excellent boot? somebody needs to check their translator...;)
Might I suggest this translation resource? Site O' Joel is a good place to translate to/from just about any language (no Somoli or Malay just yet), but it is geared toward English speakers. Oh, and its just a links page to lots of online resources, etc., but its a good starting place. Don't forget to check out the world's first ever English to Canadian translator while you're there.
This is kind of long, but bear with me. There are already several distinctions: trademark - a catch phrase associated w/ a company copyright - to protect a person's intellectual property from being unfairly duplicated. Books and pictures - things that are just content, not process or service. patent - a temporary monopoly on an invention is granted to advance technology
So why are IP patents bogus? No invention. Period. The computer is a computer and its already a computer. They are all bogus, and they last too long, to boot. I think I will write my congressman and suggest the following:
process protection - if somebody comes up with a revolutionary new way of doing things, s/he gets something similar to a patent that lasts 20-50 technology years (i.e. 2-5 solar years), but unlike a patent, the source is closed while it is protected. Additionally, more than one person can protect the same "process" at the same time, as long as its unique code (which must be submitted and compared).
After expiraiton, the process or the code itself becomes public domain. Not sure whether straight out GPLing it would be fair to the creator, but something along those lines. Don't just make the process public domain, make the code to perform that process public. Similar to the GNU GPL (only w/ a grace period), so the original creator can still make money off it after the process protection expires.
All executable or interpreted computer code (any process) should be protected under this kind distinct, unique set of laws. Its fair to the creator, the industry and the consumer!
As for GUIs, really cool, unique GUIs like Kai's Photo Soap, can be copyrighted as art, but the interface code, functionality or layout cannot. GUIs based on standard component libraries are S.O.L. and are public domain.
Oh, and to keep corporations happy about their public image, all contributors to the current flavor of any software must be credited. Just look for the circled P. (p) My company, Inc.
To summarize If it can be done on paper, its a copyright. If it is a machine, it can be patented. If it is code that controls how a machine (i.e. computer) operates, a different set of rules need to be present, and I think going close-source to open-source/GPL after a reasonable amount of time would be fair to everyone and would promote innovation radically faster than the typical system used today.
The only considerations I suppose are: - whether it is practical to force people to GPL their software if they want it protected for a limited amount of time (and what happens if someone chooses not to) - whether or not it is more fair (and more appealing to corporations) to only make the process public after a grace period, but the code itself is still protected (and can only be used as reference), as opposed to a flat-out GPL - how this be can written to allow license agreements - how to protect company/product association (keep someone from marketing the *exact* same product as you w/ a different name in 5 years)
The Y2K problem exists because many older computers and software programs recognize only the last two digits of the year and could mistakenly interpret "00" as 1900.
So that's what all the fuss is about...:)
Actually, I think the entire problem can be summed up as "annoying but not serious", with one exception.
It may just be the result of media hype, but my major concern is how some people might react to the new millenium...
The following represents my interpretation of the situation, and may not be entirely accurate. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
how eager many people (particularly here on Slashdot) are to see the government seize the assets of private citizens (aka "breaking them up"). This should not even happen w/ the DOJ case (at least I don't see how it could be legal, and it sounds like Jackson knows what he's doing). Perhaps the Caldera case may result in some measures to destroy MS's monopoly, but I was under the impression this was an antitrust case, not a monopoly case. As I understand, the only reason the monopoly status is important is that it helps prove MS was in a position to force OEMs to pacakge Win9x (and nothing else, no substitutions) with new PCs. There may be other antitrust charges, but I seem to recall this being the big one.
Of course, does anyone know what happened to Standard Oil? (I know what happened to AT&T, but I don't really care because I believe that was a monopoly case)./* Insert facts here. */
The government's lawsuit is totally bogus No its not... A monopoly charge hasn't been brought against MS, but monopoly status has been established. As far as antitrust goes, yes it is valid. Try buying a PC and saying, "Oh, I don't want Windows... I'd rather have Redhat Linux. Can I get a refund for not getting Windows and get Linux installed isntead?" You won't leave with a PC unless you leave with Windows, too. The only bogus part is the Netscape bit, because that's monopoly abuses, not antitrust violations, but it does establish MS's monopoly position, so its pertinent evidence.
IBM OS/2? Dead, the minute they decided not to support Win32. Umm, I have to agree there. OS/2 was not marketed well. However, this is a monopoly issue, but IBM probably doesn't have recourse, because MS owns the Win32 API. I don't see how it has anything to do w/ the DOJ case.
Apple? The true monopoly. People dumped them because they tried to hold onto too much power. No comment. I don't know enough about Apple. There are definitely no alternative OS's, but then again, its also unique architecture... So it is and isn't a monopoly, since apple user's could always buy a PC instead.
Netscape? They lost because their browser sucked. You probably own a Mac if you think Netscape sucks, because IE is much better than Netscape on the Mac. However, on the PC, their browser is far superior. Sorry, but I can't compare the *nix versions...:)
The pertinent Netscape evidence is that MS competed w/ Netscape by giving their browser away because they could afford to, while Netscape was charging for Navigator. You can't get a better price than free. Again, I believe this was only used as evidence, and not part of the charge.
Well, hopefully I haven't littered this with too many untruths. My history's a little rusty, and I may have misinterpreted a few things. Please, point out anything I got wrong w/ this.
The MSNBC poll: click here to give MS some advertising dollars and see their poll for yourself, or take my word for it (results as of a yesterday):
Who should prevail in the Microsoft case? * 23036 responses The government. Microsoft has abused its market power. 24% Microsoft. The government is trying to block innovation. 63% Split the difference. Each side can win certain points. 11% I can't figure out who's right. 2%
How's that for objective reporting?:) No ballot stuffing there...
I know this discussion is pretty much already over, but if it comes in handy, the cover story for the Nov'99 Softare Development magazine interestingly enough is "The 1999 Salary Survey". I believe its a US only survey, but it still guages salaries by region, profession, age, etc.
You'd think this would also have been a big deal in Texas
Texas is a conservative state, but from my experience, its more libertarian than convervative. There's a large Christian presence, but not so much of the "Moral Majority" or whatever its called. The prevaling attitude when it comes to just about anything, be it guns, drugs or the way you drive, seems to be "its okay just as long as you don't hurt anyone." Then again, my experience is limited to the larger cities and the IT industry...
the illegal post should be prosecuted, not removed and ignored
You're right there, but I suppose this gets back to core of the situation, about legal responsibility and ethics in moderating content. You may not be legally obliged to remove that post, but there may be situations when you are morally obliged remove it (for instance, a death threat - like a certain pro-life website that sparked a free-speech debate about endangering the lives of the abortion doctors whose names and addresses were published).
I guess there's no simple answer for some things. While you may have no criminal recourse though, allowing some illegal posts like that still might open you up to civil suit (IANAL so I'm not sure), where you don't actually have to have committed a crime and it doesn't have to be proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt". For example, posting someone's address and something happening to that person might be all a jury needs to convict on wrongful death or willful negligence or whatever, law or no law (think OJ Simpson - murder, not guilty; wrongful death, guilty).
Don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate of free speech, but I didn't think this was a clearcut case of censorship. (After reading some of the posts, it appears that the post might not be illegal after all, in which case Yahoo sucks and has lost all credibility.) I suppose the thing I'm considering is how I would feel if it affected me.
There are major two sides I'm noticing: THEY HEAR EVERYTHING and THEY HEAR NOTHING AT ALL.
Both are naive. Don't just think about the computing power. Think about the manpower involved. To actually root through that data would take far too many people. That's what the computer's are for, right? All the conspiracy nuts and news agencies would be setting off triggers left and right. No, the article said it can intercept anything, not that it intercepts everything.
If I had to place a bet, I'd actually put my money on them using that system to listen to only certain people. In other words, when they know something is going on, then turn it on and see what pops up. Ignore the grocery lists, and ignore the boring people.
When Joe Nobody says "I heard they're still trying to catch that TERRORIST that set off that BOMB in the US EMBASSY", he gets ignored because he's nobody. When bin Laden says, "I poured a bowl of cheerios but there was no milk. Somebody buy some milk while they're out" it gets ignored because its boring. But when bin Laden says "Tell me about that BOMB" then the whistles and sirens go off.
I would guess there's no privacy violation because there's too much data out there for anybody to deal with. Unless you're a known terrorist, you'd have to be ignored. And there are too many terrorists and "interesting" people to listen to everything they say.
I work in golf ball factory, so I have no interest what so ever in planting false information.
If I understand this correctly, Yahoo is removing illegal content and is basically now forced to censor inflammatory content. I think its brave that/. will allow users to publish items of questionable legality (e.g., a large number of posts for dummies), but there are situations where there's no easy way out. Here's an example.
Post 1. User A knocks sombody else's race. Post 2. User B says knock it off that's rude - I am that race and I don't like that. Post 3. User C says to kill User B. He lives at 12345 A street, Anywhere, USA.
The service removes post no. 3 because its illegal, but is now forced to remove post no. 1 as well, otherwise User B could now sue the service.
It's censorship plain and simple, but I don't think Yahoo has a choice, and to be honest, I admire the fact that they allowed free speech to begin with. Other companies have not had such great track records. AOL, for example, caused quite a stir a while back when they wouldn't let users access certain websites, and more recently, they may be in trouble for selectively banning certain words from user profiles.
Yahoo (from what I can tell)seems to have done a better job at allowing personal freedom than most services would dream of - remember, they either go to jail, get sued, or remove certain posts. I don't like the fact that they have to do this, but I think I can understand that they don't have a choice. Hopefully, Yahoo will simply draw the line at those comments that leave them open to litigation...
Remember, lots of people aren't ready to change. Microsoft's higher pricing will probably just balance out to the same in sales as say, 2 years ago. A lot of people are migrating to alternate platforms (alternate meaning the kind that work), but there are still a lot of IT managers out there who are going to reason, "We've been running Windows for x number of years, we can't migrate now.... Maybe in a few years."
The more people Microsoft rapes, the more people will make the switch so to compensate, it looks like MS is just raising prices because they know most people will remain faithful. Remember that the biggest advantage to developing on Windows is that 90% of all computers run Windows. (To fully qualify this, that doesn't necessarily mean Windows+Windows will work. For instance, the company I work for runs an Exchange server that cannot be accessed by MS IE, but can be accessed by Netscape:)
I know they don't have my vote, but I don't think most IT shops will want to switch over this amount of money. Of course, the MS trend is to raise prices ever so slightly every year - more people will eventually catch on, but for the time being, MS is not going to be hurt by this strategy. They will probably even turn a profit. Some people will switch, but most will stay... or it least, such would be my guess.
I'm fairly sure this is prior art, so I'm not going to poke into that. It's obvious as well, and this has also been spoken to death.
Instead, I got a neat idea. Instead of complaining about stupid patents, why not create your own?! "What's that," you say? If I had the money, I'd come up with an extravegant and extremely obvious patent submission, patent it and then sue the pants off everybody I could just to get my own patent suit thrown out of court because its hideously stupid, thereby setting a precedent that bogus patents shouldn't be allowed. And I mean something mind-bogglingly obvious. Like patenting VRML or cellular respiration or something. I think it'd be great to patent cellular respiration and then start sending cease and desist letters to the boys in the Patent Office. Make them think twice before letting in stupid patents.;^)
Just a tiny reminder that the net may not be ready for online voting yet. Someday I look forward to it - I think it'd be great, but I think its still too early. Give it a few years.
I got a warm fuzzy feeling reading that article. It's nice that I'm seeing signs of trend back towards getting back some liberties and that the gov't is having a hard time infringing on them. Somebody sent a link to a related article out across my office and its worth taking a look at. It has this same kind of theme. And there are people in congress that actually (believe it or not) seem to be intent on supporting this kind of decentralization... Actually, I can't tell you how reliable that news network is (anyone know?), but its still comforting to see that I'm not the only one who just wants big brother to leave me alone!
I can only speak for US, and I'm not entirely sure if its federal or just state to state, so don't quote me, but my understanding was that in most, if not all states, no contract is legally binding to anyone under the age of 18 unless signed by a guardian. Again, IANAL, I don't know the laws, but I know people who way back when that used that to get out of being harassed by Colombia House and it worked.
I'll keep this short, but this is good news and should be a nice first step toward setting reasonable precedents in internet law. By law, I don't mean regulating the net - I mean its nice that this judge recognized that some laws that apply to other industries don't apply to IT and the net.
Now if somebody would rule "Patent laws are just plain stupid when it comes to IP and a different set of rules are needed"... well, I guess I'll wait and see what happens. But this is really good news that the judicial system is recognizing how fast things move.
I don't speak Legalese, so my translation may not be accurate, but
While we wish you every success in your work, we must raise certain issues with respect to your use of IDG Books' federally registered trademark.
This sounds to me like they might be under the impression the poster is trying to publish such a book. I notice its still not up there, but the I would suggest any combination of the following:
1. Verify that the lawyers are aware that the user was merely expressing the need for someone (by the title, IDG) to publish such a book, and that the poster was not in any way suggesting anybody other than IDG use the trademark. It may be that they thought someone was selling or announcing publication of "SMART_HOST for Dummies", instead of expressing the need for IDG to publish such a reference. Of course, with all the talk of trademark dilution, it probably wasn't a misunderstanding.
2. If its not a big deal and not too time consuming, just cease and desist. Hate to suggest you submit to the corporate beast, but can you afford not to? If its easier to change the subject to "need for a SMART_HOST How-To book" (if that's not a trademark too?), you may want to do that.
3. If not too difficult, maybe offer (or preemptively) note that the "For Dummies" is a trademark of IDG and maybe link to their site. Good for their business - appease the lawyers.
4. I would notify them that you've received their message, that the mail is automatically archived, and that while you aren't responsible for the content of posters, you are taking the appropriate steps. Before doing any of this, though, you may want to goto step 5 first.
5. Most importantly, IANAL, so consult a real lawyer and get their opinion if you can't work it out with IDG. Heck, they might even tell you that with the correct disclaimers, you don't have to do anything (we are not responsible for user's postings?). Can't hurt to check anyway.
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but it really doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem.
RANT: This sounds awfully similar to a certain American online service (but I won't name names) who thought they owned a phrase similar to "You have got mail."
Maybe I should trademark "I'm thirsty(tm)" and strike it rich by bullying people. Does copyleft have a trademark counterpart, like an openmark or givemark or something like that. If not, what does go into trademarking something? Oh well, one day the corporations will let us speak English again, right? Right?
Well, Gotta go!(tm) Still, Best of luck!(tm) with IDG(r).
Oh yeah... Legal notice for dummies:The "For Dummies" slogan is a diluted trademark of IDG, Inc.
"Kill the head and the body dies." - Hunter S. Thompson
If somebody registers a domain to sell it, good for them. They got there first. If it really is a problem, and Internic's functions will soon be apportioned out to several companies who will compete for registration, I imagine that cybersquatting could become much like spam. Maybe this is optimistic, but most people don't tolerate spam...even though it makes lots of money, so most probably registration services probably wouldn't tolerate cybersquatting (you rent it, but we own it - no subletting!). MegaCorpX.com should still, for there own interests, be allowed to gobble up MegaCorpXSucks.com, ScrewMegaCorpX.com and IHateMegaCorpX.com.
Thank you, but this legislation is far too socialist for my taste. I don't like cybersquatting, so I won't endorse it. But this legislation is ridiculous - "You cannot register a domain name that could be confused w/ someone else's? Physical addresses are confusing, but they're allowed to look similar. No, this is bad news in the long run, because its just more restrictions on the net. This is bad medicine.
I don't think this legislation is even necessary. It's kinda like spam, people really just need to become a policy like "I never purchase anything advertised in unsolicited mail". I know I wouldn't get a domain name from anyone but Internic. So, if you come out with Pooky, and someone's registered Pooky.com, then you go out and get PookyWorld.com or something like that - don't offer to buy Pooky.com. Take pixel.com as a great example. Prime real estate - not used for anything. Cybersquatter? Not in my book: squatting is when you don't pay for something - you're just there.
I probably sound like a squatter myself by now, but I'm not. Squatting is bad, but its better than banning it. (And I've seen the documented.sig's that seem to agree with this).
"Kill the head and the body dies." - Hunter S. Thompson
Well, there is one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet, so I'm going to step out of History 101 and into Biology 101.
It's a relief to see that the human race is subject to the same very basic rules that apply to populations of any other species: that any population will eventually reach a state of equalibrium between birth rates and death rates.
The only really suprising thing is that its not what we'd expect of another population because its the areas where resources are abundant that we're seeing the population stop growing, while aready overpopulated areas with fewer resources and more difficult living conditions are seeing more growth. This is the opposite of what you'd expect to see in any other species, but as a whole its really not suprising. We are becoming balanced (I recently read an article, but can't quote the source, that said that rate of increase in the world population was declining).
Because of this weird twist to basic evolution, though, I think there's a good chance things will get worse before they get better. There may be a lot of elderly people, a lot of retirees, etc., so this could mean a larger burden on the working class, but a declining population should logically rebound with a higher birth rate. Meanwhile, if current trends are accurate, those huge markets in developing areas will slow their birth rates (and death rates) as quality of life raises. Still, I like to think it will all work out, and especially like the idea that I could be alive to actually see us reach equilibrium. I imagine things will get tougher as the population increases, but it sounds like it won't be as bad as this trend is traditionally portrayed as being (but hey, a scoop's a scoop).
Slashdot Mirror
excellent boot? somebody needs to check their translator... ;)
Might I suggest this translation resource? Site O' Joel is a good place to translate to/from just about any language (no Somoli or Malay just yet), but it is geared toward English speakers. Oh, and its just a links page to lots of online resources, etc., but its a good starting place. Don't forget to check out the world's first ever English to Canadian translator while you're there.
This is kind of long, but bear with me. There are already several distinctions:
trademark - a catch phrase associated w/ a company
copyright - to protect a person's intellectual property from being unfairly duplicated. Books and pictures - things that are just content, not process or service.
patent - a temporary monopoly on an invention is granted to advance technology
So why are IP patents bogus? No invention. Period. The computer is a computer and its already a computer. They are all bogus, and they last too long, to boot. I think I will write my congressman and suggest the following:
process protection - if somebody comes up with a revolutionary new way of doing things, s/he gets something similar to a patent that lasts 20-50 technology years (i.e. 2-5 solar years), but unlike a patent, the source is closed while it is protected. Additionally, more than one person can protect the same "process" at the same time, as long as its unique code (which must be submitted and compared).
After expiraiton, the process or the code itself becomes public domain. Not sure whether straight out GPLing it would be fair to the creator, but something along those lines. Don't just make the process public domain, make the code to perform that process public. Similar to the GNU GPL (only w/ a grace period), so the original creator can still make money off it after the process protection expires.
All executable or interpreted computer code (any process) should be protected under this kind distinct, unique set of laws. Its fair to the creator, the industry and the consumer!
As for GUIs, really cool, unique GUIs like Kai's Photo Soap, can be copyrighted as art, but the interface code, functionality or layout cannot. GUIs based on standard component libraries are S.O.L. and are public domain.
Oh, and to keep corporations happy about their public image, all contributors to the current flavor of any software must be credited. Just look for the circled P. (p) My company, Inc.
To summarize
If it can be done on paper, its a copyright. If it is a machine, it can be patented. If it is code that controls how a machine (i.e. computer) operates, a different set of rules need to be present, and I think going close-source to open-source/GPL after a reasonable amount of time would be fair to everyone and would promote innovation radically faster than the typical system used today.
The only considerations I suppose are:
- whether it is practical to force people to GPL their software if they want it protected for a limited amount of time (and what happens if someone chooses not to)
- whether or not it is more fair (and more appealing to corporations) to only make the process public after a grace period, but the code itself is still protected (and can only be used as reference), as opposed to a flat-out GPL
- how this be can written to allow license agreements
- how to protect company/product association (keep someone from marketing the *exact* same product as you w/ a different name in 5 years)
The Y2K problem exists because many older computers and software programs recognize only the last two digits of the year and could mistakenly interpret "00" as 1900.
:)
So that's what all the fuss is about...
Actually, I think the entire problem can be summed up as "annoying but not serious", with one exception.
It may just be the result of media hype, but my major concern is how some people might react to the new millenium...
The following represents my interpretation of the situation, and may not be entirely accurate. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
/* Insert facts here. */
:)
how eager many people (particularly here on Slashdot) are to see the government seize the assets of private citizens (aka "breaking them up").
This should not even happen w/ the DOJ case (at least I don't see how it could be legal, and it sounds like Jackson knows what he's doing). Perhaps the Caldera case may result in some measures to destroy MS's monopoly, but I was under the impression this was an antitrust case, not a monopoly case. As I understand, the only reason the monopoly status is important is that it helps prove MS was in a position to force OEMs to pacakge Win9x (and nothing else, no substitutions) with new PCs. There may be other antitrust charges, but I seem to recall this being the big one.
Of course, does anyone know what happened to Standard Oil? (I know what happened to AT&T, but I don't really care because I believe that was a monopoly case).
The government's lawsuit is totally bogus
No its not... A monopoly charge hasn't been brought against MS, but monopoly status has been established. As far as antitrust goes, yes it is valid. Try buying a PC and saying, "Oh, I don't want Windows... I'd rather have Redhat Linux. Can I get a refund for not getting Windows and get Linux installed isntead?" You won't leave with a PC unless you leave with Windows, too. The only bogus part is the Netscape bit, because that's monopoly abuses, not antitrust violations, but it does establish MS's monopoly position, so its pertinent evidence.
IBM OS/2? Dead, the minute they decided not to support Win32.
Umm, I have to agree there. OS/2 was not marketed well. However, this is a monopoly issue, but IBM probably doesn't have recourse, because MS owns the Win32 API. I don't see how it has anything to do w/ the DOJ case.
Apple? The true monopoly. People dumped them because they tried to hold onto too much power.
No comment. I don't know enough about Apple. There are definitely no alternative OS's, but then again, its also unique architecture... So it is and isn't a monopoly, since apple user's could always buy a PC instead.
Netscape? They lost because their browser sucked.
You probably own a Mac if you think Netscape sucks, because IE is much better than Netscape on the Mac. However, on the PC, their browser is far superior. Sorry, but I can't compare the *nix versions...
The pertinent Netscape evidence is that MS competed w/ Netscape by giving their browser away because they could afford to, while Netscape was charging for Navigator. You can't get a better price than free. Again, I believe this was only used as evidence, and not part of the charge.
Well, hopefully I haven't littered this with too many untruths. My history's a little rusty, and I may have misinterpreted a few things. Please, point out anything I got wrong w/ this.
I thought this was pretty funny. I found the results of the MSNBC and CNN polls on the DoJ case.... Heh.
:) No ballot stuffing there...
The CNN poll: vot e or just the results
The MSNBC poll: click here to give MS some advertising dollars and see their poll for yourself, or take my word for it (results as of a yesterday):
Who should prevail in the Microsoft case?
* 23036 responses
The government. Microsoft has abused its market power.
24%
Microsoft. The government is trying to block innovation.
63%
Split the difference. Each side can win certain points.
11%
I can't figure out who's right.
2%
How's that for objective reporting?
I know this discussion is pretty much already over, but if it comes in handy, the cover story for the Nov'99 Softare Development magazine interestingly enough is "The 1999 Salary Survey". I believe its a US only survey, but it still guages salaries by region, profession, age, etc.
You'd think this would also have been a big deal in Texas
Texas is a conservative state, but from my experience, its more libertarian than convervative. There's a large Christian presence, but not so much of the "Moral Majority" or whatever its called. The prevaling attitude when it comes to just about anything, be it guns, drugs or the way you drive, seems to be "its okay just as long as you don't hurt anyone." Then again, my experience is limited to the larger cities and the IT industry...
the illegal post should be prosecuted, not removed and ignored
You're right there, but I suppose this gets back to core of the situation, about legal responsibility and ethics in moderating content. You may not be legally obliged to remove that post, but there may be situations when you are morally obliged remove it (for instance, a death threat - like a certain pro-life website that sparked a free-speech debate about endangering the lives of the abortion doctors whose names and addresses were published).
I guess there's no simple answer for some things. While you may have no criminal recourse though, allowing some illegal posts like that still might open you up to civil suit (IANAL so I'm not sure), where you don't actually have to have committed a crime and it doesn't have to be proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt". For example, posting someone's address and something happening to that person might be all a jury needs to convict on wrongful death or willful negligence or whatever, law or no law (think OJ Simpson - murder, not guilty; wrongful death, guilty).
Don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate of free speech, but I didn't think this was a clearcut case of censorship. (After reading some of the posts, it appears that the post might not be illegal after all, in which case Yahoo sucks and has lost all credibility.) I suppose the thing I'm considering is how I would feel if it affected me.
The really amusing bit is the percentage that think its buggy happens to be the same as its market share.
There are major two sides I'm noticing: THEY HEAR EVERYTHING and THEY HEAR NOTHING AT ALL.
Both are naive. Don't just think about the computing power. Think about the manpower involved. To actually root through that data would take far too many people. That's what the computer's are for, right? All the conspiracy nuts and news agencies would be setting off triggers left and right. No, the article said it can intercept anything, not that it intercepts everything.
If I had to place a bet, I'd actually put my money on them using that system to listen to only certain people. In other words, when they know something is going on, then turn it on and see what pops up. Ignore the grocery lists, and ignore the boring people.
When Joe Nobody says "I heard they're still trying to catch that TERRORIST that set off that BOMB in the US EMBASSY", he gets ignored because he's nobody. When bin Laden says, "I poured a bowl of cheerios but there was no milk. Somebody buy some milk while they're out" it gets ignored because its boring. But when bin Laden says "Tell me about that BOMB" then the whistles and sirens go off.
I would guess there's no privacy violation because there's too much data out there for anybody to deal with. Unless you're a known terrorist, you'd have to be ignored. And there are too many terrorists and "interesting" people to listen to everything they say.
I work in golf ball factory, so I have no interest what so ever in planting false information.
If I understand this correctly, Yahoo is removing illegal content and is basically now forced to censor inflammatory content. I think its brave that /. will allow users to publish items of questionable legality (e.g., a large number of posts for dummies), but there are situations where there's no easy way out. Here's an example.
Post 1. User A knocks sombody else's race.
Post 2. User B says knock it off that's rude - I am that race and I don't like that.
Post 3. User C says to kill User B. He lives at 12345 A street, Anywhere, USA.
The service removes post no. 3 because its illegal, but is now forced to remove post no. 1 as well, otherwise User B could now sue the service.
It's censorship plain and simple, but I don't think Yahoo has a choice, and to be honest, I admire the fact that they allowed free speech to begin with. Other companies have not had such great track records. AOL, for example, caused quite a stir a while back when they wouldn't let users access certain websites, and more recently, they may be in trouble for selectively banning certain words from user profiles.
Yahoo (from what I can tell)seems to have done a better job at allowing personal freedom than most services would dream of - remember, they either go to jail, get sued, or remove certain posts. I don't like the fact that they have to do this, but I think I can understand that they don't have a choice. Hopefully, Yahoo will simply draw the line at those comments that leave them open to litigation...
Remember, lots of people aren't ready to change. Microsoft's higher pricing will probably just balance out to the same in sales as say, 2 years ago. A lot of people are migrating to alternate platforms (alternate meaning the kind that work), but there are still a lot of IT managers out there who are going to reason, "We've been running Windows for x number of years, we can't migrate now.... Maybe in a few years."
:)
The more people Microsoft rapes, the more people will make the switch so to compensate, it looks like MS is just raising prices because they know most people will remain faithful. Remember that the biggest advantage to developing on Windows is that 90% of all computers run Windows. (To fully qualify this, that doesn't necessarily mean Windows+Windows will work. For instance, the company I work for runs an Exchange server that cannot be accessed by MS IE, but can be accessed by Netscape
I know they don't have my vote, but I don't think most IT shops will want to switch over this amount of money. Of course, the MS trend is to raise prices ever so slightly every year - more people will eventually catch on, but for the time being, MS is not going to be hurt by this strategy. They will probably even turn a profit. Some people will switch, but most will stay... or it least, such would be my guess.
I'm fairly sure this is prior art, so I'm not going to poke into that. It's obvious as well, and this has also been spoken to death.
;^)
Instead, I got a neat idea. Instead of complaining about stupid patents, why not create your own?! "What's that," you say? If I had the money, I'd come up with an extravegant and extremely obvious patent submission, patent it and then sue the pants off everybody I could just to get my own patent suit thrown out of court because its hideously stupid, thereby setting a precedent that bogus patents shouldn't be allowed. And I mean something mind-bogglingly obvious. Like patenting VRML or cellular respiration or something. I think it'd be great to patent cellular respiration and then start sending cease and desist letters to the boys in the Patent Office. Make them think twice before letting in stupid patents.
Four words:
Kasparov vs. the World
Just a tiny reminder that the net may not be ready for online voting yet. Someday I look forward to it - I think it'd be great, but I think its still too early. Give it a few years.
I got a warm fuzzy feeling reading that article. It's nice that I'm seeing signs of trend back towards getting back some liberties and that the gov't is having a hard time infringing on them. Somebody sent a link to
a related article
out across my office and its worth taking a look at. It has this same kind of theme. And there are people in congress that actually (believe it or not) seem to be intent on supporting this kind of decentralization... Actually, I can't tell you how reliable that news network is (anyone know?), but its still comforting to see that I'm not the only one who just wants big brother to leave me alone!
I can only speak for US, and I'm not entirely sure if its federal or just state to state, so don't quote me, but my understanding was that in most, if not all states, no contract is legally binding to anyone under the age of 18 unless signed by a guardian. Again, IANAL, I don't know the laws, but I know people who way back when that used that to get out of being harassed by Colombia House and it worked.
I'll keep this short, but this is good news and should be a nice first step toward setting reasonable precedents in internet law. By law, I don't mean regulating the net - I mean its nice that this judge recognized that some laws that apply to other industries don't apply to IT and the net.
Now if somebody would rule "Patent laws are just plain stupid when it comes to IP and a different set of rules are needed"... well, I guess I'll wait and see what happens. But this is really good news that the judicial system is recognizing how fast things move.
I don't speak Legalese, so my translation may not be accurate, but
While we wish you every success in your work, we must raise certain issues with respect to your use of IDG Books' federally registered trademark.
This sounds to me like they might be under the impression the poster is trying to publish such a book. I notice its still not up there, but the I would suggest any combination of the following:
1. Verify that the lawyers are aware that the user was merely expressing the need for someone (by the title, IDG) to publish such a book, and that the poster was not in any way suggesting anybody other than IDG use the trademark. It may be that they thought someone was selling or announcing publication of "SMART_HOST for Dummies", instead of expressing the need for IDG to publish such a reference. Of course, with all the talk of trademark dilution, it probably wasn't a misunderstanding.
2. If its not a big deal and not too time consuming, just cease and desist. Hate to suggest you submit to the corporate beast, but can you afford not to? If its easier to change the subject to "need for a SMART_HOST How-To book" (if that's not a trademark too?), you may want to do that.
3. If not too difficult, maybe offer (or preemptively) note that the "For Dummies" is a trademark of IDG and maybe link to their site. Good for their business - appease the lawyers.
4. I would notify them that you've received their message, that the mail is automatically archived, and that while you aren't responsible for the content of posters, you are taking the appropriate steps. Before doing any of this, though, you may want to goto step 5 first.
5. Most importantly, IANAL, so consult a real lawyer and get their opinion if you can't work it out with IDG. Heck, they might even tell you that with the correct disclaimers, you don't have to do anything (we are not responsible for user's postings?). Can't hurt to check anyway.
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but it really doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem.
RANT:
This sounds awfully similar to a certain American online service (but I won't name names) who thought they owned a phrase similar to "You have got mail."
Maybe I should trademark "I'm thirsty(tm)" and strike it rich by bullying people. Does copyleft have a trademark counterpart, like an openmark or givemark or something like that. If not, what does go into trademarking something? Oh well, one day the corporations will let us speak English again, right? Right?
Well, Gotta go!(tm) Still, Best of luck!(tm) with IDG(r).
Oh yeah... Legal notice for dummies:The "For Dummies" slogan is a diluted trademark of IDG, Inc.
"Kill the head and the body dies." - Hunter S. Thompson
If somebody registers a domain to sell it, good for them. They got there first. If it really is a problem, and Internic's functions will soon be apportioned out to several companies who will compete for registration, I imagine that cybersquatting could become much like spam. Maybe this is optimistic, but most people don't tolerate spam...even though it makes lots of money, so most probably registration services probably wouldn't tolerate cybersquatting (you rent it, but we own it - no subletting!). MegaCorpX.com should still, for there own interests, be allowed to gobble up MegaCorpXSucks.com, ScrewMegaCorpX.com and IHateMegaCorpX.com.
.sig's that seem to agree with this).
Thank you, but this legislation is far too socialist for my taste. I don't like cybersquatting, so I won't endorse it. But this legislation is ridiculous - "You cannot register a domain name that could be confused w/ someone else's? Physical addresses are confusing, but they're allowed to look similar. No, this is bad news in the long run, because its just more restrictions on the net. This is bad medicine.
I don't think this legislation is even necessary. It's kinda like spam, people really just need to become a policy like "I never purchase anything advertised in unsolicited mail". I know I wouldn't get a domain name from anyone but Internic. So, if you come out with Pooky, and someone's registered Pooky.com, then you go out and get PookyWorld.com or something like that - don't offer to buy Pooky.com. Take pixel.com as a great example. Prime real estate - not used for anything. Cybersquatter? Not in my book: squatting is when you don't pay for something - you're just there.
I probably sound like a squatter myself by now, but I'm not. Squatting is bad, but its better than banning it. (And I've seen the documented
"Kill the head and the body dies." - Hunter S. Thompson
Well, there is one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet, so I'm going to step out of History 101 and into Biology 101.
It's a relief to see that the human race is subject to the same very basic rules that apply to populations of any other species: that any population will eventually reach a state of equalibrium between birth rates and death rates.
The only really suprising thing is that its not what we'd expect of another population because its the areas where resources are abundant that we're seeing the population stop growing, while aready overpopulated areas with fewer resources and more difficult living conditions are seeing more growth. This is the opposite of what you'd expect to see in any other species, but as a whole its really not suprising. We are becoming balanced (I recently read an article, but can't quote the source, that said that rate of increase in the world population was declining).
Because of this weird twist to basic evolution, though, I think there's a good chance things will get worse before they get better. There may be a lot of elderly people, a lot of retirees, etc., so this could mean a larger burden on the working class, but a declining population should logically rebound with a higher birth rate. Meanwhile, if current trends are accurate, those huge markets in developing areas will slow their birth rates (and death rates) as quality of life raises. Still, I like to think it will all work out, and especially like the idea that I could be alive to actually see us reach equilibrium. I imagine things will get tougher as the population increases, but it sounds like it won't be as bad as this trend is traditionally portrayed as being (but hey, a scoop's a scoop).