Re:LEGO: Not Open Source...
on
The LEGO Desk
·
· Score: 1
Maybe Legos is just an American thing. In the UK, we'd probably refer to a desk made out of Lego (i.e. collective noun, or irregular pluralisation - cf. sheep). Legos, like Hemos, just sounds a wee bit odd; the ~os ending jars.
Me, I'm happier with the +es pluralisation of words ending in o than the +s ending:
Only reason I can come up with is that the +s pluralisation tends to lead me to (think about) mispronouncing the word.(Cue for a Lin-ux / Line - ux subthread here...)
So, no, I can't deal with it. Sorry. Have to protest this one.
LEGO: Not Open Source...
on
The LEGO Desk
·
· Score: 3
LEGO have a fairly blunt attitude to the protection of their trademarks and brand... their legal rubric talks in terms of protection of "characteristic product features".
They are also dogamtic about the use of the LEGO trademark on websites- Hemos, take note, assuming you ever bother to read posts... I know this was covered well last time Lego was mentioned but, one more time, from the above linked page:
Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site
If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs".
I suppose it is too much to ask that this is the last time we'll ever see the LEGOs word on/.
Perhaps the key question is, how much energy does it take to produce liquid nitrogen; how efficient is the energy chain involved. Sure, the car is clean, but only by dint of moving the pollution back up the chain to the nitrogen liquifier.
Yes, words fail me, but whilst I have breath I'll rage against the machine
Two more BT stories, for those unconvinced that BT is a useless greedy and - in its current form - ultimately doomed entity:
A report of further delays to ADSL roll-out:BT delays ADSL again, Freeserve says it's a
'disgrace'. "BT claims it could not get enough people to take part in the trial". That is such a bullshit claim. I know tech journalists and techhies in metropolitan areas who were turned away by BT when they asked to take part in the ADSL trial. That would be the same ADSL I saw being trialled in the US in 1995.
Lest we are left in any doubt about what we are dealing in. BT made circa £4billion profits last year, equal to £66 profit per head of the UK population.
And it is still pretty much the same story. BT are such a fuckwitted company. The phrase useless bastards just does not do them justice - and, don't get me wrong, I mean their management not the techhies.
Here's what their Chairman, Iain Vallance has to say about it all, as recently as November '99, from a speech to the TMA reported by ZDNet:
In a speech designed to silence the stream of criticism BT has faced from ISPs, users and government in recent weeks over Internet access charges and rollout of ADSL, Vallance claimed BT was playing the role of a "lollipop man trying to restrain the over-exuberant children"
On ADSL services, Vallance claimed the technology was not yet "fit for purpose" and that market demand was not sufficient to justify the cost.
Finally Vallance sought to dampen enthusiasm for the Internet. Highlighting problems of privacy, viruses and legality on the Net, Vallance questioned the technology. "It is, in many ways, in its infancy and not yet fit for purpose,"
I think the point, dear heart, was wrapped up in the key phrase "our technology mills will release an artificial intelligence to succeed humanity. Given that we're a new species ourselves, this changeover may have already happened time and again on worlds across the galaxy"
And the point was... succeeded. You're dead. Your beowolf cluster lives on. It does not miss you. Indeed, it is releived you've gone.
Today's keynote address was from Michael Dell who preached the promising future of Linux. Dell discussed his company's efforts to
focus on Linux for server infrastructure. He mentioned that Dell is spending more R&D dollars on Linux than any other OS. What that
means, you can figure out. While Michael Dell energized the crowd at first, there were some tense moments when numerous audience
members berated Dell for charging a premium price for a Linux system as compared to a Windows server. He tried to avoid the issue as
best as possible, but the audience pursued the issue. Finally, he answered that people should be looking for an OS that offers applications
with the most value.
What does that last fatuous statement translate as? My translation would be "I'll say any damn thing as long as you buy my slightly overpriced machines". Yes, he's supporting Linux, but only in the most cynical way possible, by jumping on a hot PR bandwagon.
We Open Source zealots are less organised, loosely coupled, amateur babes in the woods compared to the big commercials. We'd dumpster dive if we could afford to hire the PI's; are never more happy then when we acquire a trophy such as a Halloween memo; and spend long days and evenings propogating anti-closed FUD.
although j.crew could be construed to be jcrew, and this appeared to be one factor in the decision. Another factor was that the Responent was advertising domain names for sale and had established j.crew.com as a subdomain.
In the absence of any competitors for the Crew name, jcrew versus asquatter was no contest.
Moreover, having scanned through the decisions of WIPO versus those of eResolution it strikes me that many of WIPO's cases seem more clear cut than those presented to eResolutions. I do not have the time right now to establish whether the increased market share allegation is true, but it seems the case that WIPO has always had the larger share of the market. I suspect a modicum of journalistic hubris.
We dedicated substantial company resource to considering the whole NASA thing, a couple of nights ago, on the executive conference bench of the Tanners Arms... came away wondering what exactly their motivation was... and with the conclusion that they really should give this business of folding a piece of paper in half fifty times in order to span the distance between the earth and the sun. British inventiveness, at its best...
Daisy Bhagowalia - the new.gov Doman manager, has replied to my email enquiring why the FREEDOM.GOV, FLATTAX.GOV and GOP.GOV domains were issued. Her reply was:
I am the new.gov domain manager and these names were approved by the previous manager, so I cannot say exactly what his judgement call was, but I'm sure he had good justification. Thanks, Daisy.
IMHO, that sucks. Whilst it is the case that the Office of the House Majority Leader is indeed noted in The United States Government Manual, the fact remains that Domain Names should be derived from the Agency (or in this case, Office), and only a single Domain Name should be issued per Agency/Office. So, for what it is worth, my response was:
Come off it, Daisy. If you've read RFC 2146 (and I'm sure you have) then you know there can be no way that any of the three Domains can be justified under the terms of the RFC; as such, you are somewhat abrogating your responsibility as registrar, and your response brings the.GOV domain into disrepute. If you are happy with this situation, well, then you are exercising much lower standards than I would hope would be enforced by a government registrar.
No, sorry, that was *not* an insightful comment, but a comment that deliberately missed the point.
Posix *wasn't* designed for beginners, but surely there is no reason why it should not *now* incorporate GUI aspects that enable users to access it without the need to become properrerheads; and without stopping PH's from doing how they want to do it.
There is no real excuse for elitism except for insecurity.
Freedom.gov is the website for the Office of the House Majority Leader. Where in RFC 2146 does it say that is allowed?
Okay, well, we could try the section on page 2:
"A domain name should be derived from the official name for the organization (e.g., "USDA.Gov" or "AGRICULTURE.GOV".)"
and ask how Freedom is derived from "Office of the House Majority Leader"
Or, we could try the section on page 2 which says:
"Only ONE registration and delegation shall be made for the purpose of identifying an agency"
and wonder about how Armey has wound up with Freedom.Gov and Flattax.Gov
IMHO, the same problem pertains to GOP.GOV. And, after some more digging, I find that it is nowadays nic.gov that administers your GOV namespace, and one Daisy Bhagowalia who is the Domain Registrar. Sadly, she does not seem to respond to email enquiries about why she has allowed RFC 2146 rules to be broken. Perhaps she needs more emails from others concerned with partisan pollution in that namespace.
this would be a "cool first step" in contrast with, for instance, sputnik, or the moon landing, or 1,001 other geek in space happenings over the past thirty and more years?
The UK broadsheet, The Guardian has as reasonable and balanced an editorial on the Napster Pirates / Crappy Record Industry, as a person could hope to find: here.
Slashdot Mirror
Me, I'm happier with the +es pluralisation of words ending in o than the +s ending:
Potatoes - good
Hoboes - good
Solos - not good
Legos - grim.
Only reason I can come up with is that the +s pluralisation tends to lead me to (think about) mispronouncing the word.(Cue for a Lin-ux / Line - ux subthread here...)
So, no, I can't deal with it. Sorry. Have to protest this one.
They are also dogamtic about the use of the LEGO trademark on websites- Hemos, take note, assuming you ever bother to read posts... I know this was covered well last time Lego was mentioned but, one more time, from the above linked page:
I suppose it is too much to ask that this is the last time we'll ever see the LEGOs word on /.
Jared Bobrow
Robert G. Sugarman
Jeffrey L. Kessler (there are a couple of others whose emails are not listed - I'd guess they are:
Christopher Cox
Edward Burke
Jonathan Shapiro
Why not write to them and let them know what you think their slander?. Or you could fax 'em on (650) 854-3713 or (212) 310-8007.
Perhaps the key question is, how much energy does it take to produce liquid nitrogen; how efficient is the energy chain involved. Sure, the car is clean, but only by dint of moving the pollution back up the chain to the nitrogen liquifier.
PHB^8. Ugh.
Well, there are humans and there are trolls...
Two more BT stories, for those unconvinced that BT is a useless greedy and - in its current form - ultimately doomed entity:
A report of further delays to ADSL roll-out: BT delays ADSL again, Freeserve says it's a 'disgrace' . "BT claims it could not get enough people to take part in the trial". That is such a bullshit claim. I know tech journalists and techhies in metropolitan areas who were turned away by BT when they asked to take part in the ADSL trial. That would be the same ADSL I saw being trialled in the US in 1995.
A longer ZDNet editorial on tryanny of BT
Lest we are left in any doubt about what we are dealing in. BT made circa £4billion profits last year, equal to £66 profit per head of the UK population.
Here's what their Chairman, Iain Vallance has to say about it all, as recently as November '99, from a speech to the TMA reported by ZDNet:
You'll forgive me for swearing. Words fail me.
And the point was ... succeeded. You're dead. Your beowolf cluster lives on. It does not miss you. Indeed, it is releived you've gone.
What does that last fatuous statement translate as? My translation would be "I'll say any damn thing as long as you buy my slightly overpriced machines". Yes, he's supporting Linux, but only in the most cynical way possible, by jumping on a hot PR bandwagon.
If Michael likes Linux, then our day has come; we will inherit the earth. Can I go home now please.
Why, Novell's share is about this much. According to IBM, anyway.
Its just human nature. Get over it & get into it.
In the absence of any competitors for the Crew name, jcrew versus asquatter was no contest.
Moreover, having scanned through the decisions of WIPO versus those of eResolution it strikes me that many of WIPO's cases seem more clear cut than those presented to eResolutions. I do not have the time right now to establish whether the increased market share allegation is true, but it seems the case that WIPO has always had the larger share of the market. I suspect a modicum of journalistic hubris.
Looks like Amazon's days will be numbered, then.
We dedicated substantial company resource to considering the whole NASA thing, a couple of nights ago, on the executive conference bench of the Tanners Arms ... came away wondering what exactly their motivation was ... and with the conclusion that they really should give this business of folding a piece of paper in half fifty times in order to span the distance between the earth and the sun. British inventiveness, at its best...
Her email address is daisy.bhagowalia@gsa.gov
Posix *wasn't* designed for beginners, but surely there is no reason why it should not *now* incorporate GUI aspects that enable users to access it without the need to become properrerheads; and without stopping PH's from doing how they want to do it.
There is no real excuse for elitism except for insecurity.
one of the graphs from the IBM page mantioned earlier today seems apropos (and prettier...)
Okay, well, we could try the section on page 2:
and ask how Freedom is derived from "Office of the House Majority Leader"Or, we could try the section on page 2 which says:
and wonder about how Armey has wound up with Freedom.Gov and Flattax.Gov
IMHO, the same problem pertains to GOP.GOV. And, after some more digging, I find that it is nowadays nic.gov that administers your GOV namespace, and one Daisy Bhagowalia who is the Domain Registrar. Sadly, she does not seem to respond to email enquiries about why she has allowed RFC 2146 rules to be broken. Perhaps she needs more emails from others concerned with partisan pollution in that namespace.
this would be a "cool first step" in contrast with, for instance, sputnik, or the moon landing, or 1,001 other geek in space happenings over the past thirty and more years?
Here's a standard form email ...
To: execdir@fnc.gov
Subject: RFC 2146, Freedom.gov, Flattax.gov
Sirs
You are listed in RFC 2146 as the delegated naming authority for the .GOV domain.
RFC 2146 sets out rules for naming eligibility under this domain. (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2146.txt)
I note the existence of two domains: Freedom.gov, Flattax.gov.
I should be grateful if you would:
a) Explain under which term of RFC 2146 such names have been allowed
b) Consider withdrawing these domain names if you are unable to substantiate their legitimacy in terms of either of:
B1) FIPS 95-1 - http://www.nist.gov/itl/fipspubs/fip95-1.htm
B2) US Government Manual - http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/browse-gm-99.html
yours sincerely
Could I suggest someone protests to the delegated naming authority, which is listed as:
Federal Networking Council
4001 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703) 522-6410
EMail: execdir@fnc.gov
URL: http://www.fnc.gov
.
The UK broadsheet, The Guardian has as reasonable and balanced an editorial on the Napster Pirates / Crappy Record Industry, as a person could hope to find: here.