On behalf of Mel Brooks and his lawyers, we respectfully request that you to cease and desist from using that name. Failure to comply will result in your being "detained" indefinitely in Git'mo.
In the city I live in, Portland, Oregon, we only have one cable provider. And I know they were considering making changes, but in the past it was not permitted to have more than one cable provider.
Sounds like a common carrier to me.
Nearly all cities have only one cable company.
Also, I believe it is the City that owns the infrastructure in Portland, and the cable company (AT&T) leases it.
No they do not have the right to our personal information.
I suppose companies can "demand", ie ask for information, and refuse services to people who refuse to give out private info. Just as we can respond to this by telling them to shove it.
But on the other hand, MS is a monopoly. And this would be yet another abuse of that monopoly.
And on yet another hand, since this person paid for a service I wonder if it is breach of contract for MS to require Passport after the fact.
Getting off topic, at least in relation to this comment, but when I was reading the article in question I was thinking of a world where Microsoft rules.
Considering the way that Microsoft software "works", I think our world would be like that of Brazil.
Improved filtering is definately needed, but I do think we need SOME laws.
The laws need to give individuals and business (especially ISPs) legal procedure to take civil action. And this should not be content based, but rather laws against Fraud as well as damages, like spammers mailbombing an ISP, intentional or not.
Most spam is fraud so it is not neccessary to get into content based censorship, and therefore this is not a violation of the first amendment. And because the government does not, at least not officially, support fraud, it is not a violation of interstate commerce.
If spammers would use consistant email addresses and domains it would be a lot easier to filter them.....
but then again, a nice feature to an email program would be to have a nice list, and only stuff in the nice list gets in the main INBOX, and just one keyboard click to add someone to the nice list when reading a message.....
But we still need to be able to fight back against fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
On behalf of Mel Brooks and his lawyers, we respectfully request that you to cease and desist from using that name. Failure to comply will result in your being "detained" indefinitely in Git'mo.
Great!
I/we are surrounded by assholes!
I guess it is springtime for lawyers.
Central Control may have killed napster.
But they'll never get moose and squirrel!
In the city I live in, Portland, Oregon, we only have one cable provider. And I know they were considering making changes, but in the past it was not permitted to have more than one cable provider.
Sounds like a common carrier to me.
Nearly all cities have only one cable company.
Also, I believe it is the City that owns the infrastructure in Portland, and the cable company (AT&T) leases it.
No they do not have the right to our personal information.
I suppose companies can "demand", ie ask for information, and refuse services to people who refuse to give out private info. Just as we can respond to this by telling them to shove it.
But on the other hand, MS is a monopoly. And this would be yet another abuse of that monopoly.
And on yet another hand, since this person paid for a service I wonder if it is breach of contract for MS to require Passport after the fact.
I had the same idea.
Overload them with useless information....
"Do you have a television handy?" --Doctor Who
Getting off topic, at least in relation to this comment, but when I was reading the article in question I was thinking of a world where Microsoft rules.
:)
Considering the way that Microsoft software "works", I think our world would be like that of Brazil.
Although Sneakers is a good movie too
Improved filtering is definately needed, but I do think we need SOME laws.
The laws need to give individuals and business (especially ISPs) legal procedure to take civil action. And this should not be content based, but rather laws against Fraud as well as damages, like spammers mailbombing an ISP, intentional or not.
Most spam is fraud so it is not neccessary to get into content based censorship, and therefore this is not a violation of the first amendment. And because the government does not, at least not officially, support fraud, it is not a violation of interstate commerce.
If spammers would use consistant email addresses and domains it would be a lot easier to filter them.....
but then again, a nice feature to an email program would be to have a nice list, and only stuff in the nice list gets in the main INBOX, and just one keyboard click to add someone to the nice list when reading a message.....
But we still need to be able to fight back against fraud.
I understand your point, but if McDonalds sells more food than any other company, does that make them the best restaraunts in the world?
Maybe a poor analogy, so here is another question, does that mean they have done the most to end world hunger?
Also maybe a poor analogy, but it gives as much to think about as the Mundie speach in question.