Exactly. For IE and Mozilla, my start page is about:blank.
For Opera, OTOH, I have no less than 10 windows - all places I visit frequently or with articles, etc. I haven't yet finished reading - which load on startup. The MDI and "continue where I was browsing last time" features of Opera are WONDERFUL.
Excellent advice. It goes along with the old adage, "if you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life".
I just auditioned for a position as an opening act for a nationally known artist. Believe me, if I get the gig, there is no way in hell I'm going to pass it up. So long as the bills are paid, DO IT!!
Oh, and keep in mind that money you earn outside the US is not taxable in some cases, so you might even see a net increase...
True, but I think there's more than what you say. The truth is, we can't avoid advertising. How many billboards do you see when you drive? How many radio ads do you hear when you're at a restaurant? How many clothing ads do you see when you walk through the mall?
The truth is, advertising is almost impossible to avoid. You can opt out of paying for it, but you can't opt out of seeing it.
AT&T sent me a SMS telling me they were offering a Sony Ericsson T226 to replace my T68i.
I called the 800 number and was told that I could either use the new phone when it was sent to me (and send my t68i back), or return the new one and continue using my current one.
I am opting to continue using my T68i since the T226 doesn't have Bluetooth, a very important feature to me.
I don't know if users of other phones are being required to upgrade. The T68i is a tri-band phone (800, 900, and 1900Mhz), which may be why I'm allowed to continue using it. But AT&T is most definitely NOT forcing all of its GSM users to switch phones. I won't give up mine unless they offer a T616 or something with features comparable to the T68i.
I have been a supporter of "Sunset provisions" in laws for a long, long time. It seems to me that most laws should have a mandatory lifetime after which they would have to be renewed, or they would expire.
Obviously, basic issues (murder, theft, etc.) would be exempt from this sort of thing, but the majority of laws - especially those pertaining to technology - should live their useful life and go away.
Even better would be a restriction that only the core parts of a bill, not any ancillary additions (i.e., unrelated pork-barrel spending, etc.), which would have to be renewed separately.
It would mean a lot more work for congresses in the future, but that could be dealt with when the need arises.
I don't know, I sort of miss the old arcades. It seems that unless you go to the beach (where all they have is crappy old games, sometimes not even pacman) or to some malls, there's no place to play more than one or two games. (I.e., there are only one or two cabinets to choose from.)
What's worse is that the price for cabinets has gone through the roof. In 1989 you could buy a used Ms. Pac Man for less than $400. Lately I haven't seen one for less than $1500. The revival in their popularity has driven the price up substantially. It irks me too that the combination Ms. Pac Man/Galaga machines now charge.50 per play - why is it double the price to play an old game??
I liked the old arcades (as opposed to home consoles) because 1) they didn't cost $50 for a game you might not like; 2) when you finished one, you weren't stuck with a used game you won't play again; 3) the arcades tended to rotate their stock every couple of weeks, so there was always a new game to play; and 4) there was almost always someone new to play against. You just don't get the same diversity with consoles.
I beg to differ. Most videophiles will tell you that CRT front-projectors are still the way to go. You can't beat a 9" CRT tube for most applications - with DLP you can have rainbow effects, and LCDs by their nature always have grids. For pure video, CRT is the way to go for the time being.
Now the 50x (2-4lbs vs 100-200lbs) weight factor certainly means that CRTs are less mobile than their newer digital counterparts, but be aware that there is a definite quality tradeoff.
Myself, I'm installing a CRT projector in my living room. I'll take superb picture quality (and GREAT price) over portability any day.
I would also suggest a Leatherman, if he doesn't already have one. Most models are in the $30-$70(US) range, and are very handy. I have actually given them to two of my past girlfriends (no jokes about the reasons for them being ex's, please). They both loved them.
No one heard about it because really, I don't think anyone cared. After their great big fuckup with the previous version of Myst, the Myst series became unimportant when most of its user base was alienated and frustrated and like me, decided not to buy anything more from Cyan.
I couldn't care less about a company that distrusts its users, releases alpha code as a finished product, and doesn't respond to those who take the time and energy to write to them.
Hmm. This story may be 'news for nerds', but I'm hard pressed to think it matters.
When you do, let me know. You can help me copyright a database with my name, address, social security #, and all other personally identifiable information about me.
Then I'm going to sue the pants off Equifax et al., for copyright infringement.
Anyone who purports to be an "unbiased news source" is full of shit. There is no such thing; human beings are full of bias, both conscious and unconscious, and that bias presents itself in ways that we never imagine. I have much more respect for reporters who admit their biases than for those who pretend that they're somehow superhuman and "neutral". "Objective news" is inherently an oxymoron.
I didn't go looking on newsmax, I just picked up the first result on Google. I dare you to do a search and find out the truth yourself. Do you really think there was any less corruption in the Clinton whitehouse than in the Bush whitehouse? Please.
And next time, try not redirecting - you responded to my choice of links instead of the topic at hand. Next time address the content and not the carrier.
Tell that to Ford - a motor company that's named after a shallow river crossing.
I would speculate that 'window' is a much more common term in our parlance than 'ford'. There's also a strong bias in your favor when you're naming something after yourself, whatever your name is, than when you're using a generic term which is purely descriptive of a part of your product.
Well, dictionary.com says it's a man devoted to the pursuoit of pleasure.
Ain't didn't make it into the dictionary for a long time after it was in common usage. 'Swell' was listed in the dictionary only as a surge or increase for quite a time before its adopted vernacular meaning made it into the dictionary. You can't always use the dictionary as a guide.
A man was often referred to as a 'playboy' when it was well-known that he was often after women for sex. Errol Flynn and Duke Ellington are good examples of this - famous lovers who were unable or unwilling to settle down and be mated for life to one woman. The term was in use for them long before "Playboy" first hit the newsstands in 1953. Be careful not to confure 'definition' with 'connotation'.
Why can't they produce the same level of brand awareness? Let's face it, most companies aren't that smart. Besides, how many ads do you see on a daily basis which allude to (or compare outright) their own product favorably against a well-known brand? Would you have a problem if this lawsuit was because another company had said in their ad copy: "Like Playboy? You'll love our product!" What's stopping this judge from outlawing that sort of promotion? We're getting dangerously close to giving companies absolute control over their trademark, even when it is identical to a common English word. That's a scary thing to me.
Main Entry: [2]leverage Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -aged; -aging Date: 1937 : to provide (as a corporation) or supplement (as money) with leverage; also : to enhance as if by supplying with financial leverage
1. For starters, you can't trademark a word in extremely common usage. Look what trouble MS had to go through to get the 'Windows' trademark.
2. A company should not be allowed to appropriate a name in an industry where the name is synonymous or nearly so with the purpose of the product being sold. The common term 'playboy' has always (at least well before the magazine started publishing) been synonymous with women and sex. If the magazine had been called "Corkboard" or some other off-the-wall name which originally had nothing at all to do with women and sex, and had come to enjoy the synchronicity the magazine does today, it would be a different story - because the company is solely responsible for the creation of the association. Then, if Yahoo or whoever used "Corkboard" in their advertising for something having to do with women and sex, there would be a legitimate suit. This is not the case here; Playboy (the magazine) leveraged (and built upon) the existing connotation inherent in the term 'playboy', for which it deserves little or no protection, since it is not responsible for the association. Kleenex deserves protection - it had nothing to do with tissues until the company made it so. Playboy does not.
I'm not saying this is the law - I'm saying this is how the law should be (IMO) interepreted based on the logic of trademarks. The original judge did get it right, though perhaps s/he didn't make enough of a distinction.
Not sure if you're trying to be funny, but just in case I'll fill you in... Basically, the RIAA members were looking for a watermark to put into songs so they couldn't be ripped and distributed anonymously. A cryptographer wrote a whitepaper about its vulnerabilities, and somebody threatened to sue him under the DMCA. He tried to preemptively block the lawsuit (a lawsuit which never occurred, due to a public outcry), but the case was thrown out for similar reasons as here.
It was talking about the "paper about watermarks", not a watermarked piece of paper. Hope that helps.
That really sucks because I was about to sue you for defamation of character based on your response to this comment. Pre-emptive decisions would be an absolute nightmare. You can't defend yourself against a suit that might never happen. Imagine the precedent that would set.
...so you're saying that we should set a precendent and preclude preemptive decisions?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. For IE and Mozilla, my start page is about:blank.
For Opera, OTOH, I have no less than 10 windows - all places I visit frequently or with articles, etc. I haven't yet finished reading - which load on startup. The MDI and "continue where I was browsing last time" features of Opera are WONDERFUL.
If you're seeing breasts on bottoms, there's a problem.
Excellent advice. It goes along with the old adage, "if you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life".
I just auditioned for a position as an opening act for a nationally known artist. Believe me, if I get the gig, there is no way in hell I'm going to pass it up. So long as the bills are paid, DO IT!!
Oh, and keep in mind that money you earn outside the US is not taxable in some cases, so you might even see a net increase...
You can't always opt-out of advertising.
True, but I think there's more than what you say. The truth is, we can't avoid advertising. How many billboards do you see when you drive? How many radio ads do you hear when you're at a restaurant? How many clothing ads do you see when you walk through the mall?
The truth is, advertising is almost impossible to avoid. You can opt out of paying for it, but you can't opt out of seeing it.
Great, just when I thought we had eradicated shock therapy forever!
AT&T sent me a SMS telling me they were offering a Sony Ericsson T226 to replace my T68i.
I called the 800 number and was told that I could either use the new phone when it was sent to me (and send my t68i back), or return the new one and continue using my current one.
I am opting to continue using my T68i since the T226 doesn't have Bluetooth, a very important feature to me.
I don't know if users of other phones are being required to upgrade. The T68i is a tri-band phone (800, 900, and 1900Mhz), which may be why I'm allowed to continue using it. But AT&T is most definitely NOT forcing all of its GSM users to switch phones. I won't give up mine unless they offer a T616 or something with features comparable to the T68i.
I have been a supporter of "Sunset provisions" in laws for a long, long time. It seems to me that most laws should have a mandatory lifetime after which they would have to be renewed, or they would expire.
Obviously, basic issues (murder, theft, etc.) would be exempt from this sort of thing, but the majority of laws - especially those pertaining to technology - should live their useful life and go away.
Even better would be a restriction that only the core parts of a bill, not any ancillary additions (i.e., unrelated pork-barrel spending, etc.), which would have to be renewed separately.
It would mean a lot more work for congresses in the future, but that could be dealt with when the need arises.
Sunset provisions are a really good idea!!
I don't know, I sort of miss the old arcades. It seems that unless you go to the beach (where all they have is crappy old games, sometimes not even pacman) or to some malls, there's no place to play more than one or two games. (I.e., there are only one or two cabinets to choose from.)
.50 per play - why is it double the price to play an old game??
What's worse is that the price for cabinets has gone through the roof. In 1989 you could buy a used Ms. Pac Man for less than $400. Lately I haven't seen one for less than $1500. The revival in their popularity has driven the price up substantially. It irks me too that the combination Ms. Pac Man/Galaga machines now charge
I liked the old arcades (as opposed to home consoles) because 1) they didn't cost $50 for a game you might not like; 2) when you finished one, you weren't stuck with a used game you won't play again; 3) the arcades tended to rotate their stock every couple of weeks, so there was always a new game to play; and 4) there was almost always someone new to play against. You just don't get the same diversity with consoles.
I beg to differ. Most videophiles will tell you that CRT front-projectors are still the way to go. You can't beat a 9" CRT tube for most applications - with DLP you can have rainbow effects, and LCDs by their nature always have grids. For pure video, CRT is the way to go for the time being.
Now the 50x (2-4lbs vs 100-200lbs) weight factor certainly means that CRTs are less mobile than their newer digital counterparts, but be aware that there is a definite quality tradeoff.
Myself, I'm installing a CRT projector in my living room. I'll take superb picture quality (and GREAT price) over portability any day.
Agreed. There is lots of cool stuff there.
I would also suggest a Leatherman, if he doesn't already have one. Most models are in the $30-$70(US) range, and are very handy. I have actually given them to two of my past girlfriends (no jokes about the reasons for them being ex's, please). They both loved them.
Oops, sorry, didn't do my research carefully enough before I posted. (Like that never happens on /.!)
I wrote to whomever was in charge at the time. It was almost three years ago, after all...
However the post - and the sentiment - are still valid.
Mattcelt
No one heard about it because really, I don't think anyone cared. After their great big fuckup with the previous version of Myst, the Myst series became unimportant when most of its user base was alienated and frustrated and like me, decided not to buy anything more from Cyan.
I couldn't care less about a company that distrusts its users, releases alpha code as a finished product, and doesn't respond to those who take the time and energy to write to them.
Hmm. This story may be 'news for nerds', but I'm hard pressed to think it matters.
When you do, let me know. You can help me copyright a database with my name, address, social security #, and all other personally identifiable information about me.
Then I'm going to sue the pants off Equifax et al., for copyright infringement.
I'm all for the bill.
That newsmax article is absurd. The writing is horrible, the quotes are unattributed, and the analysis is the definition of bias.
So what? What's that got to do with the subject matter? You discount the news, without even trying to verify it, just because of the source?
Aw, for pete's sake! Do I have to spell EVERYTHING oput for you?
Anyone who purports to be an "unbiased news source" is full of shit. There is no such thing; human beings are full of bias, both conscious and unconscious, and that bias presents itself in ways that we never imagine. I have much more respect for reporters who admit their biases than for those who pretend that they're somehow superhuman and "neutral". "Objective news" is inherently an oxymoron.
I didn't go looking on newsmax, I just picked up the first result on Google. I dare you to do a search and find out the truth yourself. Do you really think there was any less corruption in the Clinton whitehouse than in the Bush whitehouse? Please.
And next time, try not redirecting - you responded to my choice of links instead of the topic at hand. Next time address the content and not the carrier.
It existed, it was documented, and it was ignored.
I'm not a big Bush fan (not even a little one), but I have a huge problem with hypocracy, which our government is full of on all sides.
Don't discount the news because of the source. Check it out for yourselves on google.
Funny that this makes it on the news. Where was /. a few years back?
Heh, that's a sight better than "dub dub dub", which I hear wayyy to often. I always expect it to be followed by "three men in a tub" or something.
In British English the w ("double-u") is pronounced "wuh".
From A Fish Called Wanda, for instance:
"oh look, it's even got a 'wuh' for Wendy!"
Hope that helps.
Still lamenting the fall of Dynamix myself.
Tell that to Ford - a motor company that's named after a shallow river crossing.
I would speculate that 'window' is a much more common term in our parlance than 'ford'. There's also a strong bias in your favor when you're naming something after yourself, whatever your name is, than when you're using a generic term which is purely descriptive of a part of your product.
Well, dictionary.com says it's a man devoted to the pursuoit of pleasure.
Ain't didn't make it into the dictionary for a long time after it was in common usage. 'Swell' was listed in the dictionary only as a surge or increase for quite a time before its adopted vernacular meaning made it into the dictionary. You can't always use the dictionary as a guide.
A man was often referred to as a 'playboy' when it was well-known that he was often after women for sex. Errol Flynn and Duke Ellington are good examples of this - famous lovers who were unable or unwilling to settle down and be mated for life to one woman. The term was in use for them long before "Playboy" first hit the newsstands in 1953. Be careful not to confure 'definition' with 'connotation'.
Why can't they produce the same level of brand awareness?
Let's face it, most companies aren't that smart. Besides, how many ads do you see on a daily basis which allude to (or compare outright) their own product favorably against a well-known brand? Would you have a problem if this lawsuit was because another company had said in their ad copy: "Like Playboy? You'll love our product!" What's stopping this judge from outlawing that sort of promotion? We're getting dangerously close to giving companies absolute control over their trademark, even when it is identical to a common English word. That's a scary thing to me.
And when did "leverage" become a verb?
1937.
From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: [2]leverage
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -aged; -aging
Date: 1937
: to provide (as a corporation) or supplement (as money) with leverage; also : to enhance as if by supplying with financial leverage
Um, I hate to rain on your parade, but condoms and tires don't procreate. I would think that a little extra caution is in order.
And the cockroaches? I think most would agree they should be outlawed completely except for scientific research. Immediately.
1. For starters, you can't trademark a word in extremely common usage. Look what trouble MS had to go through to get the 'Windows' trademark.
2. A company should not be allowed to appropriate a name in an industry where the name is synonymous or nearly so with the purpose of the product being sold. The common term 'playboy' has always (at least well before the magazine started publishing) been synonymous with women and sex. If the magazine had been called "Corkboard" or some other off-the-wall name which originally had nothing at all to do with women and sex, and had come to enjoy the synchronicity the magazine does today, it would be a different story - because the company is solely responsible for the creation of the association. Then, if Yahoo or whoever used "Corkboard" in their advertising for something having to do with women and sex, there would be a legitimate suit. This is not the case here; Playboy (the magazine) leveraged (and built upon) the existing connotation inherent in the term 'playboy', for which it deserves little or no protection, since it is not responsible for the association. Kleenex deserves protection - it had nothing to do with tissues until the company made it so. Playboy does not.
I'm not saying this is the law - I'm saying this is how the law should be (IMO) interepreted based on the logic of trademarks. The original judge did get it right, though perhaps s/he didn't make enough of a distinction.
Not sure if you're trying to be funny, but just in case I'll fill you in... Basically, the RIAA members were looking for a watermark to put into songs so they couldn't be ripped and distributed anonymously. A cryptographer wrote a whitepaper about its vulnerabilities, and somebody threatened to sue him under the DMCA. He tried to preemptively block the lawsuit (a lawsuit which never occurred, due to a public outcry), but the case was thrown out for similar reasons as here.
It was talking about the "paper about watermarks", not a watermarked piece of paper. Hope that helps.