"Winzip" is only a trademark within Class 9 (Computer programs, electrical and scientific apparatus). It'd be perfectly legitimate to use "Win-zip" as the name for a fast window-washing service. (Sure, it's a stretch, but perfectly legal and legitimate.) The situation is comparable with the other names you've listed.
A domain name cannot be a trademark violation by itself, since there's no way of knowing what class it's in with no context. It's only if the domain is used for a commercial purpose in a misleading or confusing way that there is a potential problem.
.net wasn't for the company-related systems -- it was for the infrastructure stuff. So the web page of a backbone company would be.com -- but their routers would be.net.
It means that the case is finally decided and the matter can't be pursued in any court. There's more on Nolo (but I couldn't find the dictionary entry mentioned; perhaps I'm just up too late...).
OpenSRS (sponsored by Tucows) is probably the coolest thing out there. $10/year for a domain name ($9 of which goes to NSI). Of course, you then need to do a lot of the work yourself -- they work as a wholesaler, rather than end-user sales. Basically, they make it easy to set yourself up as a registrar. Or, do a search for "OpenSRS" and find some places using their service to do the work for you.
If you're an individual who owns a domain name, please join the Individual Domain Name Owners' constituency. Under the current structure of ICANN, this is the best way to get real representation.
The IDNO is in the process of becoming officially recognized, and needs your help. It's a very good organization, run as a true digital democracy.
Compact Flash type II currectly goes up to 320 MB. And unlike so-called SmartMedia, when larger capacities become available, you don't need to upgrade your hardware to use them.
There was a post like this last time this discussion came up, and I noticed the same thing: lots of comments on "oh no, look at the flamewar that always explodes when this comes up", and very few actual flames. (And, thanks to the moderation system, any that do happen are relegated to the bottom of the heap.)
So, I'd like to propose that next time there's a Gnome or KDE article, people just skip commenting on the theoretical but largely imaginary flamewar.
I've read all the posts here, and aside from a few (blatent, at that) trolls, I see no flamefest at all. Anything that mentions KDE is saying something like "it's nice to have both". So your DTD, while kinda cute, is also irrelevant and out-of-date.
Probably because it is an important mistake in the article. By letting misleading terminology slip into the way we talk about the case, we've already lost half the battle. The fact that everyone on/. already knows about this and it still came out that way is kinda troubling.
Look at this story from today for an example of how this would help. Maybe CmdrTaco meant to post this as a followup to the earlier articles, but he doesn't reference them and it sure looks like it's just a repeat. Now, there's people bitching about that. With a moderated queue, that complaint would come out beforehand, and if the/. editors still want to post it, they could revise the article to mention that it's an update to earlier stuff.
Moderators _are_ the human touch. All respect to Rob & Co., but they've been known to be fooled by stuff that looks authoritative too. And as the rant demonstrates, it's not really working out perfectly the current way.
Editors for the final decision is perfectly fine with me. But now, instead of looking through all the stuff they get, they'd just have to skim the top of the list. If they've got extra time, they could even look through the queue and post lower-rated stuff they find personally interesting.
I've been suggesting this for Slashdot for a long time. When I posted it to the "Ask/." interview, it was met with yelling and the response that it was covered in the FAQ. Well, no it's not. A moderated incoming queue would address all of the issues raised there (except the broken HTML, and there's simple technical fixes for that) and it would address a lot of what today's rant is about.
This may sound like one of those statements that gets put up on lists of stupid quotes 50 years later, but I believe it's true:
Only about 10% of current computer users actually want to have a computer.
Most people want information appliances. They want an extremely simple GUI and a mouse with one button. They may want to be able to change their wallpaper, but other than that, they don't want anything else to configure. They want to browse the web and write letters, papers, and memos. They want to play games. And they don't want to do anything that their info-pliance wasn't designed to do out-of-the-box.
I don't want that at all. If you're reading this, you probably don't either. I like to play with code. I like to get nifty new stuff offa freshmeat. I like to tweak my kernel config. I like pipelines. I think that, once you've passed the learning curve, command line unix is more "user-friendly" than any GUI. And I think the learning curve is worth it.
Does this mean that I think that the other 90% should be ignored? No. I just don't think that they want to be using the same product I want. We shouldn't be trying to change Linux to be an info-pliance OS. Of course, we should be trying to make it such that it can be configured that way -- Linux would make a fine core for an information appliance, and it's worthwhile to make it even better for that purpose. But we don't want the whole thing dumbed-down -- the 10% of us who really want a computer like the power and flexibility.
I think not removing data files when you uninstall is a feature, not a problem. If I uninstall a text editor, should all the text files I've created with it go away?
Number 6 at least is true by Microsoft's own specs. Check out the way kerberos support works, for example. Or the fact that they want to completely restructure your DNS scheme. Oh sure, W2k can live in a heterogeneous environment -- just make sure it's in charge of everything.
I admit I haven't been following too closely, but the build I got last week wouldn't let me drag-n-drop to reorganize my bookmarks -- or for that matter, reorganize them in any way. Am I missing something, or is this not implemented yet? (What I see on bugzilla seems to confirm that it's not there yet.) This is a pretty critical feature!
The immature people here on slashdot have very rarely coded anything at all, let alone something that makes it into a Linux distro, let alone into the kernel.
I agree in general, but I this one is very interesting. Biased poll questions are only bad if the result is reported later without the full question. But now, it's interesting to see that 20-some percent of people have seen this report and don't care about it. That sounds like pretty good news for Microsoft.
A difference in our modern system would be that the "serf class" is no longer,as you say, tied to the land but instead gets to be tacked on to the bottom of the king->duke->earl->baron->knight hierarchy. This is certainly an improvement, but as I said, it's a nitpick -- the overall system is striking analogous. And really, by the time one gets down to the bottom of the chain, there's not much left over.
Slashdot Mirror
A domain name cannot be a trademark violation by itself, since there's no way of knowing what class it's in with no context. It's only if the domain is used for a commercial purpose in a misleading or confusing way that there is a potential problem.
--
--
Theoretically, of course.
--
--
--
--
The IDNO is in the process of becoming officially recognized, and needs your help. It's a very good organization, run as a true digital democracy.
--
--
--
So, I'd like to propose that next time there's a Gnome or KDE article, people just skip commenting on the theoretical but largely imaginary flamewar.
--
--
--
--
Editors for the final decision is perfectly fine with me. But now, instead of looking through all the stuff they get, they'd just have to skim the top of the list. If they've got extra time, they could even look through the queue and post lower-rated stuff they find personally interesting.
--
--
Only about 10% of current computer users actually want to have a computer.
Most people want information appliances. They want an extremely simple GUI and a mouse with one button. They may want to be able to change their wallpaper, but other than that, they don't want anything else to configure. They want to browse the web and write letters, papers, and memos. They want to play games. And they don't want to do anything that their info-pliance wasn't designed to do out-of-the-box.
I don't want that at all. If you're reading this, you probably don't either. I like to play with code. I like to get nifty new stuff offa freshmeat. I like to tweak my kernel config. I like pipelines. I think that, once you've passed the learning curve, command line unix is more "user-friendly" than any GUI. And I think the learning curve is worth it.
Does this mean that I think that the other 90% should be ignored? No. I just don't think that they want to be using the same product I want. We shouldn't be trying to change Linux to be an info-pliance OS. Of course, we should be trying to make it such that it can be configured that way -- Linux would make a fine core for an information appliance, and it's worthwhile to make it even better for that purpose. But we don't want the whole thing dumbed-down -- the 10% of us who really want a computer like the power and flexibility.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
A difference in our modern system would be that the "serf class" is no longer,as you say, tied to the land but instead gets to be tacked on to the bottom of the king->duke->earl->baron->knight hierarchy. This is certainly an improvement, but as I said, it's a nitpick -- the overall system is striking analogous. And really, by the time one gets down to the bottom of the chain, there's not much left over.
--