That's kindof what I expected. As your other comment to me illustrated, you are capable of making your point. You just didn't do it with that original sentence.
Fair enough. However, my incredibly vague statement means something specific to me. I realize this is kindof Tweedle-dee-ish. My point is that the conservatives are attempting to destroy the government's ability to function. All branches of the government. For example, weakening the military is good for them because then they can funnel money to contractors to do what the military has no resources for.
Unfortunately, the book is not, as they claim, "the antidote to the last forty years of conservative dominance of the national public policy debate". It does describes the problem very well, and describes a few solutions. But it's not like we're back in the game now.
In public statements and in its 2004/9/1 SEC 10-k mandatory legal filing, Microsoft calls open source projects like Apache the second greatest profitability concern behind a weak global economy. Yet Microsoft doesn't "get" why their profitability is imperiled by a movement that their Chairman called a group of "communists."
Maybe Chairman Bill doesn't "get" it because he's too busy answering press calls about his generosity in donating his billions to them poor brown people over there.
If I wanted to get modded up quickly, I wouldn't have said "theo-fascist corporatist". It makes me sound like I'm foaming at the mouth. But if I hadn't said it, it wouldn't have been as honest. And sometimes I am foaming at the mouth.
What a brilliant example of farsightedness on behalf of the Bush administration; or better, a brilliant example of the lack thereof.:-(
You're wrong. This is a true example of the farsightedness of the Bush administration. They have progressives beat by leaps and bounds. Their long term goal is the destruction of all parts of the federal government that do not help their theo-fascist corporatist goals.
What do you think they were hoping for when they gave us tax breaks and massive budget deficits? This. This is what they were hoping for. Now we have a fiscal problem where none existed before, and must destroy valuable federal programs. This is their long term plan coming to fruition. Social security, medicare, and welfare are all going to die, and it's not because they're too expensive.
They also have a long term plan to stop individuals from using the court system. They do this for two reasons. One, they want less accountability for corporations, and second, because the lawyers that work for these individuals are some of the most significant donors to the Democratic party in Texas. So they can simultaneously destroy corporate accountability and the Democratic party in Texas.
The Bush administration is way, way more farsighted than you think. They just have different goals than you do. You want a stronger America. What do they want?
The linked article seems to conflate copyright and trademark. I imagine this is a trademark dispute, not copyright. I don't think you can copyright anything as simple as a name.
Link exchange has been around longer than Google or even Yahoo. Back in the day, it was the only way to string together the fifteen crappy little personal homepages on the web.
Since there are reasons for link exchange outside of gaming your pagerank (inane as they may be), I can't imagine Google considering that spamming.
Awesome. Now if you can tell me why Firefox won't start on my machine...
Re:One hack I want
on
Firefox Hacks
·
· Score: 5, Informative
That's a different problem. Internet explorer won't allow you to submit a password in the URL anymore either.
The reason your intranet works for everyone on IE is because IE supports Windows integrated security. It can tell that you are who you say you are because your machine is joined to the Windows domain.
Sure, but in this case Legend of Mir, Inc. (whoever) owns all the files, and nobody accessed any of those files illegally.
The police can't do anything for the theft victim, because we couldn't even invent laws to make this illegal. The company that owns the game probably wouldn't do anything for the "victim" because he gave away the item.
Having been at the receiving end of one too many spurious lawsuit, whose goal was simply to disrupt and blackmail, and where winning brought no satisfaction nor gain, I feel my opinion is based on something pretty solid.
Huh. To me, that sounds personal and emotional and not solid.
I will defend their right to send email to Microsoft users so long as this is within the law
But it isn't within the law. The CAN-SPAM act makes it actionable if spammers don't follow certain guidelines.
This lawsuit is simply about using legal weight to bully.
Legal weight and the CAN-SPAM act. Bullying someone that did them harm. So yeah, we're on the same page.
I'd explain why but the margin is too small to hold my notes...
Ahahaha. Now I've spilled single-malt scotch all over my tweed jacket.
Spam solvable? OK, solve it. Whatever technique you develop, people will find a way around it. Forever.
Notice how I didn't say quickly or cheaply. I said the opposite. SPF & web-of-trust would eliminate spam. Even if SPF hits no new roadblocks, it will be a costly and slow process. The issue isn't that there are no technical solutions.
I do not like watching Microsoft (or any wealthy entity) using the courts as a weapon. Period.
You're an idiot. If one entity wrongs another, the victim (wealthy or not) should be able to "use the court as a weapon". Or do you think we should abolish civil courts and leave everything up to criminal justice?
First, corporations should not be attempting to lay down the law. The legality or not of spamming is for the State to decide, and there should be criminal prosecution of those who break the law.
Who do you trust to legislate proper behavior on the internet? Tom DeLay? The UN?
This jackass has done material harm to Microsoft, by damaging the value of their webmail service. This is exactly the time and place for a civil dispute. Dunno why you're saying that Microsoft is a bully picking on someone else. Here, Microsoft is a bully beating up someone that tried to steal Microsoft's lunch money. That same jackass has stolen our lunch money in the past. Cheer 'till you lose your voice.
I don't know why you say that Spam is unsolvable by technical means. It's absolutely solvable by technical means, but those technical means will take huge amounts of time and money.
Why is it that a website that proclaims itself the bastion of all things FOSS has languished in mediocrity while thousands of competent coders are practically begging to write this feature into the site's backend?
We don't have to beg. We can just submit a patch to slashcode.
What basis, imminent domain? Ignoring the possibility that this is a very bad idea, it doesn't sound like the ITU has figured out a way to wiggle its fingers into internet governance that doesn't involve obvious usurpations of other people's power. They'd like very much to determine who gets what IPv6 space, but... how?
Funny how all the discussion here on/. is 100% anti-UN & anti-PRC horsepucky, while it's clear that the ITU discussion in the UN is 100% anti-US horsepucky. It's upsetting that this debate will obviously not be won on technical merits.
Dunno what university IT departments "tend" to do, but mine was very adamant that all use of the network was acceptable unless it violated their very limited TOS. It was pages long, but it amounted to: Don't break the law; Don't prevent other uses of the network; Don't harass.
As a computer lab monkey, we were instructed that we were not permitted to make any decisions about how users could or could not use the computers, so long as they were not causing damage and were not violating the TOS. Most importantly, users were not to be prevented from viewing obscene material. They didn't trust a computer lab monkey to decide whether a peice of art is obscene.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. However, my incredibly vague statement means something specific to me. I realize this is kindof Tweedle-dee-ish. My point is that the conservatives are attempting to destroy the government's ability to function. All branches of the government. For example, weakening the military is good for them because then they can funnel money to contractors to do what the military has no resources for.
Ok, even after you suggested that it was satire, I still don't get it. Satire how? Sarcastic how?
If you'd like a few more angles, read Don't Think of an Elephant. The book is mostly just a collection of the Rockridge Institute's essays, so it's a little repetitive. It's shorter than Moral Politics, which should be better, but I've never read it.
Unfortunately, the book is not, as they claim, "the antidote to the last forty years of conservative dominance of the national public policy debate". It does describes the problem very well, and describes a few solutions. But it's not like we're back in the game now.
If I wanted to get modded up quickly, I wouldn't have said "theo-fascist corporatist". It makes me sound like I'm foaming at the mouth. But if I hadn't said it, it wouldn't have been as honest. And sometimes I am foaming at the mouth.
What do you think they were hoping for when they gave us tax breaks and massive budget deficits? This. This is what they were hoping for. Now we have a fiscal problem where none existed before, and must destroy valuable federal programs. This is their long term plan coming to fruition. Social security, medicare, and welfare are all going to die, and it's not because they're too expensive.
They also have a long term plan to stop individuals from using the court system. They do this for two reasons. One, they want less accountability for corporations, and second, because the lawyers that work for these individuals are some of the most significant donors to the Democratic party in Texas. So they can simultaneously destroy corporate accountability and the Democratic party in Texas.
The Bush administration is way, way more farsighted than you think. They just have different goals than you do. You want a stronger America. What do they want?
The linked article seems to conflate copyright and trademark. I imagine this is a trademark dispute, not copyright. I don't think you can copyright anything as simple as a name.
Link exchange has been around longer than Google or even Yahoo. Back in the day, it was the only way to string together the fifteen crappy little personal homepages on the web.
Since there are reasons for link exchange outside of gaming your pagerank (inane as they may be), I can't imagine Google considering that spamming.
(I'm joking.)
Yeah, brilliantly insightful.
How many homeless people do you really think are going to want to use this service!?
Or, even better, everyone in my windows domain.
Awesome. Now if you can tell me why Firefox won't start on my machine...
That's a different problem. Internet explorer won't allow you to submit a password in the URL anymore either.
The reason your intranet works for everyone on IE is because IE supports Windows integrated security. It can tell that you are who you say you are because your machine is joined to the Windows domain.
Uh, the guy who did the stabbing might have wanted his 7200 yuan. Doesn't have to relate to gaming addiction at all.
Sure, but in this case Legend of Mir, Inc. (whoever) owns all the files, and nobody accessed any of those files illegally.
The police can't do anything for the theft victim, because we couldn't even invent laws to make this illegal. The company that owns the game probably wouldn't do anything for the "victim" because he gave away the item.
Having been at the receiving end of one too many spurious lawsuit, whose goal was simply to disrupt and blackmail, and where winning brought no satisfaction nor gain, I feel my opinion is based on something pretty solid.
Huh. To me, that sounds personal and emotional and not solid.
I will defend their right to send email to Microsoft users so long as this is within the law
But it isn't within the law. The CAN-SPAM act makes it actionable if spammers don't follow certain guidelines.
This lawsuit is simply about using legal weight to bully.
Legal weight and the CAN-SPAM act. Bullying someone that did them harm. So yeah, we're on the same page.
First, corporations should not be attempting to lay down the law. The legality or not of spamming is for the State to decide, and there should be criminal prosecution of those who break the law.
Who do you trust to legislate proper behavior on the internet? Tom DeLay? The UN?
This jackass has done material harm to Microsoft, by damaging the value of their webmail service. This is exactly the time and place for a civil dispute. Dunno why you're saying that Microsoft is a bully picking on someone else. Here, Microsoft is a bully beating up someone that tried to steal Microsoft's lunch money. That same jackass has stolen our lunch money in the past. Cheer 'till you lose your voice.
I don't know why you say that Spam is unsolvable by technical means. It's absolutely solvable by technical means, but those technical means will take huge amounts of time and money.
Sorry, didn't realize.
Mod parent up.
Why is it that a website that proclaims itself the bastion of all things FOSS has languished in mediocrity while thousands of competent coders are practically begging to write this feature into the site's backend?
We don't have to beg. We can just submit a patch to slashcode.
What basis, imminent domain? Ignoring the possibility that this is a very bad idea, it doesn't sound like the ITU has figured out a way to wiggle its fingers into internet governance that doesn't involve obvious usurpations of other people's power. They'd like very much to determine who gets what IPv6 space, but... how?
/. is 100% anti-UN & anti-PRC horsepucky, while it's clear that the ITU discussion in the UN is 100% anti-US horsepucky. It's upsetting that this debate will obviously not be won on technical merits.
Funny how all the discussion here on
Dunno what university IT departments "tend" to do, but mine was very adamant that all use of the network was acceptable unless it violated their very limited TOS. It was pages long, but it amounted to: Don't break the law; Don't prevent other uses of the network; Don't harass.
As a computer lab monkey, we were instructed that we were not permitted to make any decisions about how users could or could not use the computers, so long as they were not causing damage and were not violating the TOS. Most importantly, users were not to be prevented from viewing obscene material. They didn't trust a computer lab monkey to decide whether a peice of art is obscene.