I keep getting spammed from NSI. I did NOT ask for their marketing email and they claim that [paraphrasing] 'unauthorized use of the WHOIS db is prohibited'.
Email spam is your problem? Heavens, someone seems to think my boss lives at my house. Of course, the only place his name has anything to do with my address is my domain name. Hm.
Someone stop me before I fill out this credit card application.
But his argument for not putting books online - even books with expired copyrights - is that there is something 'mindless,' 'isolating,' 'lonely' and 'arrogant' about reading online."
What's so different about holing away in a library, sheltered from society, poring through book after book in the quest for pure knowledge? What basis does he have for this misguided double standard? Internet research is far more portable, social and interactive, so I hope he has a better argument.
Don't ever, ever call my girlfriend a Chickclicker while she is in the room with you. You'd probably have to have your foot surgically removed from your mouth.
What he said.
I'd argue that rather than dividing by genitalia, internet users can be divided more by "users" and "producers". "Chickclickers" sounds to me like a marketable subgroup of AOL users, which is just a bunch of people who use the simplest possible software to socialize. It's not just a chick thing.
On the other hand, there are men and women out there who are working to produce more interactive, powerful, cooler interfaces, software and hardware, and by lumping women into cushy "intuitive" roles completely denies their contributions as peripheral and fluff.
The "slashdot position" is that a little bit of censorship is like being a little bit pregnant. Yet the "slashdoterotti" are delighted to have censorship for spammers. Why? Spammers annoy them, porn doesn't.
Well, no.
Porn spam annoys, too.
A more logical comparison would be between, say, commercial internet sites versus spam: If I am looking for chocolate covered penguin fins, I can do a search, look for the ones with sprinkles, and either call them on the phone or cross my fingers for their secure site. If someone starts emailing me and advertising this product, however, I'd be completely annoyed, because it's wasting my bandwidth and time and disk space. Anyway, this isn't so much censorship as stopping them from stealing resources.
Junk mail isn't a big deal, but when they start tearing your trees and panelling down to make their wood pulp, then it's not censorship to stop them.
Re:More sorrow than love?
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 1
What will happen when you have to say, "We both like Quake, Slashdot, Linux, and GCC. But I'm still not going to date you".
It can't be all about sex. Wouldn't it be cool if you just happen to bump into someone with his/her/. variable toggled to "yes"? You don't have to get married, but it would make the subway ride more pleasant. You're into geneology, too? Great, exchange census indices. And yes, Quake III Arena buddies, not necessarily bed buddies. Go for it.
Let's face it, this is only a step away from making acquaintances on Usenet newsgroups -- but on Usenet noone can tell you're having a bad hair day.
You might want to acclimate your instructors by bringing in major media coverage of GPL, open source and Linux. You can do searches on CNN, New York Times, Newsweek, even USA Today, and present them with material from sources they know and trust. If your instructor has never heard of GPL, they probably won't take information "printed up off the internet" seriously, either.
ucblockhead said:Today, maps are copyrighted, and for good reason. If I go out and spend millions surveying an area so that I can print an accurate map, I should be protected by copyright. Another person shouldn't be allowed to xerox my maps and then undercut my price.
Xerox is a registered trademark. The noncopyrighted verb would be "photostat" or "photocopy."
Like "Innocent until Proven Guilty", the fifth amendment, and much of the rest of the bill of rights, anonymity is one of those things that the vast majority don't need, but those who need it need it really, really badly. If you work for a company that is about to secretly dump toxic waste, we, as a society definitely want you to be able to raise a flag without being put under threat of firing, or worse.
There is still a difference between privacy and anonymity in this example: Just because your user information *can* be found out doesn't mean it should be available to everyone.
Just to make sure whistleblowing -- even against government/police agencies -- is available, there could even be options for various ISPs: User information would not be publicly distributed or available, but it would be available to (choose one:) a federal, state or local agency under specific legal circumstances (i.e., search order, court order, etc.) If you're submitting a complaint about a local police department, register through an ISP at with a different alignment.
In fact, this could potentially help with various support groups: Violence threats made through these groups could be prosecuted even if the threatener used the "anonymous" service.
People should be held responsible for what they write, but they shouldn't have to compromise their privacy.
Then again, there is the international consideration, where the domains OUGHT to be sensitive to the fact that no everyone speaks English. Any polyglots out there care to give this some thought?
At least the romance languages have some similarities to many english words: commerce/commercia/comprar -- it all has to do with business, so the.com is pretty obvious, and when you think about just how much of the world has been exposed -- voluntarily or not -- to english, spanish, french and portuguese, it's not a big stretch to consider it universal. Edu=education, educacion. Gov is also similar.
.buy and.shop would be unusual, because comprar or something like it is more used in the other languages, and corp/inc/biz is also not obviously translated because of different corporate law designations in various countries (gmbh, S.A, S.V). Priv and fam are fairly latin-based, and so is serv.
Of course, this is all from a western european/american perspective -- I can't wait to see info from cyrillic, indo-chinese or japanese submissions.
I'm one of four defendents being sued for more money than we'll probably make in years. It's a baseless, harrassing, irritating fraud of a case, so in our countersuit, we've documented the reasons the original plaintiff is completely incorrect in her statements. We have gobs of normal paper material, but the really juicy stuff is, of course, email. Our attorney is savvy enough to understand that email can be forged and manipulated and edited, so he's going to work with the public institution's MIS department to trace through message ID info and pin these messages to the plaintif, but in the meantime, we're still basing the overwhelming meat of our defense and our counter-suit on the boring, mundane, paper details.
We'd really like to submit all the slander and dirt, but that would be gravy, and I'm pretty sure if the plaintiff tries to submit any email it, too, would not be considered primary source material.
Given the lack of progress up to this point, I figured that Andover would copyright the code, patent the moderation system (and I think it IS patentable)
I think it is patentable, and it should be patented by the Good Guys before some corporate asshole tries to become a manipulative uberjerk about it.
Excuse me? Do you think that colleges do this out of the kindness of their hearts? What do you think that tuition is for? Technology Fees? Housing Fees?
The University may cut the final check, but it's the students' dime in the end.
Well, no. Especially in state universities, like the referenced oregon state student tuition and fees pay a miniscule *fraction* of the costs of the university.
The statement would be "It's the students' 0.16 cents in the end."
I wonder what picture the original article painted of Bill Gates: Was it Q&A as well? It really looks like Bill was able to hammer home his own points before succumbing to the answer the interviewer wanted; how much of this would have shown up in a traditionally interpreted/inverted pyramid/feature article?
I haven't read a lot of current gates/MS generated media spin, but if this was what he was doing 20 years ago, I'm suprised he's not a lot more teflon now.
Online, hostile environments are driving almost every social group other than techno-savvy young white men away from coherent public discussion of technology. These men are invariably smart and skilled, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference. Are we breeding communities of impulsive and creative jerks?
Let's try something a little different:
At the gym, hostile environments are driving almost every social group other than roid raging white men away from resistance training. These men are invariably buff, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference. Are we breeding communities of impulsive and athletic jerks?
The junior high environment is driving almost every social group other than over-allowanced, undersupervised adolescent girls from coherent public discussion of what is cool. These girls are invariably knowledgeable and energetic, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference. Are we breeding communities of impulsive and overindulged jerks?
Pretty much any group of people -- random, social, task oriented, etc -- is going to offer a complete spectrum of behaviors within the group and in interaction to outsiders. This is not restricted to technology, and while obvious territorial examples are more obvious in male-specific groups, having strong opinions and working for or against the rules is not gender restricted.
Online discussion groups, mailing lists, newsgroups and web discussions -- plus chats, ircs and muds -- all develop their own mores, rules and other social determinants, all based on the participants as well as how public they are just like in the real world. If you're in a mall talking to a close friend, you're less likely to spill your guts than if you're talking to him at home or on the phone. If you're talking to a stranger, face to face, you're not going to be as rude as you might be with an anonymous call. The technology enables behaviors that were already there, but there are plenty of avenues to allow civilized discussions and an open airing of opinions.
From what I gather about the statement, it seems that the lawyers are implying that anything with the word "linux" in the domain has to be "approved" by them. At least the lawyers for the registry corp. gave that impression. If Linus doesn't defend his TM, he'd lose it, and defending his TM against a blatant money-grub is as good a time as any to flex that muscle. I suppose that if he didn't challenge a site, the approval would be implicit...
Slashdot Mirror
I keep getting spammed from NSI. I did NOT ask for their marketing email and they claim that [paraphrasing] 'unauthorized use of the WHOIS db is prohibited'.
Email spam is your problem? Heavens, someone seems to think my boss lives at my house. Of course, the only place his name has anything to do with my address is my domain name. Hm.
Someone stop me before I fill out this credit card application.
But his argument for not putting books online - even books with expired copyrights - is that there is something 'mindless,' 'isolating,' 'lonely' and 'arrogant' about reading online."
What's so different about holing away in a library, sheltered from society, poring through book after book in the quest for pure knowledge? What basis does he have for this misguided double standard? Internet research is far more portable, social and interactive, so I hope he has a better argument.
Don't ever, ever call my girlfriend a Chickclicker while she is in the room with you. You'd probably have to have your foot surgically removed from your mouth.
What he said.
I'd argue that rather than dividing by genitalia, internet users can be divided more by "users" and "producers". "Chickclickers" sounds to me like a marketable subgroup of AOL users, which is just a bunch of people who use the simplest possible software to socialize. It's not just a chick thing.
On the other hand, there are men and women out there who are working to produce more interactive, powerful, cooler interfaces, software and hardware, and by lumping women into cushy "intuitive" roles completely denies their contributions as peripheral and fluff.
Well, no.
Porn spam annoys, too.
A more logical comparison would be between, say, commercial internet sites versus spam: If I am looking for chocolate covered penguin fins, I can do a search, look for the ones with sprinkles, and either call them on the phone or cross my fingers for their secure site. If someone starts emailing me and advertising this product, however, I'd be completely annoyed, because it's wasting my bandwidth and time and disk space. Anyway, this isn't so much censorship as stopping them from stealing resources.
Junk mail isn't a big deal, but when they start tearing your trees and panelling down to make their wood pulp, then it's not censorship to stop them.
It can't be all about sex. Wouldn't it be cool if you just happen to bump into someone with his/her /. variable toggled to "yes"? You don't have to get married, but it would make the subway ride more pleasant. You're into geneology, too? Great, exchange census indices. And yes, Quake III Arena buddies, not necessarily bed buddies. Go for it.
Let's face it, this is only a step away from making acquaintances on Usenet newsgroups -- but on Usenet noone can tell you're having a bad hair day.
You might want to acclimate your instructors by bringing in major media coverage of GPL, open source and Linux. You can do searches on CNN, New York Times, Newsweek, even USA Today, and present them with material from sources they know and trust. If your instructor has never heard of GPL, they probably won't take information "printed up off the internet" seriously, either.
Xerox is a registered trademark. The noncopyrighted verb would be "photostat" or "photocopy."
Like "Innocent until Proven Guilty", the fifth amendment, and much of the rest of the bill of rights, anonymity is one of those things that the vast majority don't need, but those who need it need it really, really badly. If you work for a company that is about to secretly dump toxic waste, we, as a society definitely want you to be able to raise a flag without being put under threat of firing, or worse.
There is still a difference between privacy and anonymity in this example: Just because your user information *can* be found out doesn't mean it should be available to everyone.
Just to make sure whistleblowing -- even against government/police agencies -- is available, there could even be options for various ISPs: User information would not be publicly distributed or available, but it would be available to (choose one:) a federal, state or local agency under specific legal circumstances (i.e., search order, court order, etc.) If you're submitting a complaint about a local police department, register through an ISP at with a different alignment.
In fact, this could potentially help with various support groups: Violence threats made through these groups could be prosecuted even if the threatener used the "anonymous" service.
People should be held responsible for what they write, but they shouldn't have to compromise their privacy.
At least the romance languages have some similarities to many english words: commerce/commercia/comprar -- it all has to do with business, so the .com is pretty obvious, and when you think about just how much of the world has been exposed -- voluntarily or not -- to english, spanish, french and portuguese, it's not a big stretch to consider it universal. Edu=education, educacion. Gov is also similar.
Of course, this is all from a western european/american perspective -- I can't wait to see info from cyrillic, indo-chinese or japanese submissions.
We'd really like to submit all the slander and dirt, but that would be gravy, and I'm pretty sure if the plaintiff tries to submit any email it, too, would not be considered primary source material.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/370692.asp
I think it is patentable, and it should be patented by the Good Guys before some corporate asshole tries to become a manipulative uberjerk about it.
The University may cut the final check, but it's the students' dime in the end.
Well, no. Especially in state universities, like the referenced oregon state student tuition and fees pay a miniscule *fraction* of the costs of the university.
The statement would be "It's the students' 0.16 cents in the end."
I haven't read a lot of current gates/MS generated media spin, but if this was what he was doing 20 years ago, I'm suprised he's not a lot more teflon now.
Let's try something a little different:
At the gym, hostile environments are driving almost every social group other than roid raging white men away from resistance training. These men are invariably buff, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference. Are we breeding communities of impulsive and athletic jerks?
The junior high environment is driving almost every social group other than over-allowanced, undersupervised adolescent girls from coherent public discussion of what is cool. These girls are invariably knowledgeable and energetic, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference. Are we breeding communities of impulsive and overindulged jerks?
Pretty much any group of people -- random, social, task oriented, etc -- is going to offer a complete spectrum of behaviors within the group and in interaction to outsiders. This is not restricted to technology, and while obvious territorial examples are more obvious in male-specific groups, having strong opinions and working for or against the rules is not gender restricted.
Online discussion groups, mailing lists, newsgroups and web discussions -- plus chats, ircs and muds -- all develop their own mores, rules and other social determinants, all based on the participants as well as how public they are just like in the real world. If you're in a mall talking to a close friend, you're less likely to spill your guts than if you're talking to him at home or on the phone. If you're talking to a stranger, face to face, you're not going to be as rude as you might be with an anonymous call. The technology enables behaviors that were already there, but there are plenty of avenues to allow civilized discussions and an open airing of opinions.
From what I gather about the statement, it seems that the lawyers are implying that anything with the word "linux" in the domain has to be "approved" by them. At least the lawyers for the registry corp. gave that impression. If Linus doesn't defend his TM, he'd lose it, and defending his TM against a blatant money-grub is as good a time as any to flex that muscle. I suppose that if he didn't challenge a site, the approval would be implicit...