I found this spoof on the camera ad by ModernHumorist.com. I found it to be amazingly similar to the ad and the chocolate on the lady's face is priceless. ----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
Check out First Aid for the Dying Dot-Com for more information on how to revive this technological casualties.
Here's my favorite warning sign of a dying dot-com:
3. Replaces 180 fulltime employees with two interns and a chatterbot. ----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
I find the ruling to have a lot of ambiguous statements which I believe could have turned the court's decision one way or the other.
[W]e conclude that "Joe Cartoon" is distinctive, and, with 700,000 hits a month, the web site "joecartoon.com" qualifies as being famous. Therefore, the trademark and
domain name are protected under the ACPA.
It's distinctive perhaps, but does 700,000 hits/month qualify as being famous? And famous to what people? I view this as a weak link in the case because being famous is very relative and the application of the ACPA relies on this fame. For instance, I think The Onion or Slashdot is "famous", but considering virtually everyone where I work (a software company) has never heard of them, is that to say they aren't famous? I surely can't decide one way or the other.
The domain names --joescartoon.com,
joecarton.com, joescartons.com, joescartoons.com and cartoonjoe.com -- closely resemble "joecartoon.com," with a few additional or deleted letters, or, in the last domain name, by rearranging the order of the words. To divert
Internet traffic to his sites, Zuccarini admits that he registers domain names, including the five at issue here, because they are likely misspellings of famous marks or personal names. 4 The strong similarity between these domain names and joecartoon.com persuades us that they are "confusingly similar." Shields also produced evidence of Internet users who were actually confused by Zuccarini's sites.
Ok, here the ambiguity is obvious. They conclude that the domain names are "confusingly similar," which I agree with, but where can the line between "confusingly similar" and "not similar enough" be drawn? I have no real opinion on that answer, but the question definitely begs to be asked.
Just my random thoughts on this.
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
"It's an objection to a single locality dictating what other localities might see over the Internet, anywhere, anytime."
I think this is the key point. If French authorities are able to make Yahoo! alter the content of their US site, then what is to stop, say, Afghanistan (and the Taliban) from requiring eBay to block out all non-Islamic items? (I made this example up so please don't nitpick)
I think requiring any business to conform to any and all national laws of any country is an ill-advised and ultimately doomed effort due to the complex nature of the Internet (i.e. the fact that it is a global network with no overall authority). ----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
I kind of get the feeling that everyone takes Alex with a grain of salt. Not a total nutjob (he seems bright), but not a hardcore scientist. One thing we can all agree on, though, is having a laugh at his expense. Here's a Fade to Black interview that will brighten your Thursday afternoon. Here's a sample question:
3) With the popularity of Viagra and other aphrodisiacs on the market it seems that sexual health is very important in our society. Do you plan on offering any devices for this purpose? I was thinking something along the lines a metal device you can clamp on to your scrotum and wear around the house when doing house chores, or playing with the kids. ----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
I feel the same. Music/file sharing is never going to be eradicated, and the more the RIAA tries to stop the tide the more evil they look.
Kind of reminds me in ROTJ when Palpatine says to Luke, "Take your weapon, strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey to the dark side will be complete."
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
Ok, I'm done with the anonymity. Just didn't have an account:).
I didn't say that Napster/the RIAA is right/wrong. I said the corporate takeovers of virtually everything is irksome.
I mean, give me some mainstream examples of software, products, or even ideas that haven't been packaged, sold, marketed, patented, or in any other way commercialized.
That Marx quote was just a tongue-in-cheek thing that expresses what I feel, not what I feel that others should feel. ----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
Slashdot Mirror
that is disappointed by Code Red's lack of success? I know I was looking forward to smugly watching Microsoft products wreak havoc on the Internet.
P.S. I am not a troll.
I found this spoof on the camera ad by ModernHumorist.com. I found it to be amazingly similar to the ad and the chocolate on the lady's face is priceless.
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
Check out First Aid for the Dying Dot-Com for more information on how to revive this technological casualties.
Here's my favorite warning sign of a dying dot-com:
3. Replaces 180 fulltime employees with two interns and a chatterbot.
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
Independently, CmdrTaco, not independantly.
Sorry, I'm bored at work.
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
I find the ruling to have a lot of ambiguous statements which I believe could have turned the court's decision one way or the other.
[W]e conclude that "Joe Cartoon" is distinctive, and, with 700,000 hits a month, the web site "joecartoon.com" qualifies as being famous. Therefore, the trademark and domain name are protected under the ACPA.
It's distinctive perhaps, but does 700,000 hits/month qualify as being famous? And famous to what people? I view this as a weak link in the case because being famous is very relative and the application of the ACPA relies on this fame. For instance, I think The Onion or Slashdot is "famous", but considering virtually everyone where I work (a software company) has never heard of them, is that to say they aren't famous? I surely can't decide one way or the other.
The domain names --joescartoon.com, joecarton.com, joescartons.com, joescartoons.com and cartoonjoe.com -- closely resemble "joecartoon.com," with a few additional or deleted letters, or, in the last domain name, by rearranging the order of the words. To divert Internet traffic to his sites, Zuccarini admits that he registers domain names, including the five at issue here, because they are likely misspellings of famous marks or personal names. 4 The strong similarity between these domain names and joecartoon.com persuades us that they are "confusingly similar." Shields also produced evidence of Internet users who were actually confused by Zuccarini's sites.
Ok, here the ambiguity is obvious. They conclude that the domain names are "confusingly similar," which I agree with, but where can the line between "confusingly similar" and "not similar enough" be drawn? I have no real opinion on that answer, but the question definitely begs to be asked.
Just my random thoughts on this.
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
"It's an objection to a single locality dictating what other localities might see over the Internet, anywhere, anytime."
I think this is the key point. If French authorities are able to make Yahoo! alter the content of their US site, then what is to stop, say, Afghanistan (and the Taliban) from requiring eBay to block out all non-Islamic items? (I made this example up so please don't nitpick)
I think requiring any business to conform to any and all national laws of any country is an ill-advised and ultimately doomed effort due to the complex nature of the Internet (i.e. the fact that it is a global network with no overall authority).
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
I kind of get the feeling that everyone takes Alex with a grain of salt. Not a total nutjob (he seems bright), but not a hardcore scientist. One thing we can all agree on, though, is having a laugh at his expense. Here's a Fade to Black interview that will brighten your Thursday afternoon. Here's a sample question:
3) With the popularity of Viagra and other aphrodisiacs on the market it seems that sexual health is very important in our society. Do you plan on offering any devices for this purpose? I was thinking something along the lines a metal device you can clamp on to your scrotum and wear around the house when doing house chores, or playing with the kids.
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
I feel the same. Music/file sharing is never going to be eradicated, and the more the RIAA tries to stop the tide the more evil they look.
Kind of reminds me in ROTJ when Palpatine says to Luke, "Take your weapon, strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey to the dark side will be complete."
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?
Ok, I'm done with the anonymity. Just didn't have an account :).
I didn't say that Napster/the RIAA is right/wrong. I said the corporate takeovers of virtually everything is irksome.
I mean, give me some mainstream examples of software, products, or even ideas that haven't been packaged, sold, marketed, patented, or in any other way commercialized.
That Marx quote was just a tongue-in-cheek thing that expresses what I feel, not what I feel that others should feel.
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?