"'They were accused of disguising their identities in hundreds of thousands of sales pitches and delivering e-mails by bouncing messages through unprotected relay computers on the Internet.'"
Who will be the first to blame the owners of said unprotected relays for our spam woes, as opposed to the spammers themselves?
Take off those blinders. Since the beginning, the public image Robertson has given his company is one that has no respect for intellectual property/copyright laws. He has done nothing but use childish antics to garner free publicity, and behind all of that, produced a product that, at best, falls far short of what it promises.
"If you've never put 10 million dollars of your money on the line, to create an alternate consumer operating system to Windows. You just don't understand what Lindows, Inc. is all about."
And given that, you'd think Robertson would want to make himself a little more aware of copyright laws. Robertson is his company's worst enemy, not the Slashdotters who call him out on his bullshit.
"Linspire/Lindows didn't say: 'Hey! Let's go rip off as much stuff as possible, and not pay people for it...'"
From what I know of Robertson and his past childish antics, that really wouldn't surprise me if he did say something like that.
That guy has done enough to damage his credibility and that of his company (whatever they're calling it these days) to the point where he is no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Seriously, there's other things to do out there besides sit in front of the idiot box night after night.
Why waste time search for something "new" to watch, when there's probably a million things outside your apartment/nouse/parents' basement that you haven't done.
"If a school system is going to provide notebook computers for its young students, or require them to own their own, I think it would be wise of them to keep quiet about it."
If you think it would be bad if criminals learned about these laptops, think about what would happen if the taxpayers who will have to pay for them found out!
If you're going to make that argument (which, BTW, I think is accurate), then you'd better be prepared to say that Windows isn't inherantly insecure as well. You can't blame the platform for the sloppy coding of others who write apps for it, under ANY circumstance.
But this isn't about the general search results; this is about what comes up in the "Sponsored Links". Google controls what shows up there, or more accurately, controls the keywords (Adwords) that triggers the results there.
Being that these results are generated by Google, it's Google's responsibility to make sure that none of their sponsors are abusing other companies' trademarks.
"If I'm looking for something to purchase, I'm generally more concerned with price & availability than who I buy FROM. It's in this area that Google shines, offering a plethora of various places to buy/rent from."
But this isn't about people searching for "insurance", with links to a variety of insurance companies' websites being returned.
This is about people searching for "AXA", a specific insurance company, with links to a variety of insurance companies' websites being returned.
"just because you've coined some obscure acronym for yourself or your business, does that mean it's Google's responsibility to insure that people find you during their search?"
Isn't the point of a search engine to accurately return the information that people are searching for? If a user searches for "AXA" using Google, and instead has a bunch of other insurance companies returned, at best I'd say Google's search engine needs a little work.
"...and not just the same person posting contradictory thoughts?"
The GPL should be enforced, because people should respect copyright laws, but punishing people for downloading music they haven't paid for is bad, because copyright laws are the tool of Evil Corporations.
SCO's management, he said, was traveling too much and spending too much when it should have been concentrating its efforts and resources on its legal strategy"
I think it's even more telling of BayStar that they believe SCO should be investing more in thier legal team, as opposed to, I don't know, DEVELOPING GOOD PRODUCTS AND IMPROVING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS!!
"I think the problem is more like $16-$20 regularly priced CDs at places like FYE and Sam Goody and other stores. "
The great-grandparent said the problem was a lack of reasonable pricing for music. I think I adequately proved that there were in fact reasonable pay-for-download services out there (iTunes is just one of them).
"If you don't put out anything that people want to hear, then people won't buy it"
People are downloading these songs by the thousands; wouldn't that suggest that they want to hear them? Sorry, I don't buy that argument either. This is simply a case (as it always was) of people just wanting free shit.
The religious right will inevitably end up labeling this as "screwing with Mother Nature".
Ironically, nobody among the religious right is asking where Father Nature has been all these years. Wouldn't you think that authorities would be trying to to collect child support?
Slashdot Mirror
...and they said they're running out of you!
(sorry, had to)
Exactly what does that add to this story?
Of course, Netcraft confirms that most spam originates from within the U.S.
Who will be the first to blame the owners of said unprotected relays for our spam woes, as opposed to the spammers themselves?
I really wish people would get modded down for abusing tired, worn out Franklin quotes... WE'VE HEARD THEM ALL ALREADY!!
And when one of these snafus makes it to the public, can you guess who is responsible for it? HINT: It's not the yeoman employee.
Do I need to go on?
And given that, you'd think Robertson would want to make himself a little more aware of copyright laws. Robertson is his company's worst enemy, not the Slashdotters who call him out on his bullshit.
From what I know of Robertson and his past childish antics, that really wouldn't surprise me if he did say something like that.
That guy has done enough to damage his credibility and that of his company (whatever they're calling it these days) to the point where he is no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Why waste time search for something "new" to watch, when there's probably a million things outside your apartment/nouse/parents' basement that you haven't done.
If you think it would be bad if criminals learned about these laptops, think about what would happen if the taxpayers who will have to pay for them found out!
Hold up a second there! I thought we were talking aobut an Operating System!
If you're going to make that argument (which, BTW, I think is accurate), then you'd better be prepared to say that Windows isn't inherantly insecure as well. You can't blame the platform for the sloppy coding of others who write apps for it, under ANY circumstance.
Being that these results are generated by Google, it's Google's responsibility to make sure that none of their sponsors are abusing other companies' trademarks.
But this isn't about people searching for "insurance", with links to a variety of insurance companies' websites being returned.
This is about people searching for "AXA", a specific insurance company, with links to a variety of insurance companies' websites being returned.
"just because you've coined some obscure acronym for yourself or your business, does that mean it's Google's responsibility to insure that people find you during their search?"
Isn't the point of a search engine to accurately return the information that people are searching for? If a user searches for "AXA" using Google, and instead has a bunch of other insurance companies returned, at best I'd say Google's search engine needs a little work.
...would have to be "Why the hell would anyone want to eumlate the SNES on a GBA?"
If your only defense of these groups is a rant on symantics, you would do well to re-evaluate your position.
The GPL should be enforced, because people should respect copyright laws, but punishing people for downloading music they haven't paid for is bad, because copyright laws are the tool of Evil Corporations.
Welcome to Slashdot!
We'll give you back the paper ballots...
...if you don't complain when a bunch of old bats can't tell the difference between "Al Gore" and "Pat Buchanan".
I think it's even more telling of BayStar that they believe SCO should be investing more in thier legal team, as opposed to, I don't know, DEVELOPING GOOD PRODUCTS AND IMPROVING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS!!
The great-grandparent said the problem was a lack of reasonable pricing for music. I think I adequately proved that there were in fact reasonable pay-for-download services out there (iTunes is just one of them).
"If you don't put out anything that people want to hear, then people won't buy it"
People are downloading these songs by the thousands; wouldn't that suggest that they want to hear them? Sorry, I don't buy that argument either. This is simply a case (as it always was) of people just wanting free shit.
Such as, I don't know, $.99 per song?
Ironically, nobody among the religious right is asking where Father Nature has been all these years. Wouldn't you think that authorities would be trying to to collect child support?
Close! Replace "Sen. Padme" with "Natalie Portman", and "hairdos" with "hot grits" and I think you'll have us a story!
Example: Mr. Jones' car (correct) vs. Mr. Jones's car (incorrect)