ROTFL! A great idea! "Embrace and Extend" a negative and insulting stereotype into a good natured, humorous jab at oneself, removing all its teeth. Absolutely brilliant!:-)
Got long hair, no beard, T-shirt and jeans, and drive a Beech Sundowner... I'm probably not an optimal spokesperson for Linux in the corporate world either. But my company has mostly moved over to Linux, and will be completing the move before 2000 -- more and more managers are able to see the substance beyond the stereotypes. Those that can't lose financially .
Just to keep the stereotypes aive and annoy the Microsoft Suits even more: "Viva la revolucion!":-)
Your erronious assumption is that all, or even most, corporations vindictively persue anyone who uses a word or phrase slightly similar to their trademark. In addition, you erroniously assume Yahoo's action is a "defense" of their trademark, rather than an unwarrented attack on a little guy, who is exercising their constitutional right to parodize, which right has been confirmed time and time again in courts of law throughout the country. This attempt at intimidation is clearly financial, with Yahoo hoping that this particular "little guy" won't be able to afford to defend their rights under the law. Most companies do not engage in this sort of vindictive behavior, though of course if we all subscribe to the cynical apathy you espouse that will undoubtably change.
So, in other words, we should meekly accept any behavior we find reprehensible simply because it is common?
This action goes way beyond "defending" their trademark -- they are using the American justice system, and indirectly my tax dollars, to intimidate a small site for the inexcusable crime of making a parody of their name. They don't have a case, and if this site were owned by an entity with significant capital, they would not be persuing this. This is intimidation under the guise of justice, pure and simple. And yes, if this becomes more and more common, I will be changing links more and more often. As often as is necessary to avoid supporting, even indirectly, corporations which feel this kind of behavior is appropriate. And BTW, I do not limit my displeasure to removing links. I also remove any business relationship of any kind to companies which I deem unethical. In other words, I put my money where my mouth is. If more of us did so, this kind of thing would be growing less, rather than more, common.
I am removing all links and references on my homepage to Yahoo, and will find another source for all of the services I, until today, used Yahoo for. I suggest anyone else who feels strongly that this action is inappropriate do the same.
> I don't think the American system is the > perfect system (there could never be such a > thing), but it is the best system
Don't get out much, do you? Out of the country, that is. The American system (USofA that is) is adequate for many things. It is not only not perfect, it is a far cry from the "best" system worldwide. Depending on your criteria a number of other places come to mind (Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc., depending on your personal criteria).
Pros of America: 1) Things are cheap and plentiful 2) Laws are kind to private pilots... I can afford my airplane here and I couldn't in Europe, because Europe erroneously thinks flying should be for the rich. OK, so I can't afford a car and a plane -- goodbye car. At least here I have the choice. 3) Economy is booming -- I can make lots of money as a technically proficient individual, despite my poor spelling abilities. This may change, but right now it rocks to live here financially. 4) More individual freedom -- if being allowed to own and carry a gun is an important criterion (depends on the state -- for me this is a non-issue, but for others a virtual religion) 5) Less history -- less of a morass for us to fall into a la' Bosnia and Kosovo. Of course, if we don't put an end to racial hatred this will eventually change. 6) Peope are good -- for the most part.
Pros of living elsewhere 1) More individual freedom (if not being arrested for drinking beer in a park or smoking marijuana in a coffee shop, and not being put in prison for engaging in unusual but consentual sexual activities is important to you) 2) More ready access to "high" culture -- in the form of pervasive architecture (not too many strip malls in Europe for example), widespread theater and arts (these exist in America of course, but are restricted to a far smaller percentage of the polulation than in many other places), and so on. 3) Better food and better beer/wine (again, on average -- the elite in America can get the good stuff too, but elsewhere a DM 5,- of wine is as tasty as a $30.00 bottle in the states) 4) Longer history -- providing an ambience which is hard to describe to those who haven't experienced it. Of course, as noted before this can have a down side (a la' Isreal/Palistine, India/Pakistan, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.) 5) Better mass transit -- cars tend to cost more, but the average person has more mobility for less money in many other places than the States. 6) Better encryption laws -- most places don't persue foolish policies of trying to legislate activities outside of their own boarders. Ditto for patent laws, despite Waasenaar's efforts to the contrary. 7) Lack of Superpower Status -- sometimes it is so nice to reside in a place that isn't perpetually belligerant. 8) People are good -- for the most part.
Cons to living anywhere on Earth: 1) A small minority of loud-mouthed idiots wax selfrighteous about how their country/society/way of doing things is inherently superior to that of the rest of the planet. 2) The population is raging out of control and we're all gonna die anyway.:-)
Seriously, though, it behooves you to get out more and investigate the alternatives, rather than simply spewing the propogandistic dogma we've had drilled into us since childhood. You'll be very pleasantly surprised at what you find out there.
It is nice to see some governments gracefully admit their mistakes and move on, in contrast to others which pass ever more draconian legistlation in an effort to tame the free thought that is expressed on-line. Hopefully we'll be seeing more stories like this one in the months ahead (well, one can always dream).
The logical consiquences of this development is that our entire food supply will ultimately be non-self sustaining and dependent from season to season on whatever corporations hold the patents to the genetic code of the food in question. Any glitch in this system, whether it be economic, logistical, or geopolitical, could well make the potato famine in Ireland look like a picnic. We are, quite simply, looking at our own extinction. Something like this is IMHO far more likely to be the cause than nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare, or indeed catostrophic ecological failure (although one could argue that this would merely be the catalyst to such a failure, rather than the underlying 'cause'). One thing is certain: if our entire food supply becomes dependent on products using "Terminator Technology", sooner or later something will happen to interrupt the smooth mechanations of such a system, and at that time humanity will starve en masse, quite probably to extinction. Daniel Quinne has written some excellent books on what is already wrong with our agricultural system and what the consiquences will be if it continues to remain unchecked. His books "Ishmael" and "The Story of B" should be required reading for anyone interested in seeing the species continue for another generation or two. Any doubts as to the validity of his theories, particularly his comments on "locking up the food supply" to coerce cultural and behavioral change, have just been dispelled by this development.
Slashdot Mirror
ROTFL! A great idea! "Embrace and Extend" a negative and insulting stereotype into a good natured, humorous jab at oneself, removing all its teeth. Absolutely brilliant! :-)
Got long hair, no beard, T-shirt and jeans, and drive a Beech Sundowner ... I'm probably not an optimal spokesperson for Linux in the corporate world either. But my company has mostly moved over to Linux, and will be completing the move before 2000 -- more and more managers are able to see the substance beyond the stereotypes. Those that can't lose financially .
:-)
Just to keep the stereotypes aive and annoy the Microsoft Suits even more: "Viva la revolucion!"
Your erronious assumption is that all, or even most, corporations vindictively persue anyone who uses a word or phrase slightly similar to their trademark. In addition, you erroniously assume Yahoo's action is a "defense" of their trademark, rather than an unwarrented attack on a little guy, who is exercising their constitutional right to parodize, which right has been confirmed time and time again in courts of law throughout the country. This attempt at intimidation is clearly financial, with Yahoo hoping that this particular "little guy" won't be able to afford to defend their rights under the law. Most companies do not engage in this sort of vindictive behavior, though of course if we all subscribe to the cynical apathy you espouse that will undoubtably change.
So, in other words, we should meekly accept any behavior we find reprehensible simply because it is common?
This action goes way beyond "defending" their trademark -- they are using the American justice system, and indirectly my tax dollars, to intimidate a small site for the inexcusable crime of making a parody of their name. They don't have a case, and if this site were owned by an entity with significant capital, they would not be persuing this. This is intimidation under the guise of justice, pure and simple. And yes, if this becomes more and more common, I will be changing links more and more often. As often as is necessary to avoid supporting, even indirectly, corporations which feel this kind of behavior is appropriate. And BTW, I do not limit my displeasure to removing links. I also remove any business relationship of any kind to companies which I deem unethical. In other words, I put my money where my mouth is. If more of us did so, this kind of thing would be growing less, rather than more, common.
I am removing all links and references on my homepage to Yahoo, and will find another source for all of the services I, until today, used Yahoo for. I suggest anyone else who feels strongly that this action is inappropriate do the same.
> I don't think the American system is the
... I can afford my airplane here and I couldn't in Europe, because Europe erroneously thinks flying should be for the rich. OK, so I can't afford a car and a plane -- goodbye car. At least here I have the choice.
:-)
> perfect system (there could never be such a
> thing), but it is the best system
Don't get out much, do you? Out of the country, that is. The American system (USofA that is) is adequate for many things. It is not only not perfect, it is a far cry from the "best" system worldwide. Depending on your criteria a number of other places come to mind (Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc., depending on your personal criteria).
Pros of America:
1) Things are cheap and plentiful
2) Laws are kind to private pilots
3) Economy is booming -- I can make lots of money as a technically proficient individual, despite my poor spelling abilities. This may change, but right now it rocks to live here financially.
4) More individual freedom -- if being allowed to own and carry a gun is an important criterion (depends on the state -- for me this is a non-issue, but for others a virtual religion)
5) Less history -- less of a morass for us to fall into a la' Bosnia and Kosovo. Of course, if we don't put an end to racial hatred this will eventually change.
6) Peope are good -- for the most part.
Pros of living elsewhere
1) More individual freedom (if not being arrested for drinking beer in a park or smoking marijuana in a coffee shop, and not being put in prison for engaging in unusual but consentual sexual activities is important to you)
2) More ready access to "high" culture -- in the form of pervasive architecture (not too many strip malls in Europe for example), widespread theater and arts (these exist in America of course, but are restricted to a far smaller percentage of the polulation than in many other places), and so on.
3) Better food and better beer/wine (again, on average -- the elite in America can get the good stuff too, but elsewhere a DM 5,- of wine is as tasty as a $30.00 bottle in the states)
4) Longer history -- providing an ambience which is hard to describe to those who haven't experienced it. Of course, as noted before this can have a down side (a la' Isreal/Palistine, India/Pakistan, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.)
5) Better mass transit -- cars tend to cost more, but the average person has more mobility for less money in many other places than the States.
6) Better encryption laws -- most places don't persue foolish policies of trying to legislate activities outside of their own boarders. Ditto for patent laws, despite Waasenaar's efforts to the contrary.
7) Lack of Superpower Status -- sometimes it is so nice to reside in a place that isn't perpetually belligerant.
8) People are good -- for the most part.
Cons to living anywhere on Earth:
1) A small minority of loud-mouthed idiots wax selfrighteous about how their country/society/way of doing things is inherently superior to that of the rest of the planet.
2) The population is raging out of control and we're all gonna die anyway.
Seriously, though, it behooves you to get out more and investigate the alternatives, rather than simply spewing the propogandistic dogma we've had drilled into us since childhood. You'll be very pleasantly surprised at what you find out there.
It is nice to see some governments gracefully admit their mistakes and move on, in contrast to others which pass ever more draconian legistlation in an effort to tame the free thought that is expressed on-line. Hopefully we'll be seeing more stories like this one in the months ahead (well, one can always dream).
The logical consiquences of this development is that our entire food supply will ultimately be non-self sustaining and dependent from season to season on whatever corporations hold the patents to the genetic code of the food in question. Any glitch in this system, whether it be economic, logistical, or geopolitical, could well make the potato famine in Ireland look like a picnic. We are, quite simply, looking at our own extinction. Something like this is IMHO far more likely to be the cause than nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare, or indeed catostrophic ecological failure (although one could argue that this would merely be the catalyst to such a failure, rather than the underlying 'cause'). One thing is certain: if our entire food supply becomes dependent on products using "Terminator Technology", sooner or later something will happen to interrupt the smooth mechanations of such a system, and at that time humanity will starve en masse, quite probably to extinction. Daniel Quinne has written some excellent books on what is already wrong with our agricultural system and what the consiquences will be if it continues to remain unchecked. His books "Ishmael" and "The Story of B" should be required reading for anyone interested in seeing the species continue for another generation or two. Any doubts as to the validity of his theories, particularly his comments on "locking up the food supply" to coerce cultural and behavioral change, have just been dispelled by this development.