(btw, I note that www.bushsucks.com takes you to G.W.B's campaign site; I have no problem with him buying up the 'offending' name, but was it really a good idea to have it redirect to his real site?)
They've bought up some huge number of similar domains, all of which redirect to his webpage.
Put it this way, would you rather have a derogatory name point to your page, or would you rather it point to an equally derogatory website?
While I can see why this would be easily said and adopted by Chinese pundits, there are certainly a few differences...
Linux is free, open-source, [insert favorite buzzword here] for the common good. Now, many communist regimes have been idealized and started under the same pretense. However, I'm not aware of any communist government that has ever succeeded. [socialist != communist] Why? Because in the end, the chairman, the politburo, whatever you want to call the concentration of power at the top of the food chain, has succumbed to his own power trip, and wielded the power for his own political/social gain, as opposed to that of the people. In this sense, the people are a commune by name only.
Communism also implies a certain, ultranationalist ethos, in addition to any psuedo-communal ideals. Until we see the day that Linus shores up a vast ocean of political reserves to overthrow [er, excuse me, 'shelter from imperialism'] a people like Luxembourg or the Vatican, I don't think we have to worry about The penguin donning a hammer and sickle quite yet.
This is just more driftwood coming from the giant, rotting structure that is aging Chinese tyranny. Any close examination of today's China would indicate that, beneath the silkscreen, there's a weath of capitalism running around.
In absolute terms, no person has any more right to do/not do something, to allow/limit any other person. Is it 'wrong' when dog kills another?
Just because I believe murder is wrong doesn't mean, from an absolute, perspective that it is. This belief, the ability to reason and opine, on one's own is what separates man from animals.
This said, law isn't put in place to 'give' rights -- any law that gives rights to one group removes rights from another -- and thus, there is no way to grant rights that don't infringe on rights of others.
On a more down-to-earth example, but equal in principle, I have the right to free speech. However, there are limits on this. I can't yell 'Fire!' in the theatre, I can't incite riot, as there are laws that limit my speech in those respects. These impinge on my 'rights'. But they transfer the 'right' to safety to those around me. They're for the good of the people; that is the basis of law. There has been no loss of 'rights'. Just transferral.
"If Slashdot were a mammal, most of our news sites would be the dinosaurs. Many journalists don't understand this and don't think it's journalism."
...sorta makes you hope they got a decent check from Andover.net, eh?
When crufty websites like Geocities and Ask Jeeves have/had outrageous market caps, one hopes that something with actual content would be given its due.
People in this country have the right to say anddo whatever they please, unless that is, what they say and do infringes on the rights of another - anonymous.
Yeah. The real reason this is anonymous is because no fool would want to be known for ranting this absurd statement!
In absolute terms, any right someone has automatically infringes upon the rights of others. You enact a law to outlaw murder. It infringes on my right to kill. 'Rights' are like energy, they can't be created or destroyed, only redirected/modifed, etc.
What an absolutely obtuse quote. The law is (or at least was) in place to provide safety to people more than it was to protect 'rights'.
I don't know much about John Vranesevich. But based on what I've read [from|about] him, that's probably not a bad thing.
If I were a computer manufacturer, I'd try and sell my systems for what they could do, not what they looked like; the aesthetics would be just a side note. Now, Apple is suing this company based on their PC case. It almost sounds as if Apple has succumbed to this, selling boxen merely from an aesthetic perspective.
I mean, sure, if I could afford one, I'd have an iMac, but not particularly for the case, as much as the platform that would allow me to install PPC.
If Apple has directed their marketing towards selling computers based on appearance (let's hope not), they've got more problems to worry about than cheap lookalikes.
Not doubting your knowledge, but is Josta still being made? From what I've read, they stopped marketing it, which I thought really sucked. I certainly can't find it around here (DC).
I thought this stuff was just great. And it wasn't because of the supposed-aphrodisiacal effects of guarana, either. It was simply a good, fruity soda.
If you can find it, I'll pay for it + shipping...:D
I think the Russian comedian Yakov Smirnoff (sp?) said it best: "If someone offers you a finger sandwich, gladly accept. If they offer you a knuckle sandwich, politely decline."
I know from my law class that lex loci commissi delicti is one platform of our legal system; it translates something roughly to the effect of "in the place of action" -- laws are to be tried in the last location where an action takes place, if it crosses over county/city/state lines, etc. I don't know/think that this is law, as much as it is theory, I'm no lawyer.
I did find this link, however, that talks about the varying degrees to which some states follow this theory.
yeah, well, maybe where you're from.. I think the attitude says it all. Not all of us categorize people from a given region into one stereotype. I have tended to see it taught elsewhere in Virginia -- where the education and water aren't so keen...
Red Hat has always said that they are not trying to make money of of Linux itself, but through packaging it nicely, publishing materials, and providing support.
Linux is a very open system. For Red Hat to outright refuse to help this guy with his problem because it didn't fit their narrow schema of what a 'problem' is, they are failing to provide support for their product.
If Redhat is going to adhere to 'Open Standards', they need to provide for the standard basic Linux support, as well as for any proprietary things that they add. There's absolutely no reason for them to make the determination not to "support the problem.
The Linux community must never allow the OS to be limited by what one company considers problematic or not.
"OS/2 and Windows NT are proprietary systems. The interface and design are controlled by a single corporation, and only that corporation many implement that design."
Red Hat? Caldera? Which is the lesser of two evils?
I'm leery about this Linux IPO craze. Certainly, corporate embracing of Linux is a Good Thing (tm), and these IPOs might further interest in Linux all the way around. However, stock == stockholders, who thus have a say in what occurs at the company.
Granted, Linux will always be free. But if one Linux distributor becomes the de facto standard within industry, software with dependencies for a given distribution will inevitably occur.
Consider MS-Windows: There's the platform, and then the Office components, etc., which are used with it. Sure, you can find other programs if you don't want to use Office. But how much can/will this slow down your communcation and growth.
If one player becomes the dominant force in Linux, I fear that the same thing will happen. Granted, if distro-specific dependencies become prevalent, people will write alternatives. But if a corporation or person feels nonetheless complied to use a given distro, so that they won't 'lose ground', hasn't a major aim of Linux advocacy thus been abandoned?
Directly from Red Hat's Linux Undercover:
"OS/2 and Windows NT are proprietary systems. The interface and design are controlled by a single corporation, and only that corporation many implement that design."
Yes, regardless of the corporate interests of Red Hat and/or Caldera, Linux will always be free. But remember, (free == libre, != beer), 'Free' becomes a relative term, when one has to adhere in order to exist? What incentive/purpose is there for the user to use Debian or Slackware at home, if at some point, all the software he'll have to use/program/debug at work will only work with Red Hat?
Level-headed, for sure, but it's nothing new for most of us.
Decent article: my only complaint is that they don't talk about the emerging (!) GUI interfaces for Linux very much at all, solely relying on the "users have more control over their system" argument -- an apples to apples comparision would have been a little more handy.
Good article, though, for trying to convince familiy to switch over;)
...probably, Congress wants to know just what exactly NSA knows about their *ahem* 'internal affairs', and how much the NSA is gonna get from Larry Flynt for the scoop;).
Slashdot Mirror
(btw, I note that www.bushsucks.com takes you to G.W.B's campaign site; I have no problem with him buying up the 'offending' name, but was it really a good idea to have it redirect to his real site?)
They've bought up some huge number of similar domains, all of which redirect to his webpage.
Put it this way, would you rather have a derogatory name point to your page, or would you rather it point to an equally derogatory website?
heh, this guy mentions the Wired article in his auction; apparently he was interviewed.
:)
I suspect fraud though... note the number of bidders with a 'zero' bid history score
While I can see why this would be easily said and adopted by Chinese pundits, there are certainly a few differences...
Linux is free, open-source, [insert favorite buzzword here] for the common good. Now, many communist regimes have been idealized and started under the same pretense. However, I'm not aware of any communist government that has ever succeeded. [socialist != communist] Why? Because in the end, the chairman, the politburo, whatever you want to call the concentration of power at the top of the food chain, has succumbed to his own power trip, and wielded the power for his own political/social gain, as opposed to that of the people. In this sense, the people are a commune by name only.
Communism also implies a certain, ultranationalist ethos, in addition to any psuedo-communal ideals. Until we see the day that Linus shores up a vast ocean of political reserves to overthrow [er, excuse me, 'shelter from imperialism'] a people like Luxembourg or the Vatican, I don't think we have to worry about The penguin donning a hammer and sickle quite yet.
This is just more driftwood coming from the giant, rotting structure that is aging Chinese tyranny. Any close examination of today's China would indicate that, beneath the silkscreen, there's a weath of capitalism running around.
In absolute terms, no person has any more right to do/not do something, to allow/limit any other person. Is it 'wrong' when dog kills another?
Just because I believe murder is wrong doesn't mean, from an absolute, perspective that it is. This belief , the ability to reason and opine, on one's own is what separates man from animals.
This said, law isn't put in place to 'give' rights -- any law that gives rights to one group removes rights from another -- and thus, there is no way to grant rights that don't infringe on rights of others.
On a more down-to-earth example, but equal in principle, I have the right to free speech. However, there are limits on this. I can't yell 'Fire!' in the theatre, I can't incite riot, as there are laws that limit my speech in those respects. These impinge on my 'rights'. But they transfer the 'right' to safety to those around me. They're for the good of the people; that is the basis of law. There has been no loss of 'rights'. Just transferral.
I'd recommend some John Locke. Good reading.
"If Slashdot were a mammal, most of our news sites would be the dinosaurs. Many journalists don't understand this and don't think it's journalism."
...sorta makes you hope they got a decent check from Andover.net, eh?
When crufty websites like Geocities and Ask Jeeves have/had outrageous market caps, one hopes that something with actual content would be given its due.
You can't link to something that outside your own site....
1. Free speech is shot down.
2. The whole purpose of web-based technology is compromised.
3. In the end, lawyers make all the money.
Hmm, I can't think of one thing this would accomplish for the greater good of mankind.
People in this country have the right to say anddo whatever they please, unless that is, what they say and do infringes on the rights of another - anonymous.
Yeah. The real reason this is anonymous is because no fool would want to be known for ranting this absurd statement!
In absolute terms, any right someone has automatically infringes upon the rights of others. You enact a law to outlaw murder. It infringes on my right to kill. 'Rights' are like energy, they can't be created or destroyed, only redirected/modifed, etc.
What an absolutely obtuse quote. The law is (or at least was) in place to provide safety to people more than it was to protect 'rights'.
I don't know much about John Vranesevich. But based on what I've read [from|about] him, that's probably not a bad thing.
If I were a computer manufacturer, I'd try and sell my systems for what they could do, not what they looked like; the aesthetics would be just a side note. Now, Apple is suing this company based on their PC case. It almost sounds as if Apple has succumbed to this, selling boxen merely from an aesthetic perspective.
I mean, sure, if I could afford one, I'd have an iMac, but not particularly for the case, as much as the platform that would allow me to install PPC.
If Apple has directed their marketing towards selling computers based on appearance (let's hope not), they've got more problems to worry about than cheap lookalikes.
Not doubting your knowledge, but is Josta still being made? From what I've read, they stopped marketing it, which I thought really sucked. I certainly can't find it around here (DC).
:D
I thought this stuff was just great. And it wasn't because of the supposed-aphrodisiacal effects of guarana, either. It was simply a good, fruity soda.
If you can find it, I'll pay for it + shipping...
I think the Russian comedian Yakov Smirnoff (sp?) said it best:
"If someone offers you a finger sandwich, gladly accept. If they offer you a knuckle sandwich, politely decline."
This article at MSNBC mentions that one of the (two?) major initial investors in Google was an @Home startup.
'watch'? ick. Read it. The movie was a poor representation of Gibson's work.
there goes my chances of attending :( Man, I was already psyched to hop on the metro and ride into town...
...all the future-redhat stockholders must be up in the big apple or something.
...think they did a global search and replace for certain obscenities? ;-)
...since I haven't seen it posted yet (though, I also haven't read threaded discussions).
2 02.html
Wired has this too, here.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/20
Well, it's good to see you have a life.
Good God, go out and get some fresh air.
I know from my law class that lex loci commissi delicti is one platform of our legal system; it translates something roughly to the effect of "in the place of action" -- laws are to be tried in the last location where an action takes place, if it crosses over county/city/state lines, etc. I don't know/think that this is law, as much as it is theory, I'm no lawyer.
I did find this link, however, that talks about the varying degrees to which some states follow this theory.
yeah, well, maybe where you're from.. I think the attitude says it all. Not all of us categorize people from a given region into one stereotype. I have tended to see it taught elsewhere in Virginia -- where the education and water aren't so keen...
Red Hat has always said that they are not trying to make money of of Linux itself, but through packaging it nicely, publishing materials, and providing support.
Linux is a very open system. For Red Hat to outright refuse to help this guy with his problem because it didn't fit their narrow schema of what a 'problem' is, they are failing to provide support for their product.
If Redhat is going to adhere to 'Open Standards', they need to provide for the standard basic Linux support, as well as for any proprietary things that they add. There's absolutely no reason for them to make the determination not to "support the problem.
The Linux community must never allow the OS to be limited by what one company considers problematic or not.
...now when's someone gonna design a Quake "Bletchley Park" Deathmatch level? ;-)
After all those ridiculously named elements, a resolution was passed to name future elements based on their weight or something, if I'm not mistaken.
s/many/may/g
I'm leery about this Linux IPO craze. Certainly, corporate embracing of Linux is a Good Thing (tm), and these IPOs might further interest in Linux all the way around. However, stock == stockholders, who thus have a say in what occurs at the company.
Granted, Linux will always be free. But if one Linux distributor becomes the de facto standard within industry, software with dependencies for a given distribution will inevitably occur.
Consider MS-Windows: There's the platform, and then the Office components, etc., which are used with it. Sure, you can find other programs if you don't want to use Office. But how much can/will this slow down your communcation and growth.
If one player becomes the dominant force in Linux, I fear that the same thing will happen. Granted, if distro-specific dependencies become prevalent, people will write alternatives. But if a corporation or person feels nonetheless complied to use a given distro, so that they won't 'lose ground', hasn't a major aim of Linux advocacy thus been abandoned?
Directly from Red Hat's Linux Undercover:
Yes, regardless of the corporate interests of Red Hat and/or Caldera, Linux will always be free. But remember, (free == libre, != beer), 'Free' becomes a relative term, when one has to adhere in order to exist? What incentive/purpose is there for the user to use Debian or Slackware at home, if at some point, all the software he'll have to use/program/debug at work will only work with Red Hat?
Level-headed, for sure, but it's nothing new for most of us.
;)
Decent article: my only complaint is that they don't talk about the emerging (!) GUI interfaces for Linux very much at all, solely relying on the "users have more control over their system" argument -- an apples to apples comparision would have been a little more handy.
Good article, though, for trying to convince familiy to switch over
...probably, Congress wants to know just what exactly NSA knows about their *ahem* 'internal affairs', and how much the NSA is gonna get from Larry Flynt for the scoop ;).