Well, I was browsing through the new.info whois, and decided to check out sex.info. Of course, it's already registered, no surprise there. However, apparently, it wasn't registered under the "Open Registration" rules, but as a trademark. Yes, boys and girls, this is what the whois info shows:
Trademark Name: SEX
Trademark Date: 2000-01-04
Trademark Country: USA
Trademark Number: 2306348
As a search on The USPTO shows, a very specific rendering of "sex" is trademarked by a Jaime M Cerrato, to be used for "games, playthings and novelty items, namely, mechanical pull toys." This trademark was used by Hera Ventures and Investments, Ltd. to register sex.info. Somehow, I doubt the only thing that site is going to be doing is selling "mechinal pull toys". Dirty trick or outright fraud? I don't know, but it's obviously abuse.
This is slightly offtopic, but I'm very disappointed...
In this system, imagine that every software component has a unique numeric address. Think of this as an IP (intellectual property?) address for software.
I would expect something like that from Salon, for example, but O'reilly?
Yes, what kind of a society would we have?
A society where people can think for themselves, where they see creativity as a virtue, where outcasts aren't driven into shooting their classmates...Those people would even question authority (Gasp!)
How horrible, indeed.
Yes, to make a society livable, you have to teach people rules at an early age. Rules, not The rules. Kids should be taught, not indoctrinated with whatever the current trend says they should be indoctrinated with.
Finally, must I remind you that most people you see on COPS did, in fact, pass trough the public education system...In fact, the only reason you might see that kid there is because the government seems to dislike anarchists, and that's what some free-(and rationally)-thinking kids tend to grow into.
I know this goes against what most slashdotters (Or at least so it seems) and I, myself, believe in - but still:
How about starting a project to develop an Open-source Free (As in beer, AND as in speech, sortof ) CIPA-compliant filtering program?
The rationale is somewhat similar to the one of the WINE project: (And don't flame me if I got this wrong, please:) ) Although on one hand it might promote and legitimize the use of filtering software, it will still not have a large impact because the use of filters is already CIPA mandated. On the other hand it will allow schools and libraries to use filtering software that will bear no added costs AND have no hidden catches.
It can either be developed for a free platform (thus also trying to increase the acceptance of GNU/Linux in educational institutions) or for win32.
If anyone is already aware of such an effort, please post a link. Otherwise, just make your opinion clear.
>> There is more than enough organization and technology in place to prevent mass abuse of spam without government intervention.
> Then why does it remain such a large problem?
Cluelessness.
>> Do we really want to vest this kind of regulatory control in a government that could potentially abuse it?
> I would much sooner entrust this control to democratically elected representatives than to trust in the judgement of the greedy, unethical people who now bombard us with spam.
You would? Really? I wouldn't.
First, they came for the spammers...
> As to my "personal efforts", I have spent about $100 in e-mail filtering software (please, save the Linux/GNU/GPL/Open Software speech for another thread).
You don't want to hear that speech? Well, then the fact you spent the 100$ is entirely problem.
> The Internet does not have to be the wild west. Laws that extend our basic sense of values into the digital domain are perfectly reasonable.
To paraphrase yourself, what fits in your basic sense of values, is "radical nut-speak" to me. I'm against spam. I don't like spam. Nobody does. But I don't want or need you to regulate it for me. I can handle it. And if you can't - again, that is entirely YOUR problem, and doesn't give you the right to regulate MY email.
What led you to believe that it wasn't? In which nation would you prefer to have spent time in before WWII? Americans enjoyed a higher standard of living, higher per capita income, and more freedom than most Europeans did, with the added bonus that we weren't ravaged by war every decade or so.
You ARE aware of the fact that the highest standard of living in the world, in the late twenties and early thirties was in fact in The USSR, right? And no, I'm not a communist. I'm just saying Pre-WWII standards of living prove nothing.
Well, at least it's not as bad as it is over here in Israel. The Cable companies, and Bezeq (The local telco monopoly) are locked in a legal battle with eachother and the Min. Of Comm, that doesn't allow either to start rolling out broadband services, although the infrastructure is almost ready. (More than a half of Israel's population are centered in and around three major cities, which are placed about 60km from eachother, so the high population density allows pretty cheap setups.)
Furthermore, although the government was promising to sort this issue out for at least a year now, it's unable to intervene simply because there are more pressing issues at this moment. (Read all about it on CNN)
All of this basically means there's probably no broadband-for-all heading our way in the next year, at least, so you people really don't have anything to whine about.
It's not 3.0 either. See, Linus is 1.0. Kid #1 is Linus 2.0. Kid #2 is Linus 2.1. GrandKid #1 is Linus 3.0.
Shame on you. Are you suggesting she's unstable?
So Kaplan is simply picking and choosing inappropriate precedents (e.g. re public airwaves) to bolster his pro-industry prejudice, and ignoring more recent and relevant precedent (albeit in different circuits) which contradict his position.
What are you blabbering about?
PRECEDENT, n. In Law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases. As there are precedents for everything, he has only to ignore those that make against his interest and accentuate those in the line of his desire. Invention of the precedent elevates the trial-at-law from the low estate of a fortuitous ordeal to the noble attitude of a dirigible arbitrament.
From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993)
Yes, rejecting all traffic from ISPs of that size IS possible. Ever heard of the Usenet Death Penalty? Those were applied to a lot of major ISPs and backbone providers, inculding, as it appears, PSI. The same is possible for all net traffic. So how do we fight this? Talk to your ISP's/uplink's friendly sysadmin.
From "Why Software Should Be Free" by RMS: ...Later Xerox gave the AI lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a separate dedicated computer, so
we couldn't add any of our favorite features...
No...not another FSF!;)
Sure, record companies exploit artists, but if you don't pay for your music...you have absolutely no right to go steal that music and pay nothing.
Don't I? If we assume the actions of the record companies are indeed immoral, there's a simple (although imperfect) analogy - slavery. Let's just replace "label" with slave-owner, "music" with slaves, and "artists" with slave-labor (Yes, it's reversed). Oh, and replace with "steal" with free, of course.
Sure, the slave owners are exploiting slave labor, but hey, they do feed the slaves a bit, and if you rob that labor away from the slave holders by freeing the slaves, you'll be hurting the slaves - they obviously can't exist without their masters. After all, they need a place to live and something to eat. And anyway, although what the slavers are doing is immoral, the slaves are their property, and you have no right to free them.
Yes, I know the comparison is very imperfect, but it is somewhat valid - and is that Really what you wanted to say in your post?
Actually, I know that from experience - my last screen, (A no-name 14") broke down at some point. For some reason, my screen became an RG one.
Now, fixing it obviously wasn't worth it, but i didn't want to buy a new one yet, and besdies, if i really needed the blue, I could just smack the screen hard, and it would usually get back on for about 5 minutes. But, a large portion of the time , I had just green and red. Ok, now couple that with the fact i'm partially red-green colorblind. But, it was sortof cute, really. Reminded me of those green CGA screens.
Anyway, point is - you can still use the screen after the 1000 hours, if you REALLY want to.
...and placing a code on the user's computer to prevent anyone from using that computer to access Napster
Hm, Is it just me or is anybody else offended/appaled/experiencing any random negative emotion at the suggestion unauthorized registry changes that stick even after a program is uninstalled (And, as far as i know, uninstallation at least partly voids the liscence) are a Good Thing or at the very least, legal?
IANAL, and i hadn't even read the liscence ( *gasp* ), but i'm still quite sure it's neither. After all, I do not think i've ever granted napster the right to commit any permanent action regarding my computer. Besides, this so-called protection scheme relies on napster users usually not being able to understand what exactly happened, partly due to Napster not notifying them that it changed their registry and, once they figured that out, to its sometimes rather cryptic nature (Just as MS intended it). I think this affair violates several of my rights, or perhaps even Microsoft's rights;) (Who exactly owns my windows registry anyway?)
And yes, perhaps I am beating a dead horse here, but something should be done about that as well. Recent discussions proved once again even organizations that benefit the community aren't immune to criticism (FSF), and perhaps even to harsher measures, may it be community pressure or legal action of some sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I was browsing through the new .info whois, and decided to check out sex.info. Of course, it's already registered, no surprise there. However, apparently, it wasn't registered under the "Open Registration" rules, but as a trademark. Yes, boys and girls, this is what the whois info shows:
Trademark Name: SEX
Trademark Date: 2000-01-04
Trademark Country: USA
Trademark Number: 2306348
As a search on The USPTO shows, a very specific rendering of "sex" is trademarked by a Jaime M Cerrato, to be used for "games, playthings and novelty items, namely, mechanical pull toys." This trademark was used by Hera Ventures and Investments, Ltd. to register sex.info. Somehow, I doubt the only thing that site is going to be doing is selling "mechinal pull toys". Dirty trick or outright fraud? I don't know, but it's obviously abuse.
Umm, no.
That's 1 point for a win, 1/2 for a tie, 0 for a loss.
*Beeep* Wrong.
There's something called "Planck units", which are not arbitrary at all.
For further reference, Take a look here, or try Google.
Uhh, it's obvious YOU didn't read the article.
That was my point...the (Intellectual property?) thing was THEIRS, not mine.
This is slightly offtopic, but I'm very disappointed...
In this system, imagine that every software component has a unique numeric address. Think of this as an IP (intellectual property?) address for software.
I would expect something like that from Salon, for example, but O'reilly?
Yes, what kind of a society would we have?
A society where people can think for themselves, where they see creativity as a virtue, where outcasts aren't driven into shooting their classmates...Those people would even question authority (Gasp!)
How horrible, indeed.
Yes, to make a society livable, you have to teach people rules at an early age. Rules, not The rules. Kids should be taught, not indoctrinated with whatever the current trend says they should be indoctrinated with.
Finally, must I remind you that most people you see on COPS did, in fact, pass trough the public education system...In fact, the only reason you might see that kid there is because the government seems to dislike anarchists, and that's what some free-(and rationally)-thinking kids tend to grow into.
I know this goes against what most slashdotters (Or at least so it seems) and I, myself, believe in - but still: :) ) Although on one hand it might promote and legitimize the use of filtering software, it will still not have a large impact because the use of filters is already CIPA mandated. On the other hand it will allow schools and libraries to use filtering software that will bear no added costs AND have no hidden catches.
How about starting a project to develop an Open-source Free (As in beer, AND as in speech, sortof ) CIPA-compliant filtering program?
The rationale is somewhat similar to the one of the WINE project: (And don't flame me if I got this wrong, please
It can either be developed for a free platform (thus also trying to increase the acceptance of GNU/Linux in educational institutions) or for win32.
If anyone is already aware of such an effort, please post a link. Otherwise, just make your opinion clear.
>> There is more than enough organization and technology in place to prevent mass abuse of spam without government intervention.
> Then why does it remain such a large problem?
Cluelessness.
>> Do we really want to vest this kind of regulatory control in a government that could potentially abuse it?
> I would much sooner entrust this control to democratically elected representatives than to trust in the judgement of the greedy, unethical people who now bombard us with spam.
You would? Really? I wouldn't.
First, they came for the spammers...
> As to my "personal efforts", I have spent about $100 in e-mail filtering software (please, save the Linux/GNU/GPL/Open Software speech for another thread).
You don't want to hear that speech? Well, then the fact you spent the 100$ is entirely problem.
> The Internet does not have to be the wild west. Laws that extend our basic sense of values into the digital domain are perfectly reasonable.
To paraphrase yourself, what fits in your basic sense of values, is "radical nut-speak" to me. I'm against spam. I don't like spam. Nobody does. But I don't want or need you to regulate it for me. I can handle it. And if you can't - again, that is entirely YOUR problem, and doesn't give you the right to regulate MY email.
What led you to believe that it wasn't? In which nation would you prefer to have spent time in before WWII? Americans enjoyed a higher standard of living, higher per capita income, and more freedom than most Europeans did, with the added bonus that we weren't ravaged by war every decade or so.
You ARE aware of the fact that the highest standard of living in the world, in the late twenties and early thirties was in fact in The USSR, right? And no, I'm not a communist. I'm just saying Pre-WWII standards of living prove nothing.
Well, at least it's not as bad as it is over here in Israel. The Cable companies, and Bezeq (The local telco monopoly) are locked in a legal battle with eachother and the Min. Of Comm, that doesn't allow either to start rolling out broadband services, although the infrastructure is almost ready. (More than a half of Israel's population are centered in and around three major cities, which are placed about 60km from eachother, so the high population density allows pretty cheap setups.)
Furthermore, although the government was promising to sort this issue out for at least a year now, it's unable to intervene simply because there are more pressing issues at this moment. (Read all about it on CNN)
All of this basically means there's probably no broadband-for-all heading our way in the next year, at least, so you people really don't have anything to whine about.
It's not 3.0 either. See, Linus is 1.0. Kid #1 is Linus 2.0. Kid #2 is Linus 2.1. GrandKid #1 is Linus 3.0.
Shame on you. Are you suggesting she's unstable?
So Kaplan is simply picking and choosing inappropriate precedents (e.g. re public airwaves) to bolster his pro-industry prejudice, and ignoring more recent and relevant precedent (albeit in different circuits) which contradict his position.
;)
What are you blabbering about?
PRECEDENT, n. In Law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases. As there are precedents for everything, he has only to ignore those that make against his interest and accentuate those in the line of his desire. Invention of the precedent elevates the trial-at-law from the low estate of a fortuitous ordeal to the noble attitude of a dirigible arbitrament.
From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993)
Who's smart now?
Yes, rejecting all traffic from ISPs of that size IS possible. Ever heard of the Usenet Death Penalty? Those were applied to a lot of major ISPs and backbone providers, inculding, as it appears, PSI. The same is possible for all net traffic. So how do we fight this? Talk to your ISP's/uplink's friendly sysadmin.
The use in RFC521 was not unique.
From RFC691:
"430 430 Foo, you are a password hacker!"
From "Why Software Should Be Free" by RMS:
...Later Xerox gave the AI lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a separate dedicated computer, so
we couldn't add any of our favorite features...
;)
No...not another FSF!
...Let's rewrite the Linux kernel in Pascal!
Sure, record companies exploit artists, but if you don't pay for your music...you have absolutely no right to go steal that music and pay nothing.
Don't I? If we assume the actions of the record companies are indeed immoral, there's a simple (although imperfect) analogy - slavery. Let's just replace "label" with slave-owner, "music" with slaves, and "artists" with slave-labor (Yes, it's reversed). Oh, and replace with "steal" with free, of course.
Sure, the slave owners are exploiting slave labor, but hey, they do feed the slaves a bit, and if you rob that labor away from the slave holders by freeing the slaves, you'll be hurting the slaves - they obviously can't exist without their masters. After all, they need a place to live and something to eat. And anyway, although what the slavers are doing is immoral, the slaves are their property, and you have no right to free them.
Yes, I know the comparison is very imperfect, but it is somewhat valid - and is that Really what you wanted to say in your post?
Now, now, a screen without blue isn't that bad ;)
Actually, I know that from experience - my last screen, (A no-name 14") broke down at some point. For some reason, my screen became an RG one.
Now, fixing it obviously wasn't worth it, but i didn't want to buy a new one yet, and besdies, if i really needed the blue, I could just smack the screen hard, and it would usually get back on for about 5 minutes. But, a large portion of the time , I had just green and red. Ok, now couple that with the fact i'm partially red-green colorblind. But, it was sortof cute, really. Reminded me of those green CGA screens.
Anyway, point is - you can still use the screen after the 1000 hours, if you REALLY want to.
Hm, Is it just me or is anybody else offended/appaled/experiencing any random negative emotion at the suggestion unauthorized registry changes that stick even after a program is uninstalled (And, as far as i know, uninstallation at least partly voids the liscence) are a Good Thing or at the very least, legal?
IANAL, and i hadn't even read the liscence ( *gasp* ), but i'm still quite sure it's neither. After all, I do not think i've ever granted napster the right to commit any permanent action regarding my computer. Besides, this so-called protection scheme relies on napster users usually not being able to understand what exactly happened, partly due to Napster not notifying them that it changed their registry and, once they figured that out, to its sometimes rather cryptic nature (Just as MS intended it). I think this affair violates several of my rights, or perhaps even Microsoft's rights
And yes, perhaps I am beating a dead horse here, but something should be done about that as well. Recent discussions proved once again even organizations that benefit the community aren't immune to criticism (FSF), and perhaps even to harsher measures, may it be community pressure or legal action of some sort.