should consult with the donors about the defense strategy, not the prisoners.  In fact, attorney-client privilege in this case must cover communication between the IP attorney and the donor, not the prisoner represented. It's all so clear to me now! [[Special:Contributions/64.20.186.2|64.20.186.2]] 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)larK

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 6 May 2013
Line 28:		Line 28:

	Any good business makes decisions to please or entice it's paying customers. You are not google's customer, or facebook's. If you didn't pay, you're not the customer, you're the stock-in-trade. The hardware store owner doesn't ask the hammers where he should display them. The grocer doesn't ask the watermelon for advice on marketing policy. ~wrybred		Any good business makes decisions to please or entice it's paying customers. You are not google's customer, or facebook's. If you didn't pay, you're not the customer, you're the stock-in-trade. The hardware store owner doesn't ask the hammers where he should display them. The grocer doesn't ask the watermelon for advice on marketing policy. ~wrybred
		+
		+	So the Innocence Project, say, has wrongly convicted prisoners as its stock-in-trade (since they don't pay for the representation). So, following the money trail, it must be the donors to the Innocence Project who are the clients, since they are paying. So the IP attorneys should consult with the donors about the defense strategy, not the prisoners. In fact, attorney-client privilege in this case must cover communication between the IP attorney and the donor, not the prisoner represented. It's all so clear to me now! [[Special:Contributions/64.20.186.2\|64.20.186.2]] 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)larK

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:48, 6 May 2013
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:so fix it [[User:Alpha\|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha\|talk]]) 04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)		:so fix it [[User:Alpha\|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha\|talk]]) 04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

−	Any good business makes decisions to please or entice it's paying customers. You are not google's customer, or facebook's. If you didn't pay, you're not the customer, you're the stock-in-trade. The hardware store owner doesn't ask the hammers where he should display them. The grocer doesn't ask the watermelon for advice on marketing policy.	+	Any good business makes decisions to please or entice it's paying customers. You are not google's customer, or facebook's. If you didn't pay, you're not the customer, you're the stock-in-trade. The hardware store owner doesn't ask the hammers where he should display them. The grocer doesn't ask the watermelon for advice on marketing policy. ~wrybred

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 6 May 2013
Line 26:		Line 26:
	I think that this explanation is wrong. This strip is about giving too much privacy. Google or Facebook knows much more about us than anybody else, and information is money, so this IS a huge business even if you dont pay anything --[[Special:Contributions/89.70.180.131\|89.70.180.131]] 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)		I think that this explanation is wrong. This strip is about giving too much privacy. Google or Facebook knows much more about us than anybody else, and information is money, so this IS a huge business even if you dont pay anything --[[Special:Contributions/89.70.180.131\|89.70.180.131]] 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
	:so fix it [[User:Alpha\|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha\|talk]]) 04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)		:so fix it [[User:Alpha\|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha\|talk]]) 04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	Any good business makes decisions to please or entice it's paying customers. You are not google's customer, or facebook's. If you didn't pay, you're not the customer, you're the stock-in-trade. The hardware store owner doesn't ask the hammers where he should display them. The grocer doesn't ask the watermelon for advice on marketing policy.