I'm guessing the adult content was removed through threats by her lawyers. This was a very long time ago and my memory is slightly faded but I remember that when the topic was hot the site still contained adult contents. Little did the squatter know that it was probably the only thing still holding him to that domain. That even porn is a legitimate reason to fight off domain disputes.
Choose a name that someone's already using, and then seize their domain for using that name?
In my understanding using and obvious cybersquatting isn't the same thing in court. If I'm not mistaken these issues occur very frequently, sort of. A while back Madonna sezied madonna.com, which was used as a legitimate adult site, not related to madonna at all. Madonna means virgin, which of course is also very related to the porn industry, so it wasn't a question of copying Madonnas brand, but rather another use for the name. Of course Madonna won this case, as you understand, and thus she could seize madonna.com.
This example might not be 100% related to the issue at hand, but it proves that domain seizures due to trademark can and have occurred across markets.
And FYI just because there was no outrage on Slashdot it doesn't mean it didn't happen.:)
There are always alternatives. The guy is however starting is business on the wrong end. My 2 cents are: register at another top domain, create a brand for yourself, if things work out fine then trademark that brand, then go ahead and seize any domain violating your trademark. Don't go worrying about the domain name to be perfect before you even have anything to showcase for, a domain is shit without content so focus on that first.
I highly doubt that's even the case. The bank would probably have to prove that the breach could have taken place even at the time of auditing, not after, due to obvious reasons anyone can imagine. If they manage do to so the suit should be perfectly valid.
While still getting paid 70% + health care for the next 5 years. Sure it's a layoff plan, but it's one rare motherfucker in terms of money, especially during these days. Spain has the highest unemployment rate in Europe right now and the word on every mouth in Spain is the "crisis". Everybody fears of getting laid off, but no avrage motherfucker in the entire country expected to get 70% paid vacation for the following 5 years. That is, my friend, a good fucking deal.
Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.
Wait a second. What goes for bandwidth issues that has been a hot topic lately regarding BitTorrent traffic, how will this be any better? If every song you hear through your PC is streamed, my guess is it would choke internet more than the current BitTorrent traffic.
Hahahaha their ideas!? Are you serious!? Patenting is not about whos idea it is, it's about who claims it first. You think this is fair? Not to mention all the obvious, general patents that stretch from right click menus to any other ridiculous patents. How the hell can you defend this? Is this nurturing business to you? What happens in a year in development took ages when patenting was created. Do you understand the difference? It's not about protecting your business, it's about grabbing the allowance to do even to most basic functions, leaving anybody that want to build on that idea, not even necessarily yours to fucking begin with, to improve development, forced to pay you royalties. This renders only the wealthy, such as corporations, to be able to continue such development. I don't think you quite understand what patenting has become. You're just standing there clapping your hands to this ridiculous circus.
... and an OEM computer isn't going to take the time to make a custom Linux install to work with their hardware when they can foist support off to Microsoft...
Uhm last time I checked there were numerous products precisely the way you describe them available. Do you know what a netbook is? If so I guess what you meant to say was "most OEM's". There's a big difference.
Yeah but in case you didn't notice we're talking about the rules of beating the competition, not the purpose itself. Murdering the opponent also wins the battle, but it breaks the rules (and please don't bullshit me about comparing murder to patenting, that's not the point, the point is that I have to sink so low in comparison for you to understand). 100 years ago patents nurtured the industries. Nowadays we're moving so fast in development that it's doing it nothing else than harm. There are too many versions and alternations for everything these days and by claiming one milestone you've basically killed the development it could have sprung out to, instead focusing on one or a few lines of paths that merely benefit your company. This is no secret, nor is it difficult to understand. Different rules for different eras. The internet era demands change. Change in patenting, change in copyrighting, change in "intellectual property", whatever the fuck that means, period.
Pack the device inside a van holding a sturdy led crate. If you went through the trouble of finding enough radioactive material, the latter is just small potato. I agree though, it's no easy task, but the problem remains to be finding radioactive material to begin with, the rest are just small obstacles.
Just to add, it's gratis and not libre. No matter what you do you have to view the ads (given that they're niftly crafted and not just a dumb jpeg banner). Naturally there are different types of gratis and gratis in this context simply means that you're not paying for the service, but instead somebody else is in exchange for exposure to you. That means one thing: your attention has monetary value. In a sense of trade you're exchanging a fragment of your attention with whatever gratis content you're viewing. So no, it's not free. Not in theory but ultimately in practice and in almost all cases free is solely libre, and gratis is just another word for "not paid with money".
Trade has many complex routes. Just because you don't understand it it doesn't make it nonexistant in the case of YouTube, or any other "free" service.
Hatta defined the supply and you defined the demand. Both are vital. The point is that the single most important part of OSS is using it. There's simply nothing more important, no ifs or buts about it. Because no matter how much money you spend or how much code you hack the software is ironically useless if it isn't used. However if it is used you'll get publicity, and publicity leads to interested investors and coders, which leads to old fashion kaching.
Having said this there's still another side to the story. Companies that violate the GPL, or other OSS licenses, are not to be tolerated. As we said, by merely using OSS you eventually nurture it, but if one cheats the license to ones advantage then we have taken a step back. This potentially harms the entire community instead. As long as the licenses are respected, I'm mainly thinking GPL and licenses alike, there's no shame in using OSS without ever reporting a bug, or proposing code, or any of the actions mentioned. Because even if you do none of the above you will eventually talk to somebody about this software, which will nurture it by growing even larger. And even if you never mention this software to anybody it will at least affect google search hits making their site more popular and likely to receive those hits, thus nurturing. At the smallest scale changes might go unnoticed, but it doesn't mean they never occurred. And let's not forget, as long as we're not taking any steps back we're not losing anything, but instead gaining, not matter how small or big the gain is.
To me that's what's important to remember about OSS.
If you don't know Maddox you aren't allowed to have an opinion about anything, sorry this one can't be bent. Until you've done your homework you may sit down and have a cup of tea, no speaking though.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. When I say must change, I mean must as in "should in order to live a healthy constructive life", clearly you misunderstood the whole concept. It's not about changing for the very sake of it, it's about changing because if you don't eventually it will break, sometimes over a longer period of time, sometimes shorter. Everything, no exceptions, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Tell me one thing that will never change.
Apart from that very sentence, would you agree that religion has become more or less self sustaining? That we've created something that is practically impossible to kill? If so would you agree that this will and can be abused and if so we can't do anything about it because we have to tolerate it? Who's to say what's religion and what's not? Who's to say what the difference between a cult and a religion is?
And on that note -- who's to say that feeling the presence of "God" is divine and feeling the presence of another human is paranoia? Do you realise how sick that sounds? And no, I don't need lies to relax.
There's a difference between free speach and encouraging insanity. I'm not pushing to remove free speach, even mentally ill people must have their say, but it doesn't mean I value their opinion. Would you value the opinion of a mentally ill person as much as you value the opinion of a sane person? Would you trust an insane person as much as you trust a sane person? I think we both know the answer to that. And please your condescending tone brings little contribution, I will ignore it for now.
It's not about religions or "what religions have done for us", you still think of them as valid "opinions", so you're off on the wrong foot. Religions are a slippery slope of insane behaviour. If you're susceptable to fictional truth and are exposed to such elements as religion, games, TV, you don't need a concept, you don't need an overall covering theory, you just need to want it, but that doesn't make it right nor acceptable.
One must also differ between the very thought of religion and the practice of it. Every day we are exposed to situtations we don't enjoy simple because we decided that believing in a fictional truth should be embraced and compromised for, but a hint of extra fiction classifies you as insane and no longer acceptable and subject to rehabilitation. What makes you so certain where the line is drawn today is where the line should be? My argument is this: let's say hypothetically that I come to actually prove that religion is a mental illness. How would the world go about in receiving this message? Again I think we both know the answer to that. So you see due to the magnitude of religion and the level of acceptance that we've allowed it to have we've made a mental illness (if so) impossible to classify as such, thus whatever we're doing is already wrong and of course ironically already paradoxal to free speach. You speak of free speach but I don't think you understand the concept. Free speach exists because everything changes and we must be able to change it through free speach, we must be ready to change anything at any time. So you see religion and free speach are simply oxymoronic. Not to mention the restraints that many religions put upon our so called free speach, you didn't think about that, did you?
But let's get back to the subject at hand though Tiger. This wasn't about free speach this was about wikipedia which is not a democracy. The head of an organization is responsible for being the very face of it. The church of Scientology has repeatedly sabotaged the very goal of wikipedia, aiming to be as factual as can be. There's no discussion, any person would have reacted, with all justification necessary, in the same way.
What goes for your first question. Do you think that the only resource for human knowledge is found through banners on the Scientology page? Really? You ask "if there is no banner... explaining this, then how are people to know?". I'm assuming that the only possible scenario you could think of for people to be able to receive the message saying that the Church of Scientology has deliberatedly lied is through a banner on the page of Scientology. I don't think such people exist, but then again I could be wrong. I still think it's quite difficult to ignore all sources of the world except banners on the Scientology page.
That's not the point. We all know internet censorship fails, the point is that they're making a statement. The single largest knowledge base on the net doesn't consider the church of Scientology as viable for presenting any data. This says a lot. When you point out a liar, you no longer need to parse the lies. Eventually people will learn to ignore that liar.
I for one thank wikipedia to use their stance and point out that this shit is not tolerable. Next up, christianity, islam, judaism. Way to go wiki.
Lost the moral high ground? Since when did we assume that the lobbyists intentions were anything other than purely and exclusively financial? There's no question of morality in this, the only person who gives a shit about a piece of "intellectual property" is the author himself. The others, publishers, producers, labels etc. are only using "moral" or "ethics" or "fairness" in a strictly rhetorical sense for one simple reason -- M - O - N - E - Y.
What part of democracy don't you understand? Oh you thought democracy benefits everybody?! Haha how very childish of you. No son, it only benefits half the population, just like in good ol' America.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing the adult content was removed through threats by her lawyers. This was a very long time ago and my memory is slightly faded but I remember that when the topic was hot the site still contained adult contents. Little did the squatter know that it was probably the only thing still holding him to that domain. That even porn is a legitimate reason to fight off domain disputes.
Choose a name that someone's already using, and then seize their domain for using that name?
In my understanding using and obvious cybersquatting isn't the same thing in court. If I'm not mistaken these issues occur very frequently, sort of. A while back Madonna sezied madonna.com, which was used as a legitimate adult site, not related to madonna at all. Madonna means virgin, which of course is also very related to the porn industry, so it wasn't a question of copying Madonnas brand, but rather another use for the name. Of course Madonna won this case, as you understand, and thus she could seize madonna.com.
:)
This example might not be 100% related to the issue at hand, but it proves that domain seizures due to trademark can and have occurred across markets.
And FYI just because there was no outrage on Slashdot it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There are always alternatives. The guy is however starting is business on the wrong end. My 2 cents are: register at another top domain, create a brand for yourself, if things work out fine then trademark that brand, then go ahead and seize any domain violating your trademark. Don't go worrying about the domain name to be perfect before you even have anything to showcase for, a domain is shit without content so focus on that first.
I highly doubt that's even the case. The bank would probably have to prove that the breach could have taken place even at the time of auditing, not after, due to obvious reasons anyone can imagine. If they manage do to so the suit should be perfectly valid.
I read 30% pay cut. Not 30% pay. My bad.
While still getting paid 70% + health care for the next 5 years. Sure it's a layoff plan, but it's one rare motherfucker in terms of money, especially during these days. Spain has the highest unemployment rate in Europe right now and the word on every mouth in Spain is the "crisis". Everybody fears of getting laid off, but no avrage motherfucker in the entire country expected to get 70% paid vacation for the following 5 years. That is, my friend, a good fucking deal.
But how is this related to my post?
Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.
Wait a second. What goes for bandwidth issues that has been a hot topic lately regarding BitTorrent traffic, how will this be any better? If every song you hear through your PC is streamed, my guess is it would choke internet more than the current BitTorrent traffic.
Hahahaha their ideas!? Are you serious!? Patenting is not about whos idea it is, it's about who claims it first. You think this is fair? Not to mention all the obvious, general patents that stretch from right click menus to any other ridiculous patents. How the hell can you defend this? Is this nurturing business to you? What happens in a year in development took ages when patenting was created. Do you understand the difference? It's not about protecting your business, it's about grabbing the allowance to do even to most basic functions, leaving anybody that want to build on that idea, not even necessarily yours to fucking begin with, to improve development, forced to pay you royalties. This renders only the wealthy, such as corporations, to be able to continue such development. I don't think you quite understand what patenting has become. You're just standing there clapping your hands to this ridiculous circus.
... and an OEM computer isn't going to take the time to make a custom Linux install to work with their hardware when they can foist support off to Microsoft...
Uhm last time I checked there were numerous products precisely the way you describe them available. Do you know what a netbook is? If so I guess what you meant to say was "most OEM's". There's a big difference.
Sorry but just because you say so it doesn't make it true. Next.
Yeah but in case you didn't notice we're talking about the rules of beating the competition, not the purpose itself. Murdering the opponent also wins the battle, but it breaks the rules (and please don't bullshit me about comparing murder to patenting, that's not the point, the point is that I have to sink so low in comparison for you to understand). 100 years ago patents nurtured the industries. Nowadays we're moving so fast in development that it's doing it nothing else than harm. There are too many versions and alternations for everything these days and by claiming one milestone you've basically killed the development it could have sprung out to, instead focusing on one or a few lines of paths that merely benefit your company. This is no secret, nor is it difficult to understand. Different rules for different eras. The internet era demands change. Change in patenting, change in copyrighting, change in "intellectual property", whatever the fuck that means, period.
Pack the device inside a van holding a sturdy led crate. If you went through the trouble of finding enough radioactive material, the latter is just small potato. I agree though, it's no easy task, but the problem remains to be finding radioactive material to begin with, the rest are just small obstacles.
Just to add, it's gratis and not libre. No matter what you do you have to view the ads (given that they're niftly crafted and not just a dumb jpeg banner). Naturally there are different types of gratis and gratis in this context simply means that you're not paying for the service, but instead somebody else is in exchange for exposure to you. That means one thing: your attention has monetary value. In a sense of trade you're exchanging a fragment of your attention with whatever gratis content you're viewing. So no, it's not free. Not in theory but ultimately in practice and in almost all cases free is solely libre, and gratis is just another word for "not paid with money".
Trade has many complex routes. Just because you don't understand it it doesn't make it nonexistant in the case of YouTube, or any other "free" service.
Hatta defined the supply and you defined the demand. Both are vital. The point is that the single most important part of OSS is using it. There's simply nothing more important, no ifs or buts about it. Because no matter how much money you spend or how much code you hack the software is ironically useless if it isn't used. However if it is used you'll get publicity, and publicity leads to interested investors and coders, which leads to old fashion kaching.
Having said this there's still another side to the story. Companies that violate the GPL, or other OSS licenses, are not to be tolerated. As we said, by merely using OSS you eventually nurture it, but if one cheats the license to ones advantage then we have taken a step back. This potentially harms the entire community instead. As long as the licenses are respected, I'm mainly thinking GPL and licenses alike, there's no shame in using OSS without ever reporting a bug, or proposing code, or any of the actions mentioned. Because even if you do none of the above you will eventually talk to somebody about this software, which will nurture it by growing even larger. And even if you never mention this software to anybody it will at least affect google search hits making their site more popular and likely to receive those hits, thus nurturing. At the smallest scale changes might go unnoticed, but it doesn't mean they never occurred. And let's not forget, as long as we're not taking any steps back we're not losing anything, but instead gaining, not matter how small or big the gain is.
To me that's what's important to remember about OSS.
Rule of thumb, gratis does not necessarily equal to good. Have fun trying to break the chain.
If you don't know Maddox you aren't allowed to have an opinion about anything, sorry this one can't be bent. Until you've done your homework you may sit down and have a cup of tea, no speaking though.
Also, an AC on /. that read Wikipedia is not a reliable source :)
That's given, but thanks nonetheless.
You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?
You know what?
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. When I say must change, I mean must as in "should in order to live a healthy constructive life", clearly you misunderstood the whole concept. It's not about changing for the very sake of it, it's about changing because if you don't eventually it will break, sometimes over a longer period of time, sometimes shorter. Everything, no exceptions, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Tell me one thing that will never change.
Apart from that very sentence, would you agree that religion has become more or less self sustaining? That we've created something that is practically impossible to kill? If so would you agree that this will and can be abused and if so we can't do anything about it because we have to tolerate it? Who's to say what's religion and what's not? Who's to say what the difference between a cult and a religion is?
And on that note -- who's to say that feeling the presence of "God" is divine and feeling the presence of another human is paranoia? Do you realise how sick that sounds? And no, I don't need lies to relax.
There's a difference between free speach and encouraging insanity. I'm not pushing to remove free speach, even mentally ill people must have their say, but it doesn't mean I value their opinion. Would you value the opinion of a mentally ill person as much as you value the opinion of a sane person? Would you trust an insane person as much as you trust a sane person? I think we both know the answer to that. And please your condescending tone brings little contribution, I will ignore it for now.
It's not about religions or "what religions have done for us", you still think of them as valid "opinions", so you're off on the wrong foot. Religions are a slippery slope of insane behaviour. If you're susceptable to fictional truth and are exposed to such elements as religion, games, TV, you don't need a concept, you don't need an overall covering theory, you just need to want it, but that doesn't make it right nor acceptable.
One must also differ between the very thought of religion and the practice of it. Every day we are exposed to situtations we don't enjoy simple because we decided that believing in a fictional truth should be embraced and compromised for, but a hint of extra fiction classifies you as insane and no longer acceptable and subject to rehabilitation. What makes you so certain where the line is drawn today is where the line should be? My argument is this: let's say hypothetically that I come to actually prove that religion is a mental illness. How would the world go about in receiving this message? Again I think we both know the answer to that. So you see due to the magnitude of religion and the level of acceptance that we've allowed it to have we've made a mental illness (if so) impossible to classify as such, thus whatever we're doing is already wrong and of course ironically already paradoxal to free speach. You speak of free speach but I don't think you understand the concept. Free speach exists because everything changes and we must be able to change it through free speach, we must be ready to change anything at any time. So you see religion and free speach are simply oxymoronic. Not to mention the restraints that many religions put upon our so called free speach, you didn't think about that, did you?
But let's get back to the subject at hand though Tiger. This wasn't about free speach this was about wikipedia which is not a democracy. The head of an organization is responsible for being the very face of it. The church of Scientology has repeatedly sabotaged the very goal of wikipedia, aiming to be as factual as can be. There's no discussion, any person would have reacted, with all justification necessary, in the same way.
What goes for your first question. Do you think that the only resource for human knowledge is found through banners on the Scientology page? Really? You ask "if there is no banner... explaining this, then how are people to know?". I'm assuming that the only possible scenario you could think of for people to be able to receive the message saying that the Church of Scientology has deliberatedly lied is through a banner on the page of Scientology. I don't think such people exist, but then again I could be wrong. I still think it's quite difficult to ignore all sources of the world except banners on the Scientology page.
It means "crappy software with a big name so we can ask you for a big pricetag". How they got it to spell out ERP I'll never know.
Expensive Retarded Program, I believe.
That's not the point. We all know internet censorship fails, the point is that they're making a statement. The single largest knowledge base on the net doesn't consider the church of Scientology as viable for presenting any data. This says a lot. When you point out a liar, you no longer need to parse the lies. Eventually people will learn to ignore that liar.
I for one thank wikipedia to use their stance and point out that this shit is not tolerable. Next up, christianity, islam, judaism. Way to go wiki.
Lost the moral high ground? Since when did we assume that the lobbyists intentions were anything other than purely and exclusively financial? There's no question of morality in this, the only person who gives a shit about a piece of "intellectual property" is the author himself. The others, publishers, producers, labels etc. are only using "moral" or "ethics" or "fairness" in a strictly rhetorical sense for one simple reason -- M - O - N - E - Y.
What part of democracy don't you understand? Oh you thought democracy benefits everybody?! Haha how very childish of you. No son, it only benefits half the population, just like in good ol' America.