Slashdot Mirror

Actually, no it isn't against standards, it merely exposes the advetiser to claims of slander. I've seen many the commercial / print ad where the competitor is named, but I have always noticed that the fine print is usually less fine than normal and makes explicit references such as "Data obtained from 2002 annual report to shareholders" or somesuch.

The other reason that the competitor is not generally named is that the competitor does such a great job of marketing that the name is simply overshadowing.

Case in Point: The Pepsi challenge. Coca-cola is named explicitly, but the only negative things mentioned are statistics in which a very comprehensive test results were taken. Humor here, interesting here, and the more fact-like here (scroll down to Essentials of "Comparative Advertising" law. . .

According to the West Legal Dictionary, in the US, US law generally views monopolies as harmful and points out that generally speaking - monopolies are illegal.

There are only a few times when monopolies are granted, two of those times are when Patents and Copyrights are granted (which is why the big fight in the Supreme Court was so important and why it was so very important for the Supreme Court judges to knock down the extensions Congress put into place). Other times are when someone owns the rights to a single thing (like an oil well), or holds the patent on a process (like making Apple Computers).

Abusing your monopolistic power is not only illegal, but it is sometimes very hard to prove. So there you are right. However, Apple has abused their monopoly in the past. It is just that they got burned several times in court battles and since then they have become more sensitive to acting in non-monopolistic ways. Not that this won't change in the future but at least for now they are acting quite decently for a monopolistic company.

I'd vote for Jobs. He's not my #1 pick, but I think he might be better than what we have already. Not that GWB is horrible or anything but his grim determination to invade Iraq no matter what just doesn't sit right with me. It is like he has lost focus of the fact the UN guys are not finding any kind of a smoking gun (and yeah I know - they hid them. But with all of the technology we have shouldn't we be able to track down where everything is located? I mean, look at how well satellites can see underground rivers. If we can see that why can't they just locate suspicious underground areas? They used satellites to locate cities also. So what's the deal?

(I know - off topic. Sorry - got into a rant.)

There is no special "digital copyright" in Europe, let alone those bizare "if you look at it, you're a criminal" stuff in the DMCA. For years the US gave a shit about international copyright, because Americans made more money copying non-Americans work than they lost the other way around.

A crime, less severe than murder, involving the wrongful but non-malicious (see malice) killing of another person. There are various categories of manslaughter. In some states voluntary manslaughter is a killing in a sudden rage such as occurs during a quarrel and fight, and involuntary manslaughter is a killing with no intention to cause serious bodily harm, such as by acting without proper caution.

However, I think you could make a case for "reckless homocide," as "reckless" is defined:

"Reckless" can mean anything from "careless and inattentive" or "indifferent to consequences" to a "willful disregard for danger to the life or safety of others."

So of which one the cracker would be guilty depends on the circumstances and/or intent of the cracker. Murder doesn't seem to apply, given the definition:

"Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being that is premeditated (planned in advance) or is with malice aforethought (see that word). Most states divide murder into first and second degrees. First degree murder usually involves a willful and deliberate killing, such as by torture or lying in wait, or killing during the commission of another felony such as arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping. Second degree murder is less serious, but still worse than manslaughter."

Unless the cracker intended to kill the astronaut, and either premeditated the killing or had prior malicious intent, which seems unlikely in this case.

No, MS is not going to trademark it.

They can't, and neither can anyone else. Here's why:

http://www.wld.com/conbus/weal/wtradmk1 .htm.

Pay special attention to Paragraph 7 (the one that starts, "A descriptive term...")
--
- Sean

Pure BS. No trademark can exist for "Open Source."

Check it out:

http://www.wld.com/conbus/weal/wtradmk1 .htm
--
- Sean