This is not Intel's fault; this is the law's fault. The law states that if a trademark holder does not do everything to prevent dilution of its trademark, then its rights to the trademark will be revoked -- i.e. Intel may not give a rat's ass about Yoga Inside, but they have to cover their ass legally and fight it anyway, just so the court can tell them it's BS. If they don't, someone else can intentionally infringe their trademark and point to Yoga Inside and say the trademark's already been diluted. Fight the law, don't make Intel the scapegoat.
Thank you - I had feared there would be no opposition on/. to the inane, knee-jerk idea that smartcards == bad. People, lets get some perspective here. Now I admit, Totalitarian China having ID cards probably isn't the best thing for the people, but being able to easily access all your information isn't a bad thing - it sure beats the hell about having a 5-inch thick wallet from my driver's license, library card, credit card, check card, aclu membership card, pfaw membership card, etc etc. Think to every sci-fi series you've ever seen. In every one of them, all of a person's records were available in a few seconds - with the right authorization. The key, of course, is that generally it's not some large monoplistic corporation like Microsoft, but the government. People in the future are NOT going to carry around fifty billion cards - these smart cards are the future. Resisting will only delay the inevitable.
Actually, building a massive internet backbone in India is a really bad idea for two reasons: 1) India needs cheap, regular phone service first. I don't know if much has changed in five years, but last time I was there (not in a big city, mind you, but not exactly out in the boonies.. Udupi, Karnataka, near Mandgalore.. if that means anything to you) but local phone calls weren't cheap and you only made STD (long-distance) calls if you were an important businessman. And the sound quality wasnt good enough to support 9.6kbps. 2) India needs reliable elctricity! I know this one still holds true, I recently read something about the average electricity in India being 8 hours a day. I remember not being able to sleep cause the mill next to us would have to turn on its diesel generators every other night Once India gets these acts together, then it should worry about getting a huge Internet network.. basics first, guys..
large numbers of minors, and others, are present in an improperly supervised environment.
a lot of kids my age around here tend to frequent borders and starbucks, i guess they'll have to close those places down, too..
It has been established that gang members frequent such establishments
$10 says 'gang members' == quake/halflife/ut/etc clan members
whens the last time you saw a gangsta brotha from the hood sit down for a nice long game of quake?:p
uh
how about you learn what youre talking about
specifically people of 'untouchable caste' in india not having any real rights
if you had the slightest inkling of what you were talking about, you would know that rather than have no rights, they infact have been given _more_ rights than other people, in the most foul extension of the american affirmative action system
in the future, please keep your ass shut and speak only out of your mouth
thank you.
Re:You /. people really like the word "monopoly"
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 1
The myth that captalism leads to monopoly is utter and complete nonsense, and dangerous indeed. In every case, monopoly power can be traced to some form of govenrment protection.
No, capitalism does not necessarily inherently lead to monopoly (although it can, and once it does, it takes government intervention to break it up). But almost to a person every advocate of "pure" capitalism who has influence (i.e. everyone in politics rather than academics) actually advocates protectionism and a broker-state. Consider the railroads of the mid-1800s -- near-monopolies that were incredibly heavily subsidized by the government, in an era that was probably the peak of classic liberalism.
And for a very good example of a monopoly that arose through old-fashioned capitalism and not government protection, just look at everyone's favorite company, Microsoft.
actually, that does bring up a valid point:
NASA built a portable trap to store antimatter. It hopes to use the device to someday transport the volatile material to a rocket launch site. as an armchair physicist knowing that if matter and antimatter collide, there'll be a massive exploision (understatement), i gotta wonder.. how the fuck are they storing antimatter? magnetics? is antimatter affected by magnetism?
yeah, this really is sweet
i currently have windows on another partition just so i can play games
if this is the real thing, i could be 100% windows-free on my box
which is a imo a Very Good Thing(tm)
i dont think you get my point..
yeah, sending 32k emails (note: to individual people, not a mailbomb type deal) is not the best way to get your point across
but its the principle, not the case
once you allow any type of legislation on the internet, you allow more or less ALL legislation
and furthermore, legislation you like has a great chance of being used against you
sort of related to that tired old ben franklin quote about sacrificing a little liberty to obtain temporary security..
from the article:
The court ruled Hamidi's e-mails basically amounted to trespassing.
"We were very pleased. Our view is that this was the equivalent of spam," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy says.
this is basically an offshoot of the spam laws -- those very same ones which/.ers tend to hail and celebrate. in a post to a story about spam laws, i predicted something like this, and here it is. the general slashdot attitude toward internet legislation must apply at all times: keep your laws off the internet. even when the laws are about spam. otherwise, shit like this happens.
ah.. no.. incorrect.
through the years the supreme court has been extremely liberal about free speech, and the definition of speech is incredibly wide
and the constitution is, as one chief justice famously said, what the supreme court says it is
consider: the definition of speech includes monetary contribution to political parties and PACs
but of course, there are two types of speech, with a political/ideological intent or objective speech
and its possible the spammers might fall into the latter, much-less-protected category (objective speech has much less freedom)
but if they can ever show that their intent is political, they are protected under the 1st amendment
this post is probably a karma martyr, but i have always been perplexed by this disparity in the/. attitude toward spam vs the general/. attitude toward other internet legislation
i mean, most of the time, the attitude that i see here is 'keep your laws off the internet'
this statement i agree with 100%, for more or less all the reasons that the statement is made
but suddenly when the topic of spam legislation is broached, the attitude suddenly changes to 'criminal penalities for those fuckers! yeah!'
i hate spam as much as the next guy, but i think there's some sort of hypocrisy involved when you purportedly disagree with regulation of the internet -- oh, except for spam, because spam sucks. im not trying to troll, i swear -- dont mod me down, reply instead, address my concerns..
1) stop arguing about politics; the republicans have taken over and there's no stopping them
2) stop trying to lose weight; its not gonna happen
3) stop trying to have a love life; its not gonna happen (see #2 for details)
4) stop hoping to get into my #1 college; ill get rejected, just like i got deferred
ah.. dude..
its a beautiful thing
all that happened and i actually got a girlfriend..
oh, a couple of other things: pigs flew, and satan got pneumonia
really..
i can think of one winner:
P2P
napster dies and P2P explodes, and since then its had huge corporate investment from the likes of IBM and Cisco
you see P2P everything nowadays, and not least media-exchange clients
funny thing, that you should mention wordperfect. wordperfect was the other one i tried, and it didnt work either
pissed me right off.. oh well, now its all OSS and itll stay that way >:)
i hear a lot about openoffice or abiword or other open-source office replacements, and the only problem common to them all is that migrating from office formats to their formats is a bitch. i know this from cruel experience, i used to work for a small group that did its newsletter in ms word's.doc format, and when i became editor i moved it all to opensource software. NONE of the alternatives, (abiword or staroffice, on which openoffice is based) would open the.doc correctly
staroffice came close, abiword did a decent job, but the problem was always the images and the tables -- the images would always either get mangled or not show up at all, and the tables were never correctly rendered
i ended up rewriting the entire template in abiword, but no one who cares more about getting the job done than promoting opensource would bother..
couple points:
yes, osx isn't unix, but neither is linux or *bsd, technically. osx is comprised of a *bsd (darwin) with a few of apple's layers (aqua, cocoa, etc) running on top of it
yeah, there's no x-server, but it is a binary that runs on bsd, which means that atleast on bsd you could probably write some sort of wrapper to make it run in gtk or qt. i dont know about linux-bsd binary compatibility though.
the really sad part, of course, is that when the white house got wind of all those Code Red machines aimed at them, they changed their IP and moved their webserver to linux -- the one and only time i have ever considered that someone in washington may actually *gasp* have a clue. then they do this, and all my hopes are dashed -- not only will their server go back to IIS, but no, no one in washington has a clue. at all. never will. *sigh* its so sad when one's dreams are dashed to bits on the rocks of reality..
yeah, its quite funny and sad that its come to the point where this is legal in frnce but in the US it would be shut down quicker than you can say 'got root'.. when i first read this i laughed out loud, realizing that the police couldnt really do anything until a system was actually compromised or something -- then i realized this was in france (where the notion of civil liberties is, in general, much more deprecated than it is here) and was quite impressed by the fact that the same standard applied there -- and then i realized that in the US, the DMCA makes this illegal now (spreading tools to circumvent security). quite a sad state of affairs when the french have more liberties than we do.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget, God has no lawyers - they all work for the Devil..
This is not Intel's fault; this is the law's fault. The law states that if a trademark holder does not do everything to prevent dilution of its trademark, then its rights to the trademark will be revoked -- i.e. Intel may not give a rat's ass about Yoga Inside, but they have to cover their ass legally and fight it anyway, just so the court can tell them it's BS. If they don't, someone else can intentionally infringe their trademark and point to Yoga Inside and say the trademark's already been diluted. Fight the law, don't make Intel the scapegoat.
Thank you - I had feared there would be no opposition on /. to the inane, knee-jerk idea that smartcards == bad. People, lets get some perspective here. Now I admit, Totalitarian China having ID cards probably isn't the best thing for the people, but being able to easily access all your information isn't a bad thing - it sure beats the hell about having a 5-inch thick wallet from my driver's license, library card, credit card, check card, aclu membership card, pfaw membership card, etc etc. Think to every sci-fi series you've ever seen. In every one of them, all of a person's records were available in a few seconds - with the right authorization. The key, of course, is that generally it's not some large monoplistic corporation like Microsoft, but the government. People in the future are NOT going to carry around fifty billion cards - these smart cards are the future. Resisting will only delay the inevitable.
"go out there, do a reality check" ?
I lived there, ya dumb fuck. Read my fucking comment before you post next time. Thank you, sit down, shut up.
Actually, building a massive internet backbone in India is a really bad idea for two reasons: .. if that means anything to you) but local phone calls weren't cheap and you only made STD (long-distance) calls if you were an important businessman. And the sound quality wasnt good enough to support 9.6kbps.
1) India needs cheap, regular phone service first. I don't know if much has changed in five years, but last time I was there (not in a big city, mind you, but not exactly out in the boonies.. Udupi, Karnataka, near Mandgalore
2) India needs reliable elctricity! I know this one still holds true, I recently read something about the average electricity in India being 8 hours a day. I remember not being able to sleep cause the mill next to us would have to turn on its diesel generators every other night
Once India gets these acts together, then it should worry about getting a huge Internet network.. basics first, guys..
oh shit!
who will port civ3?!
damn damn damn..
large numbers of minors, and others, are present in an improperly supervised environment.
:p
a lot of kids my age around here tend to frequent borders and starbucks, i guess they'll have to close those places down, too..
It has been established that gang members frequent such establishments
$10 says 'gang members' == quake/halflife/ut/etc clan members
whens the last time you saw a gangsta brotha from the hood sit down for a nice long game of quake?
uh
how about you learn what youre talking about
specifically people of 'untouchable caste' in india not having any real rights
if you had the slightest inkling of what you were talking about, you would know that rather than have no rights, they infact have been given _more_ rights than other people, in the most foul extension of the american affirmative action system
in the future, please keep your ass shut and speak only out of your mouth
thank you.
No, capitalism does not necessarily inherently lead to monopoly (although it can, and once it does, it takes government intervention to break it up). But almost to a person every advocate of "pure" capitalism who has influence (i.e. everyone in politics rather than academics) actually advocates protectionism and a broker-state. Consider the railroads of the mid-1800s -- near-monopolies that were incredibly heavily subsidized by the government, in an era that was probably the peak of classic liberalism.
And for a very good example of a monopoly that arose through old-fashioned capitalism and not government protection, just look at everyone's favorite company, Microsoft.
actually, that does bring up a valid point: .. how the fuck are they storing antimatter? magnetics? is antimatter affected by magnetism?
NASA built a portable trap to store antimatter. It hopes to use the device to someday transport the volatile material to a rocket launch site.
as an armchair physicist knowing that if matter and antimatter collide, there'll be a massive exploision (understatement), i gotta wonder
yeah, this really is sweet
i currently have windows on another partition just so i can play games
if this is the real thing, i could be 100% windows-free on my box
which is a imo a Very Good Thing(tm)
i dont think you get my point..
yeah, sending 32k emails (note: to individual people, not a mailbomb type deal) is not the best way to get your point across
but its the principle, not the case
once you allow any type of legislation on the internet, you allow more or less ALL legislation
and furthermore, legislation you like has a great chance of being used against you
sort of related to that tired old ben franklin quote about sacrificing a little liberty to obtain temporary security..
from the article:
/.ers tend to hail and celebrate. in a post to a story about spam laws, i predicted something like this, and here it is. the general slashdot attitude toward internet legislation must apply at all times: keep your laws off the internet. even when the laws are about spam. otherwise, shit like this happens.
The court ruled Hamidi's e-mails basically amounted to trespassing.
"We were very pleased. Our view is that this was the equivalent of spam," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy says.
this is basically an offshoot of the spam laws -- those very same ones which
ah.. no.. incorrect.
through the years the supreme court has been extremely liberal about free speech, and the definition of speech is incredibly wide
and the constitution is, as one chief justice famously said, what the supreme court says it is
consider: the definition of speech includes monetary contribution to political parties and PACs
but of course, there are two types of speech, with a political/ideological intent or objective speech
and its possible the spammers might fall into the latter, much-less-protected category (objective speech has much less freedom)
but if they can ever show that their intent is political, they are protected under the 1st amendment
this post is probably a karma martyr, but i have always been perplexed by this disparity in the /. attitude toward spam vs the general /. attitude toward other internet legislation
i mean, most of the time, the attitude that i see here is 'keep your laws off the internet'
this statement i agree with 100%, for more or less all the reasons that the statement is made
but suddenly when the topic of spam legislation is broached, the attitude suddenly changes to 'criminal penalities for those fuckers! yeah!'
i hate spam as much as the next guy, but i think there's some sort of hypocrisy involved when you purportedly disagree with regulation of the internet -- oh, except for spam, because spam sucks. im not trying to troll, i swear -- dont mod me down, reply instead, address my concerns..
good god they slashdotted blizzard.com
is nothing sacred..
1) stop arguing about politics; the republicans have taken over and there's no stopping them
2) stop trying to lose weight; its not gonna happen
3) stop trying to have a love life; its not gonna happen (see #2 for details)
4) stop hoping to get into my #1 college; ill get rejected, just like i got deferred
its been such a great year..
ah.. dude..
its a beautiful thing
all that happened and i actually got a girlfriend..
oh, a couple of other things: pigs flew, and satan got pneumonia
really..
i can think of one winner:
P2P
napster dies and P2P explodes, and since then its had huge corporate investment from the likes of IBM and Cisco
you see P2P everything nowadays, and not least media-exchange clients
funny thing, that you should mention wordperfect. wordperfect was the other one i tried, and it didnt work either
pissed me right off.. oh well, now its all OSS and itll stay that way >:)
i hear a lot about openoffice or abiword or other open-source office replacements, and the only problem common to them all is that migrating from office formats to their formats is a bitch. .doc format, and when i became editor i moved it all to opensource software. NONE of the alternatives, (abiword or staroffice, on which openoffice is based) would open the .doc correctly
i know this from cruel experience, i used to work for a small group that did its newsletter in ms word's
staroffice came close, abiword did a decent job, but the problem was always the images and the tables -- the images would always either get mangled or not show up at all, and the tables were never correctly rendered
i ended up rewriting the entire template in abiword, but no one who cares more about getting the job done than promoting opensource would bother..
couple points:
yes, osx isn't unix, but neither is linux or *bsd, technically. osx is comprised of a *bsd (darwin) with a few of apple's layers (aqua, cocoa, etc) running on top of it
yeah, there's no x-server, but it is a binary that runs on bsd, which means that atleast on bsd you could probably write some sort of wrapper to make it run in gtk or qt. i dont know about linux-bsd binary compatibility though.
and an old one, too
:p
right here. august 25.. gee guys, on top of your game today, huh?
the really sad part, of course, is that when the white house got wind of all those Code Red machines aimed at them, they changed their IP and moved their webserver to linux -- the one and only time i have ever considered that someone in washington may actually *gasp* have a clue. then they do this, and all my hopes are dashed -- not only will their server go back to IIS, but no, no one in washington has a clue. at all. never will. *sigh* its so sad when one's dreams are dashed to bits on the rocks of reality..
yeah, its quite funny and sad that its come to the point where this is legal in frnce but in the US it would be shut down quicker than you can say 'got root' .. when i first read this i laughed out loud, realizing that the police couldnt really do anything until a system was actually compromised or something -- then i realized this was in france (where the notion of civil liberties is, in general, much more deprecated than it is here) and was quite impressed by the fact that the same standard applied there -- and then i realized that in the US, the DMCA makes this illegal now (spreading tools to circumvent security).
quite a sad state of affairs when the french have more liberties than we do.