"As part of the agreement to drop the case, New Mexico will receive reimbursement from Microsoft for legal fees and other costs incurred during the case..."
Oh. So we should blame New Mexico for foisting Microsoft on the world. I wouldn't be proud of that.
Or the incredible rate of alcoholism(3 times the national average)...And who cares if you have nukes, if you are too much of a panty-waste to use them? (Except for testing on U.S. military personnel)
Pope John Paul II, "Don't you think that the irresponsible behavior of men is caused by women?". (Cairo Conference 1985)
I reported Microsoft. Project for the day is writing a Perl script that will automatically submit Microsoft as a pirate every, oh...30 seconds?
I am proud of the fact that the only Microsoft software that I have ever paid for was MS-DOS 5.0. And I got that, used, at a discount software reseller.
My question for the BSA was, "When is the last time your member companies have been audited?"
First they told me that member companies are not audited. Then I asked how they could expect other companies to perform costly audits if the member companies that are trying to enforce thier copyrights are not audited themselves.
Then they told me that there had been audits, but they are not publicized. I asked how the public found out about BSA audits and fines in the past if they weren't public. They claimed that the companies that infringed the copyrights and were fined were the ones making public the results of the audits. So, copyright infringers are tattling on themselves when they get caught?
I guess the best way not to get audited by the BSA would be to become PART of the BSA. Then you can go after companies and schools that don't comply to standards that you don't comply to yourself. How do you spell "hypocrisy"?
Mod as redundant, if need be. Just answering the question...
Q: And how many did Dubya's daddy and Reagan appoint?
A: Four
Stephen Williams, Douglas Ginsburg, and David Sentelle were appointed by Reagan. Raymond Randolph was appointed by Dubya's daddy, while Judith Rogers and David Tatel were appointed by Clinton. Harry Edwards was appointed by Carter.
Q: And how many did Dubya's daddy and Reagan appoint?
A: Four
Stephen Williams, Douglas Ginsburg, and David Sentelle were appointed by Reagan. Raymond Randolph was appointed by Dubya's daddy, while Judith Rogers and David Tatel were appointed by Clinton. Harry Edwards was appointed by Carter.
Hmmm. So the president has no control over what judges sit on the federal benches? The president has no control over the justice departments budget? The president has no control over who the attorney general is?
Ok. Now I am completely confused about the moderation system. A post saying basically the same thing earlier was moderated down to "0, Offtopic". This one is moderated up to 5, Interesting".
I haven't been around Slashdot for that long so I don't know alot of the nuances involved in moderation, yet I am confused as to why the post above was moderated as "Offtopic"?
And once again, in the snippet you provided a link to, smart-tags will have to be disabled by the webmaster, not enabled. Remember, it's the whole opt-in vs. opt-out thing that gets people in such a huff.
If a webmaster wanted that 'feature' they should turn it on. Having to add a meta-tag to thousands of web pages to turn it off is just plain crap.
Again, please get off the pipe. Who is going to edit their 'smart-tags' to go to sites that they already know? Can't they just use bookmarks instead of editing some XML file?
My favorite quote from the article on Newsbytes is:
"But Gross said that simply offering Web sites a way to opt out of the Smart Tag technology won't help Microsoft dodge a legal bullet. Requiring site operators to write a meta-tag in order to disable Smart Tags unfairly puts the burden on copyright holders to prevent their work from being unlawfully changed, Gross said."
I have a feeling that if anything changes about this whole scenario, it will be that the opt-out becomes an opt-in.
So you would feel just great if Microsoft decided the 'Consulting' in your sig should redirect to a page of Gold-Level-Elite-Microsoft Value Added Resellers who perform consulting work too?
Didn't think so.
Please sir, crack kills. Why in the hell would anyone edit their 'smart-tags' to go to sites that they already know? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.
I guess if I edited the file to redirect every instance of the words 'crack smoker' to your email address to remind me what a tool you are, that would be useful.
So, how are other companies going to get access to the DLL or whatever it is that IE6 uses to parse the web page to create the smart-tags? Sure, the other company can add smart-tags to their own site, but when IE6 parses the page, it will add even more smart-tags to it all pointing to Microsoft related products and services.
I am sure companies didn't spend thousand's upon thousand's of dollars developing their website so that Microsoft could get free advertising and marketing. And with the 'opt-out' crap, the companies are going to have to spend even more development dollars to *stop* Microsoft from using their site for free advertising and marketing.
Well if the lazy ass developer doesn't feel like giving Microsoft and Microsoft 'blessed' sites free advertising and marketing, then they won't turn on smart-tags.
You keep railing on about how people can make their own smart-tags. You are overlooking the point that if a web developer does not want to use smart-tags and if they don't 'opt-out', then Microsoft will automatically add links to Microsoft products and services to their website. This is using the website to promote Microsoft when the owner had no intention of doing so.
No matter what, it should be 'opt-in' not 'opt-out', and I can't really understand your objection to that point. Is Microsoft going to pay these websites for the extra revenue that it brings? Didn't think so. So why should they be able to garner free advertising and marketing from every site on the net(that doesn't opt-out)?
The thing that annoys me is that Microsoft has it backwards once again. They say that there is a convenient 'meta-tag' that you can insert into your webpage that will disallow IE6 from inserting smart-tags.
This should be the other way around. If you *want* smart-tags you should put in a meta-tag that instructs IE6 to create the smart-tags. If you don't want it, you shouldn't have to edit every page on your site.
"He did precisely that mind you. Upon realizing that some group was distributing modified code, he added a clarification that this was against the license."
Huh? He just now realized that OpenBSD was distributing a modified version of his software? He had no clue they had been doing it for years? Are *you* out of your mind?
Nope. Once socketed, always socketed. I find that to be rather annoying as well. Especially since there are the cool runes now. I didn't even use gems or socketed weapons in the original, but now they have some really cool uses, and basically all of my equipment is socketed.
I also like how the name of the item changes when you insert certain runes.
"If there was no spam, your access to the entire internet would probably be cheaper."
Sure, bud. It is not practical for the ordinary internet user to determine if all of the routes they are going to take might hop through above.net's backbone. And, I don't know this as a fact, but I am fairly sure that the individual ISP's that use above.net as a backbone provider DO NOT include in their TOS the fact that their internet traffic is being filtered. The ISP isn't doing it, it's above.net so why should they inform their users of that fact?
If above.net was just a local or regional ISP, then maybe their/your argument would fly. You could easily switch providers. But, above.net is a backbone provider, so their decisions affect people all over the world.
I still can't figure out why they don't just block SMTP traffic instead of all traffic. If they wanted to battle SPAM, they would restrict mail, not HTTP, etc. It is censorship, plain and simple.
"Legislation should be narrowly targeted to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to combat abuses without opening the floodgates to frivolous litigation or interfering with legitimate uses of e-mail for marketing purposes," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
If it is *unsolicited* email, then it is spam. The people that send out spam probably honestly believe that what they are doing is a "legitimate" marketing practice.
I guess with all the pressure from big business, the government is now trying to classify spam as either "good" or "bad". "Bad" spam would be anything sent from a company or individual that hasn't made copious donations to the Republican party. Fortune 500 companies can send all the unsolicited email they want, because Bob Goodlatte has determined that there is a legitimate marketing purpose driving it.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
"As part of the agreement to drop the case, New Mexico will receive reimbursement from Microsoft for legal fees and other costs incurred during the case..."
You were saying?
Oh. So we should blame New Mexico for foisting Microsoft on the world. I wouldn't be proud of that.
Or the incredible rate of alcoholism(3 times the national average)...And who cares if you have nukes, if you are too much of a panty-waste to use them? (Except for testing on U.S. military personnel)
Pope John Paul II, "Don't you think that the irresponsible behavior of men is caused by women?". (Cairo Conference 1985)
I reported Microsoft. Project for the day is writing a Perl script that will automatically submit Microsoft as a pirate every, oh...30 seconds?
I am proud of the fact that the only Microsoft software that I have ever paid for was MS-DOS 5.0. And I got that, used, at a discount software reseller.
Microsoft and the BSA can kiss my ass.
My question for the BSA was, "When is the last time your member companies have been audited?"
First they told me that member companies are not audited. Then I asked how they could expect other companies to perform costly audits if the member companies that are trying to enforce thier copyrights are not audited themselves.
Then they told me that there had been audits, but they are not publicized. I asked how the public found out about BSA audits and fines in the past if they weren't public. They claimed that the companies that infringed the copyrights and were fined were the ones making public the results of the audits. So, copyright infringers are tattling on themselves when they get caught?
I guess the best way not to get audited by the BSA would be to become PART of the BSA. Then you can go after companies and schools that don't comply to standards that you don't comply to yourself. How do you spell "hypocrisy"?
Mod as redundant, if need be. Just answering the question...
Q: And how many did Dubya's daddy and Reagan appoint?
A: Four
Stephen Williams, Douglas Ginsburg, and David Sentelle were appointed by Reagan. Raymond Randolph was appointed by Dubya's daddy, while Judith Rogers and David Tatel were appointed by Clinton. Harry Edwards was appointed by Carter.
Q: And how many did Dubya's daddy and Reagan appoint?
A: Four
Stephen Williams, Douglas Ginsburg, and David Sentelle were appointed by Reagan. Raymond Randolph was appointed by Dubya's daddy, while Judith Rogers and David Tatel were appointed by Clinton. Harry Edwards was appointed by Carter.
Hmmm. So the president has no control over what judges sit on the federal benches? The president has no control over the justice departments budget? The president has no control over who the attorney general is?
That's good to know.
Ok. Now I am completely confused about the moderation system. A post saying basically the same thing earlier was moderated down to "0, Offtopic". This one is moderated up to 5, Interesting".
Eh?
I haven't been around Slashdot for that long so I don't know alot of the nuances involved in moderation, yet I am confused as to why the post above was moderated as "Offtopic"?
And once again, in the snippet you provided a link to, smart-tags will have to be disabled by the webmaster, not enabled. Remember, it's the whole opt-in vs. opt-out thing that gets people in such a huff.
If a webmaster wanted that 'feature' they should turn it on. Having to add a meta-tag to thousands of web pages to turn it off is just plain crap.
Again, please get off the pipe. Who is going to edit their 'smart-tags' to go to sites that they already know? Can't they just use bookmarks instead of editing some XML file?
What a maroon.
My favorite quote from the article on Newsbytes is:
"But Gross said that simply offering Web sites a way to opt out of the Smart Tag technology won't help Microsoft dodge a legal bullet. Requiring site operators to write a meta-tag in order to disable Smart Tags unfairly puts the burden on copyright holders to prevent their work from being unlawfully changed, Gross said."
I have a feeling that if anything changes about this whole scenario, it will be that the opt-out becomes an opt-in.
So you would feel just great if Microsoft decided the 'Consulting' in your sig should redirect to a page of Gold-Level-Elite-Microsoft Value Added Resellers who perform consulting work too? Didn't think so.
Please sir, crack kills. Why in the hell would anyone edit their 'smart-tags' to go to sites that they already know? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.
I guess if I edited the file to redirect every instance of the words 'crack smoker' to your email address to remind me what a tool you are, that would be useful.
So, how are other companies going to get access to the DLL or whatever it is that IE6 uses to parse the web page to create the smart-tags? Sure, the other company can add smart-tags to their own site, but when IE6 parses the page, it will add even more smart-tags to it all pointing to Microsoft related products and services.
I am sure companies didn't spend thousand's upon thousand's of dollars developing their website so that Microsoft could get free advertising and marketing. And with the 'opt-out' crap, the companies are going to have to spend even more development dollars to *stop* Microsoft from using their site for free advertising and marketing.
Well if the lazy ass developer doesn't feel like giving Microsoft and Microsoft 'blessed' sites free advertising and marketing, then they won't turn on smart-tags.
You keep railing on about how people can make their own smart-tags. You are overlooking the point that if a web developer does not want to use smart-tags and if they don't 'opt-out', then Microsoft will automatically add links to Microsoft products and services to their website. This is using the website to promote Microsoft when the owner had no intention of doing so.
No matter what, it should be 'opt-in' not 'opt-out', and I can't really understand your objection to that point. Is Microsoft going to pay these websites for the extra revenue that it brings? Didn't think so. So why should they be able to garner free advertising and marketing from every site on the net(that doesn't opt-out)?
The thing that annoys me is that Microsoft has it backwards once again. They say that there is a convenient 'meta-tag' that you can insert into your webpage that will disallow IE6 from inserting smart-tags.
This should be the other way around. If you *want* smart-tags you should put in a meta-tag that instructs IE6 to create the smart-tags. If you don't want it, you shouldn't have to edit every page on your site.
"He did precisely that mind you. Upon realizing that some group was distributing modified code, he added a clarification that this was against the license."
Huh? He just now realized that OpenBSD was distributing a modified version of his software? He had no clue they had been doing it for years? Are *you* out of your mind?
Nope. Once socketed, always socketed. I find that to be rather annoying as well. Especially since there are the cool runes now. I didn't even use gems or socketed weapons in the original, but now they have some really cool uses, and basically all of my equipment is socketed.
I also like how the name of the item changes when you insert certain runes.
"If there was no spam, your access to the entire internet would probably be cheaper."
Sure, bud. It is not practical for the ordinary internet user to determine if all of the routes they are going to take might hop through above.net's backbone. And, I don't know this as a fact, but I am fairly sure that the individual ISP's that use above.net as a backbone provider DO NOT include in their TOS the fact that their internet traffic is being filtered. The ISP isn't doing it, it's above.net so why should they inform their users of that fact?
If above.net was just a local or regional ISP, then maybe their/your argument would fly. You could easily switch providers. But, above.net is a backbone provider, so their decisions affect people all over the world.
I still can't figure out why they don't just block SMTP traffic instead of all traffic. If they wanted to battle SPAM, they would restrict mail, not HTTP, etc. It is censorship, plain and simple.
"Legislation should be narrowly targeted to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to combat abuses without opening the floodgates to frivolous litigation or interfering with legitimate uses of e-mail for marketing purposes," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
If it is *unsolicited* email, then it is spam. The people that send out spam probably honestly believe that what they are doing is a "legitimate" marketing practice.
I guess with all the pressure from big business, the government is now trying to classify spam as either "good" or "bad". "Bad" spam would be anything sent from a company or individual that hasn't made copious donations to the Republican party. Fortune 500 companies can send all the unsolicited email they want, because Bob Goodlatte has determined that there is a legitimate marketing purpose driving it.
http://www.tnr.com/052101/krugman052101.html