Stan Lee's a genius whose talents were tuned to the 1960's. Chris Claremont, although seemingly shunned by the comic book companies these days, is just as much a genius with a more contemporary talent.
I would point out that, until recently, Claremont was the writer of Fantastic Four (ending an almost 2-year run on that title) and is, in fact, back writing both X-Men and Uncanny X-Men.
He also wrote Contest of Champions II for Marvel, a sequel to a rather novel crossover miniseries from the 1980's, and had a creator-owned book set in the DC Universe called Soveriegn Seven. He also did an interminably long Aliens Vs. Predator crossover for Dark Horse (12 issues, with the series going bimonthly about halfway through!).
Funny thing is, after I wrote that, I took another look with Google and found a page that described what you just said.
I guess you really can find anything, if you look hard enough; I'm just surprised that none of the Linux manuals I've looked through describe setuid or setgid reasonably well.
learning Java via computer-based training modules (so I can get a programming job and cause problems rather than have to fix them),
Where can you find such Java training modules? I've been looking; I finally broke down and bought a big honkin' "Learning Java" book -- at least I can take it with me...
I'm not justifying anyone's actions here, but I for one think it is a good thing that there are some people out there 'poking around where they don't belong'. Most of these types are more curious than they are hostile and will usually leave your system unchanged (save for a l33t message about how you were had).
Out of curiosity, what do your comments have to do with this story? This is a story about a cracker who had compromised several of their machines, were using them to launch attacks and gain access to who knows how many other systems, and ultimately ended up doing an 'rm -rf/' because the admins pissed him off by not giving in to his demands for access.
Granted, this guy Noel made some mistakes and had some unfounded assumptions, and paid dearly for them. (The moral I learned from this story? Don't bother trying to communicate with the person who cracked your system; just secure and/or rebuild your systems and plug the holes that they got in before.)
But your comments about "oh, some people are poking around because they're curious and don't mean any harm" just don't apply to this situation. As someone else said, if you want to learn how systems work, buy a PC, install Linux (or the *BSD of your choice) on it and use that for testing. If you meddle around in machines that you don't have legitimate access to, you deserve whatever punishment you get.
The reason that everyone loses is simple. People pirate things that they should be paying for.
I have customers (teenagers) who have discovered Napster; I overheard one of them complaining because in order to get stuff off of Napster, he had to have his own collection available for download. (These are the same kinds of guys also apparently burn copies of PC and Playstation games for each other without giving it a moment's thought -- they've asked me if I could burn copies of the games I have installed on my store's PCs.)
I was listening to my favorite radio morning show today and they ran a caller poll on "have you ever stolen stuff from work"? There was a guy who used to worked at a deli who decided that "since they can't pay [him] more than minimum wage, they're providing [him] with free food." And this wasn't "making himself the occasional sandwich", either -- he was taking food home to fill the fridge with. Another guy bragged about stealing sound cards and video cards from whatever electronics store he worked for, and selling them to his friends.
I don't think I've ever been so disgusted with humanity as I was after the show.
Humans are too damned selfish to pay for anything. I would chance to say that MOST people would steal something if they could get away with it. Especially if it was something that was being sold for profit.
It's more of the "beating the system" mentality -- like the skript kiddies IRC logs from the other day. Odds are D1cK and J4Ne don't know the first thing about the systems they break into, or the tools they use to do it; it's the thrill of "doing something they oughtn't be" that pushes them on.
People should realize that they are hurting other humans by theft. Ah well... I have little hope that this will change, ever.
As a business owner, it sucks to come to the realization that I can't trust even some of my long-time customers. But as I've told those customers, "when you come in and brag about stealing shit from other people or other stores, why should I trust you to be around my stuff unsupervised?"
Look, the reason McDonald's coffee was hotter than the stuff you got out of your pot at home was not because of some nefarious corporate scheme to burn old ladies.
No one said they were malicious, only derelict in their responsibility.
It was hotter because most of their customers wanted it that way!
Really? Their customers wanted coffee served at a temperature that becomes "extremely dangerous when it comes in contact with human body tissue"? (A part you neatly snipped off in your reply, I noticed.)
The typical McCoffee drinker is a blue-collar 9-to-5er who buys the coffee on their way to work, and doesn't actually drink it until much later, sometimes a half hour or hour later. In order to prevent the coffee from being as cold as a witch's t?? by the time they drink it, the coffee was sold hotter than the temperature you would normally drink it at.
Where did you get this information? Did McDonald's commission a survey as a response to this woman's lawsuit? Was an independant poll conducted by some news agency in relation to this case? Or are you making some totally unfounded assumption because this particular story annoys you?
It may have been extremely hot, but this woman jammed the coffee cup into her crotch and drove off without even checking if the lid was secure; and when she spilled the molten stuff all over her groin, what did she do? She kept right on driving while the skin on her lap was being destroyed.
Okay, now I'm sure you've just got an axe to grind. (Either that, or I'm being trolled.) In the article I quoted, it states quite clearly that she was a passenger in the car, and that the car was not moving when she spilled the coffee on herself.
If you can't get the facts straight, why bother replying?
Either way, the woman spilled hot coffee on herself, then sued the restaurant for selling it to her. That's like suing a power tool company after you fire a nail-gun into the back of your hand, saying "they should have put a sensor on it so it could tell flesh from drywall".
No, it's more like buying a nail-gun, loading it with studs, and having it launch one into your backside the minute you plug it in. Sure, you should have been careful not having it aimed at anyone while loaded, but at the same time there's a reasonable expectation that it's not going to injure anyone who isn't being careless.
Often when people launch frivolous lawsuits, the company will settle to avoid legal fees and embarrassment, in some situations, the person suing can play for sympathy (like that pathetic old lady that dumped coffee all over her lap, and sued McDonald's for the burns).
I'm going to have to write this URL down, I keep looking for it so often.
The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case Some Facts You Might Not Have Known
Of the many injury cases that have been decided over the past ten years, none have received as much publicity as the case of Stella Lieback v. McDonald's Corp. In this case, a 79 year old New Mexico woman suffered third degree burns as a result of spilling a cup of coffee she had purchased at a McDonald's restaurant. the case has been endlessly criticized and made fun of in radio commercials, on talk shows and the like. In fact, if you ask the average person what they think of the case, the usual response is something like, "Can you believe a jury gave millions of dollars to a woman for simply spilling a cup of coffee? Isn't that ridiculous?"
However, a closer look at the facts shows that this case was actually an example of where the system worked.
At the trial of this case, it was revealed that while coffee served in your home, in a restaurant, on an airplane or in a fast food establishment is normally in the range of 135-145 degrees, McDonald's routinely sold its coffee nationwide at 180-190 degrees. Liquid heated to such a high temperature becomes extremely dangerous when it comes in contact with human body tissue. That is why on the date of her accident, after the car in which she was a passenger came to a full stop - and Ms. Lieback tried to lift the lid of the cup of coffee off while she held the cup between her knees and accidentally spilled the liquid on her thighs and genital area - the burns were immediate, painful, and serious.
As a result of these burns, Ms. Lieback had to undergo skin grafts, required hospitalization for several weeks, and incurred medical bills in excess of $10,000. Later, when her family attempted to negotiate with McDonald's to at least have the medical bills paid, and McDonald's was not willing to do so, it is understandable why a lawsuit was filed.
In pretrial discovery, Ms. Lieback's attorney learned that McDonald's had already been sued some 700 other times(!) for burn injuries caused by their hot coffee- and that they had routinely settled with the injured party, requiring each person to sign a confidentiality agreement, barring the person from talking about the nature of settlement. At the trial of the case, a McDonald's representative maintained that it was appropriate to continue to serve the coffee at 180 degrees, although people were going to get burned, because the numbers of burned people were "statistically insignificant."
The jury, which was inclined at the beginning of the trial to laugh the case out of court, was so enraged by McDonald's attitude that they found for Ms. Lieback. They awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 after the jury concluded that 20% of the fault belonged to her. They also awarded punitive damages - to punish McDonald's and to deter other corporations from doing the same thing in the future - in an amount equal to what McDonald's earns from selling coffee in only two days nationwide, $2.7 million. This figure was widely publicized, so that radio commercials and other sources have reported that "the woman got millions." In fact, the judge later reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000 and the parties settled for a lesser amount - facts which the commercials fail to disclose.
Importantly, as a result of this lawsuit, McDonald's eventually announced that it was going to begin serving coffee at a lower temperature - and reportedly that change has occurred. The McDonald's case is a good example of how the press and other interest groups can sometimes misreport an incident to serve their own purposes.
Care to wonder why the DoJ has been ominously silent about the Disney-ABC, Viacom-CBS and soon AOL-Time Warner mergers? Mergers that will have much more serious effects than what Microsoft now wields?
Because they aren't monopolies yet, and haven't done anything to illegally obtain/preserve one?
If they can develop products fast enough, maybe they could have "Nike Trinity's" as a product tie-in by the time the sequel is out. It'd let you run around on walls just like in the movie(add your own slow motion though, and good luck getting off).
Or better yet, Spider Jerusalem's "Air Jesus" shoes from DC/Vertigo Comics' Transmetropolitan by Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson...
Jay (=
THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T RESPOND TO SPAM -- EVER!
on
Taking On A Spammer
·
· Score: 2
Assuming this is true (and he's apparently gotten enough accurate information about these individuals that he's either convinced he's right or willing to risk a libel suit) this is a perfect example of why all spam, no matter how interesting the product or service may be or what company it's from, must be deleted without response.
These people are willing to steal other people's AOL accounts (OK, let's all laugh at the AOL users, but it could have easily been a local/regional ISP) to send their spam, the "pump and dump stock scam" probably damages both the hapless investors and the company in question, all in the name of making money.
I say we mega-Slashdot this site -- send a copy of this URL to everyone you know (_especially_ if they use AOL) and tell them to look at it(*). Point out that just because it's comes from a *koff* "trusted" site like eBay or Microsoft doesn't mean it's any more welcome or desired. Make sure that people start using a company's or site's "opt-out" policies for junk mail.
I don't know at what point spam becomes "unprofitable" but the more people who refuse to cater to spammers or their clients, the better.
Jay (=
(*) Okay, maybe not everyone you know. No point in spamming in the name of anti-spam. But at least tell people about the site.
Not true -- see attached URL (OT)
on
The Leased Life?
·
· Score: 2
In short, the coffee was served about 40-50 degrees hotter than most establishments serve their hot beverages, the woman had parked her car as she was attempting to get the lid off, and she suffered such terrible burns that she had to have skin grafts and was in the hospital for weeks -- hardly the case of "Oh, no! This stings! I'm gonna sue" that everyone makes it out to be.
It's hard to document "common sense" but lawyers make it a requirement. Most people -- one would assume -- know their coffee is hot. So when you sterilize yourself in a hideous coffee accident, you get to sue McDonalds because they didn't put a flashing neon sign on the cup to the effect of "Hey, dumbass! This coffee is freakin' hot."
Well, since you brought it up...
Of the many injury cases that have been decided over the past ten years, none have received as much publicity as the case of Stella Lieback v. McDonald's Corp. In this case, a 79 year old New Mexico woman suffered third degree burns as a result of spilling a cup of coffee she had purchased at a McDonald's restaurant. the case has been endlessly criticized and made fun of in radio commercials, on talk shows and the like. In fact, if you ask the average person what they think of the case, the usual response is something like, "Can you believe a jury gave millions of dollars to a woman for simply spilling a cup of coffee? Isn't that ridiculous?"
However, a closer look at the facts shows that this case was actually an example of where the system worked.
At the trial of this case, it was revealed that while coffee served in your home, in a restaurant, on an airplane or in a fast food establishment is normally in the range of 135-145 degrees, McDonald's routinely sold its coffee nationwide at 180-190 degrees. Liquid heated to such a high temperature becomes extremely dangerous when it comes in contact with human body tissue. That is why on the date of her accident, after the car in which she was a passenger came to a full stop - and Ms. Lieback tried to lift the lid of the cup of coffee off while she held the cup between her knees and accidentally spilled the liquid on her thighs and genital area - the burns were immediate, painful, and serious.
As a result of these burns, Ms. Lieback had to undergo skin grafts, required hospitalization for several weeks, and incurred medical bills in excess of $10,000. Later, when her family attempted to negotiate with McDonald's to at least have the medical bills paid, and McDonald's was not willing to do so, it is understandable why a lawsuit was filed.
In pretrial discovery, Ms. Lieback's attorney learned that McDonald's had already been sued some 700 other times(!) for burn injuries caused by their hot coffee- and that they had routinely settled with the injured party, requiring each person to sign a confidentiality agreement, barring the person from talking about the nature of settlement. At the trial of the case, a McDonald's representative maintained that it was appropriate to continue to serve the coffee at 180 degrees, although people were going to get burned, because the numbers of burned people were "statistically insignificant."
The jury, which was inclined at the beginning of the trial to laugh the case out of court, was so enraged by McDonald's attitude that they found for Ms. Lieback. They awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 after the jury concluded that 20% of the fault belonged to her. They also awarded punitive damages - to punish McDonald's and to deter other corporations from doing the same thing in the future - in an amount equal to what McDonald's earns from selling coffee in only two days nationwide, $2.7 million. This figure was widely publicized, so that radio commercials and other sources have reported that "the woman got millions." In fact, the judge later reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000 and the parties settled for a lesser amount - facts which the commercials fail to disclose.
Importantly, as a result of this lawsuit, McDonald's eventually announced that it was going to begin serving coffee at a lower temperature - and reportedly that change has occurred. The McDonald's case is a good example of how the press and other interest groups can sometimes misreport an incident to serve their own purposes.
There is an easy solution for those who like both Debian and KDE.
Make a merged distribution of Debian and Corel lite and make an instalation script, which either adds Corel KDE to after the Debian installation or the otherway arund.
No Licence cosmetics is necessary, since it makes a ".dpkg" distribution that does not blame Debian.org for not being GPL othodox.
Which defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, doesn't it?
Did I just win $3k? Tell me why not!
Well, since you asked, let's look at that open letter again. (You did read the open letter that was posted in the story, right?)
[Empahsis mine] Therefore, I would like to stipulate the appropriate actions by offering a private donation of 3.000,-US-$ to the KDE project, in case (and only in case) that the licence of the official release of KDE2 (all official packages incl. koffice) will be modified in the mentioned way, so that KDE2 can be included in Debian-Woody at last.
Well, given that:
1) you have not changed the licenses of the various KDE packages in the mentioned way
and
2) you are not the KDE project
then no, you don't get US$3,000.
Jay (= (Why are people wasting their time thinking up ways to get the $3,000? It's not a contest!)
First, it's not a contest. The guy is simply offering to make a contribution if and when the goal he wants is met.
Second, he spells out quite clearly what is required to "win":
Therefore, I would like to stipulate the appropriate actions by offering a private donation of 3.000,- US-$ to the KDE project, in case (and only in case) that the licence of the official release of KDE2 (all official packages incl. koffice) will be modified in the mentioned way, so that KDE2 can be included in Debian-Woody at last.
I have no idea why Taco said "I wonder if just hosting the.debs would win." It's in the open letter!
What is justice? Is it just to be without Internet service because your neighbor irritated a kiddie with a script?
No, it's seeing the script kiddie held responsible for his actions, and forced to make restitution. You don't deal with terrorists; it only encourages them.
Sure, it's your neighbor this time, so you don't speak out. Then who will be there to speak out for you when your ISP suspends your account because you cheesed off Mr. 3l33t?
The DigitalDivas should be able to stop Microsoft from using the term Digital Diva, even though their usage is very different, it's a fairly generic term, and virtually nobody thought that 'Digital Diva' was a reference to the prior group.
How are the two usages "very different"?
www.digitaldivas.com is a site made for (in their terms) "digital divas"; women who work in computer/Internet-based industries.
www.digitaldiva.com is a site for a woman, referring to herself as a "digital diva", who gives advice to other women who are in (or are interested in) computer/Internet-based industries.
You're one keystroke away from two sites with similar content. If I wasn't sure if I wanted "digitaldiva" or "digitaldivas", but I knew I wanted the one that dealt with women and tech careers, which is the "right" one? (In fact, while typing this I checked both sites to make sure I didn't mix the two up. But no, MS intended no confusion there at all...)
But Mattel is evil for objecting to the use of "TheBarbies" to refer to an online group for young girls, even though the reference to the doll is obvious to everybody.
I'm not going to type "thebarbies" if I'm looking for the doll, and I'm not going to mis-type "barbie" and get the TheBarbies site.
And, when I get to TheBarbies, it's going to be rather obvious that it's not the site for the doll. No trademarked "Barbie pink" color, no Barbie logo, no images of the doll.
nobody here seriously thinks the name was just accidental, do they?
No, I suspect that he picked the name quite on purpose. But your assertion that the purpose was to steal business away from Mattel is ludicrous.
Had TheBarbies.com been a site about barbecuing, then he'd have a point, but this is simple trademark theft. The nature of the original trademark has a direct connection to the new business.
Except that TheBarbies is not a business! It's a gaming fan site for an all-female gaming clan. (Actually, to be pedantic, it's a page that says "A Super Fun Party Tribe" and "OMG, like, it's coming soon!"; there's no "there" there yet.)
They're not selling anything, and even though it's got little flowers and something resembling a shade of pink for the background -- again, not the trademarked "Barbie pink" -- doesn't mean TheBarbies is trying to create confusion to draw young girls to their site instead of Mattel's.
This screenshot is brought to us by Tarun Reddy. Thanks!! He wrote us,
After jarring the class files on a Linux box and moving them over to my mac I was able to run WeirdX!!! Here is a screenshot to prove it... ......... All of the fonts displayed are anti-aliased! Nice job!
So does this mean that WiredX/WeirdX will allow me to access X apps on my Mac?
That would so totally rock; it'd be a nifty short-term solution instead of installing a PPC/based Linux on my Mac. (I'd like to not have to reboot my Mac if possible...)
If it said it was an OEM Not-for-Resale copy... Yank
Why?
If I buy a computer and it comes with software I don't want, why can't I sell it to someone who wants it?
Assuming I'm selling the unopened (or as close as comes) package -- full documentation, discs, etc. -- and the software in question is deleted from the original machine, what exactly have I done wrong?
I can understand if Microsoft and eBay want to combat software piracy. But MS has an obligation to properly investigate illegal copying of software -- otherwise they open themselves up to a slander suit by accusing someone of being a criminal with no evidence. (And these people can file a lawsuit; whether or not they can win is another story.)
But then again, this is why the UCITA laws are so savory for software makers (and MS in particular); they want to stamp out the "first sale" doctrine and force people to only buy "authorized" copies directly from them or an "approved" reseller.
(Yet another reason why I prefer dead-tree editions of books and comics and such, because it's only a matter of time before someone applies this to "traditional" text and/or images, if they're served in an online or "interactive" medium.)
And, given a choice between potentially buggy software that I can't fix, sell or give away (proprietary software under UCITA) and potentially buggy software that I can fix, sell or give away (Free Software) I'm going to start opting for the latter. Hopefully others will start doing the same, if they aren't already.
Think about it. Even if you are one of these/. zealots who believes software piracy is perfectly legit, they're still screwing over customers by selling something that cost them $5 in materials to make for $75.
But you could apply that to "official" copies as well. I just bought a copy of Half-Life that consisted of nothing but a CD. Is a box, a jewel case and insert, and a disk really worth $40? The only difference between the two is that one is a legally-licensed copy of the software and one isn't.
Hell even Linux is being missold on ebay. I see tons of people trying to auction off $5 Cheapbytes CD's for $20...
Which is not illegal, according to the GPL (unless, of course, they're only distributing the binaries). There's nothing wrong with buying an item and selling it to someone else at a markup -- that's how traditional retail works, in case you haven't figured it out. I've bought stuff for my store on clearance at a fraction of its "actual" cost to me and sold it for full retail price. Am I a criminal?
Now, if they're misrepresenting their product ("Official Red Hat Linux 6.2 for only 5$!") that's a different issue.
Gnome is nice and everything, but does anyone else see an add for the best open source desktop: gnome 1.2 in the banner ad on top of this slashdot page?
Yep, I saw it.
Seeing as how I've never before seen a KDE add ( and correct me if I'm wrong KDE is more popular),
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but it's certainly subject to opinion.
I can only assume that the little gnome( gnomes? ) who left the footprint must be performing some sort of sexual favors for the slashdot gang.
Or they could have *gasp* PAID FOR A BANNER AD.
The ad is actually for "Helix Code", the company formed by several of the core GNOME developers, and whose current (but not only) product is "Helix GNOME", a Helix Code-branded version of GNOME.
Hacker should be a respectable word for the die-hard computer enthusiast. Would the reporters in question like it if the computing community suddenly, and en masse, started calling them "lying gits" instead?
We can steal the term from them they way they've stolen "hackers" from computer enthusiasts.
"Bill Gates said that he repected the efforts of open-source programmers? Man, is he a journalist or what?"
Slashdot Mirror
Stan Lee's a genius whose talents were tuned to the 1960's. Chris Claremont, although seemingly shunned by the comic book companies these days, is just as much a genius with a more contemporary talent.
I would point out that, until recently, Claremont was the writer of Fantastic Four (ending an almost 2-year run on that title) and is, in fact, back writing both X-Men and Uncanny X-Men.
He also wrote Contest of Champions II for Marvel, a sequel to a rather novel crossover miniseries from the 1980's, and had a creator-owned book set in the DC Universe called Soveriegn Seven. He also did an interminably long Aliens Vs. Predator crossover for Dark Horse (12 issues, with the series going bimonthly about halfway through!).
Jay (=
Thanks.
Funny thing is, after I wrote that, I took another look with Google and found a page that described what you just said.
I guess you really can find anything, if you look hard enough; I'm just surprised that none of the Linux manuals I've looked through describe setuid or setgid reasonably well.
Jay (=
learning Java via computer-based training modules (so I can get a programming job and cause problems rather than have to fix them),
Where can you find such Java training modules? I've been looking; I finally broke down and bought a big honkin' "Learning Java" book -- at least I can take it with me...
Jay (=
If you have any others, reply to this post, or e-mail me personally, and I'll try to answer your questions.
How do you set/unset the setuid bit? Is it something that's compiled in, or a mode you can (un)set as a superuser?
For all of the information I can find on the internet for Linux, there seem to be some intersting holes...
Jay (=
I'm not justifying anyone's actions here, but I for one think it is a good thing that there are some people out there 'poking around where they don't belong'. Most of these types are more curious than they are hostile and will usually leave your system unchanged (save for a l33t message about how you were had).
/' because the admins pissed him off by not giving in to his demands for access.
Out of curiosity, what do your comments have to do with this story? This is a story about a cracker who had compromised several of their machines, were using them to launch attacks and gain access to who knows how many other systems, and ultimately ended up doing an 'rm -rf
Granted, this guy Noel made some mistakes and had some unfounded assumptions, and paid dearly for them. (The moral I learned from this story? Don't bother trying to communicate with the person who cracked your system; just secure and/or rebuild your systems and plug the holes that they got in before.)
But your comments about "oh, some people are poking around because they're curious and don't mean any harm" just don't apply to this situation. As someone else said, if you want to learn how systems work, buy a PC, install Linux (or the *BSD of your choice) on it and use that for testing. If you meddle around in machines that you don't have legitimate access to, you deserve whatever punishment you get.
Jay (=
The reason that everyone loses is simple.
People pirate things that they should be paying for.
I have customers (teenagers) who have discovered Napster; I overheard one of them complaining because in order to get stuff off of Napster, he had to have his own collection available for download. (These are the same kinds of guys also apparently burn copies of PC and Playstation games for each other without giving it a moment's thought -- they've asked me if I could burn copies of the games I have installed on my store's PCs.)
I was listening to my favorite radio morning show today and they ran a caller poll on "have you ever stolen stuff from work"? There was a guy who used to worked at a deli who decided that "since they can't pay [him] more than minimum wage, they're providing [him] with free food." And this wasn't "making himself the occasional sandwich", either -- he was taking food home to fill the fridge with. Another guy bragged about stealing sound cards and video cards from whatever electronics store he worked for, and selling them to his friends.
I don't think I've ever been so disgusted with humanity as I was after the show.
Humans are too damned selfish to pay for anything. I would chance to say that MOST people would steal something if they could get away with it. Especially if it was something that was being sold for profit.
It's more of the "beating the system" mentality -- like the skript kiddies IRC logs from the other day. Odds are D1cK and J4Ne don't know the first thing about the systems they break into, or the tools they use to do it; it's the thrill of "doing something they oughtn't be" that pushes them on.
People should realize that they are hurting other humans by theft. Ah well... I have little hope that this will change, ever.
As a business owner, it sucks to come to the realization that I can't trust even some of my long-time customers. But as I've told those customers, "when you come in and brag about stealing shit from other people or other stores, why should I trust you to be around my stuff unsupervised?"
Jay (=
Look, the reason McDonald's coffee was hotter than the stuff you got out of your pot at home was not because of some nefarious corporate scheme to burn old ladies.
No one said they were malicious, only derelict in their responsibility.
It was hotter because most of their customers wanted it that way!
Really? Their customers wanted coffee served at a temperature that becomes "extremely dangerous when it comes in contact with human body tissue"? (A part you neatly snipped off in your reply, I noticed.)
The typical McCoffee drinker is a blue-collar 9-to-5er who buys the coffee on their way to work, and doesn't actually drink it until much later, sometimes a half hour or hour later. In order to prevent the coffee from being as cold as a witch's t?? by the time they drink it, the coffee was sold hotter than the temperature you would normally drink it at.
Where did you get this information? Did McDonald's commission a survey as a response to this woman's lawsuit? Was an independant poll conducted by some news agency in relation to this case? Or are you making some totally unfounded assumption because this particular story annoys you?
It may have been extremely hot, but this woman jammed the coffee cup into her crotch and drove off without even checking if the lid was secure; and when she spilled the molten stuff all over her groin, what did she do? She kept right on driving while the skin on her lap was being destroyed.
Okay, now I'm sure you've just got an axe to grind. (Either that, or I'm being trolled.) In the article I quoted, it states quite clearly that she was a passenger in the car, and that the car was not moving when she spilled the coffee on herself.
If you can't get the facts straight, why bother replying?
Jay (=
Either way, the woman spilled hot coffee on herself, then sued the restaurant for selling it to her. That's like suing a power tool company after you fire a nail-gun into the back of your hand, saying "they should have put a sensor on it so it could tell flesh from drywall".
No, it's more like buying a nail-gun, loading it with studs, and having it launch one into your backside the minute you plug it in. Sure, you should have been careful not having it aimed at anyone while loaded, but at the same time there's a reasonable expectation that it's not going to injure anyone who isn't being careless.
Jay (=
Often when people launch frivolous lawsuits, the company will settle to avoid legal fees and embarrassment, in some situations, the person suing can play for sympathy (like that pathetic old lady that dumped coffee all over her lap, and sued McDonald's for the burns).
I'm going to have to write this URL down, I keep looking for it so often.
http://www.injurycases.com/coffee.html
(The emphasized parts above were done by me.)
Jay (=
Care to wonder why the DoJ has been ominously silent about the Disney-ABC, Viacom-CBS and soon AOL-Time Warner mergers? Mergers that will have much more serious effects than what Microsoft now wields?
Because they aren't monopolies yet, and haven't done anything to illegally obtain/preserve one?
Jay (=
How do you know he doesn't?
Jay (=
Maybe those of us that remember Minotaur and who played the 'Do not distribute' Marathon Beta should get t-shirts: "I remember when Bungie was cool"
Only if you didn't distribute the beta, maybe...
Jay (=
"Black and White"
Jay (=
If they can develop products fast enough, maybe they could have "Nike Trinity's" as a product tie-in by the time the sequel is out. It'd let you run around on walls just like in the movie(add your own slow motion though, and good luck getting off).
Or better yet, Spider Jerusalem's "Air Jesus" shoes from DC/Vertigo Comics' Transmetropolitan by Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson...
Jay (=
Assuming this is true (and he's apparently gotten enough accurate information about these individuals that he's either convinced he's right or willing to risk a libel suit) this is a perfect example of why all spam, no matter how interesting the product or service may be or what company it's from, must be deleted without response.
These people are willing to steal other people's AOL accounts (OK, let's all laugh at the AOL users, but it could have easily been a local/regional ISP) to send their spam, the "pump and dump stock scam" probably damages both the hapless investors and the company in question, all in the name of making money.
I say we mega-Slashdot this site -- send a copy of this URL to everyone you know (_especially_ if they use AOL) and tell them to look at it(*). Point out that just because it's comes from a *koff* "trusted" site like eBay or Microsoft doesn't mean it's any more welcome or desired. Make sure that people start using a company's or site's "opt-out" policies for junk mail.
I don't know at what point spam becomes "unprofitable" but the more people who refuse to cater to spammers or their clients, the better.
Jay (=
(*) Okay, maybe not everyone you know. No point in spamming in the name of anti-spam. But at least tell people about the site.
This URL talks about the facts of the case.
http://www.injurycases.com/coffee.html
In short, the coffee was served about 40-50 degrees hotter than most establishments serve their hot beverages, the woman had parked her car as she was attempting to get the lid off, and she suffered such terrible burns that she had to have skin grafts and was in the hospital for weeks -- hardly the case of "Oh, no! This stings! I'm gonna sue" that everyone makes it out to be.
Jay (=
Well, since you brought it up...
Found at http://www.injurycases.com/coffee.html
Jay (=
Make a merged distribution of Debian and Corel lite and make an instalation script, which either adds Corel KDE to after the Debian installation or the otherway arund.
No Licence cosmetics is necessary, since it makes a ".dpkg" distribution that does not blame Debian.org for not being GPL othodox.
Which defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, doesn't it?
Did I just win $3k? Tell me why not!
Well, since you asked, let's look at that open letter again. (You did read the open letter that was posted in the story, right?)
Well, given that:
1) you have not changed the licenses of the various KDE packages in the mentioned way
and
2) you are not the KDE project
then no, you don't get US$3,000.
Jay (=
(Why are people wasting their time thinking up ways to get the $3,000? It's not a contest!)
Second, he spells out quite clearly what is required to "win":
I have no idea why Taco said "I wonder if just hosting the
Jay (=
What is justice? Is it just to be without Internet service because your neighbor irritated a kiddie with a script?
No, it's seeing the script kiddie held responsible for his actions, and forced to make restitution. You don't deal with terrorists; it only encourages them.
Sure, it's your neighbor this time, so you don't speak out. Then who will be there to speak out for you when your ISP suspends your account because you cheesed off Mr. 3l33t?
Jay (=
The DigitalDivas should be able to stop Microsoft from using the term Digital Diva, even though their usage is very different, it's a fairly generic term, and virtually nobody thought that 'Digital Diva' was a reference to the prior group.
How are the two usages "very different"?
www.digitaldivas.com is a site made for (in their terms) "digital divas"; women who work in computer/Internet-based industries.
www.digitaldiva.com is a site for a woman, referring to herself as a "digital diva", who gives advice to other women who are in (or are interested in) computer/Internet-based industries.
You're one keystroke away from two sites with similar content. If I wasn't sure if I wanted "digitaldiva" or "digitaldivas", but I knew I wanted the one that dealt with women and tech careers, which is the "right" one? (In fact, while typing this I checked both sites to make sure I didn't mix the two up. But no, MS intended no confusion there at all...)
But Mattel is evil for objecting to the use of "TheBarbies" to refer to an online group for young girls, even though the reference to the doll is obvious to everybody.
I'm not going to type "thebarbies" if I'm looking for the doll, and I'm not going to mis-type "barbie" and get the TheBarbies site.
And, when I get to TheBarbies, it's going to be rather obvious that it's not the site for the doll. No trademarked "Barbie pink" color, no Barbie logo, no images of the doll.
nobody here seriously thinks the name was just accidental, do they?
No, I suspect that he picked the name quite on purpose. But your assertion that the purpose was to steal business away from Mattel is ludicrous.
Had TheBarbies.com been a site about barbecuing, then he'd have a point, but this is simple trademark theft. The nature of the original trademark has a direct connection to the new business.
Except that TheBarbies is not a business! It's a gaming fan site for an all-female gaming clan. (Actually, to be pedantic, it's a page that says "A Super Fun Party Tribe" and "OMG, like, it's coming soon!"; there's no "there" there yet.)
They're not selling anything, and even though it's got little flowers and something resembling a shade of pink for the background -- again, not the trademarked "Barbie pink" -- doesn't mean TheBarbies is trying to create confusion to draw young girls to their site instead of Mattel's.
Jay (=
From the site:
This screenshot is brought to us by Tarun Reddy. Thanks!! He wrote us,
So does this mean that WiredX/WeirdX will allow me to access X apps on my Mac?
That would so totally rock; it'd be a nifty short-term solution instead of installing a PPC/based Linux on my Mac. (I'd like to not have to reboot my Mac if possible...)
If it said it was an OEM Not-for-Resale copy... Yank
/. zealots who believes software piracy is perfectly legit, they're still screwing over customers by selling something that cost them $5 in materials to make for $75.
Why?
If I buy a computer and it comes with software I don't want, why can't I sell it to someone who wants it?
Assuming I'm selling the unopened (or as close as comes) package -- full documentation, discs, etc. -- and the software in question is deleted from the original machine, what exactly have I done wrong?
I can understand if Microsoft and eBay want to combat software piracy. But MS has an obligation to properly investigate illegal copying of software -- otherwise they open themselves up to a slander suit by accusing someone of being a criminal with no evidence. (And these people can file a lawsuit; whether or not they can win is another story.)
But then again, this is why the UCITA laws are so savory for software makers (and MS in particular); they want to stamp out the "first sale" doctrine and force people to only buy "authorized" copies directly from them or an "approved" reseller.
(Yet another reason why I prefer dead-tree editions of books and comics and such, because it's only a matter of time before someone applies this to "traditional" text and/or images, if they're served in an online or "interactive" medium.)
And, given a choice between potentially buggy software that I can't fix, sell or give away (proprietary software under UCITA) and potentially buggy software that I can fix, sell or give away (Free Software) I'm going to start opting for the latter. Hopefully others will start doing the same, if they aren't already.
Think about it. Even if you are one of these
But you could apply that to "official" copies as well. I just bought a copy of Half-Life that consisted of nothing but a CD. Is a box, a jewel case and insert, and a disk really worth $40? The only difference between the two is that one is a legally-licensed copy of the software and one isn't.
Hell even Linux is being missold on ebay. I see tons of people trying to auction off $5 Cheapbytes CD's for $20...
Which is not illegal, according to the GPL (unless, of course, they're only distributing the binaries). There's nothing wrong with buying an item and selling it to someone else at a markup -- that's how traditional retail works, in case you haven't figured it out. I've bought stuff for my store on clearance at a fraction of its "actual" cost to me and sold it for full retail price. Am I a criminal?
Now, if they're misrepresenting their product ("Official Red Hat Linux 6.2 for only 5$!") that's a different issue.
Jay (=
Gnome is nice and everything, but does anyone else see an add for the best open source desktop: gnome 1.2 in the banner ad on top of this slashdot page?
Yep, I saw it.
Seeing as how I've never before seen a KDE add ( and correct me if I'm wrong KDE is more popular),
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but it's certainly subject to opinion.
I can only assume that the little gnome( gnomes? ) who left the footprint must be performing some sort of sexual favors for the slashdot gang.
Or they could have *gasp* PAID FOR A BANNER AD.
The ad is actually for "Helix Code", the company formed by several of the core GNOME developers, and whose current (but not only) product is "Helix GNOME", a Helix Code-branded version of GNOME.
Jay (=
Hacker should be a respectable word for the die-hard computer enthusiast. Would the reporters in question like it if the computing community suddenly, and en masse, started calling them "lying gits" instead?
We can steal the term from them they way they've stolen "hackers" from computer enthusiasts.
"Bill Gates said that he repected the efforts of open-source programmers? Man, is he a journalist or what?"
Jay (=