My guess is that they will end up looking a lot like Yahoo.
Dear lord no! I switched from Altavista to Yahoo, not because of better search results, but because of the clean, ad-free, fast-loading front page. I've never looked elsewhere since.
Still, it could be worse... they could end up looking like the ICQ home page, gaaaah.
I dislike spam as much as anyone, but the can-spam act has done little more than set legal precident for the government regulating internet based communications based on content
I'm not too familiar with that particular act, but it seems to me that most anti-spam legislation (such as it is) in many countries do not consider content (other than exempting certain types of messages), but only the means of delivery. Most laws are quite specific in that regard.
You are allowed to deliver any public speech, but not if you do it through a loudhailer at 3am in the morning. Content is not the issue, delivery is. And that's how most spam laws (should) work.
that single act essentially made their case that it was a bad-faith registration.
Nonsense (or... it should be nonsense, legally speaking)
Mike rightly asked to be indemnified for any cost he incurs by giving up his domain name: business cards, stationary, getting a new domain name set up, informing clients, etc. $10.000 may be a bit high, but the $10 MS offered is ridiculous.
If I were asked to give up my intvelt.com (assuming someone would be interested in a domain named after a misspelled Dutch last name), I would likely ask for $10.000. Anything less and it would not be worth the hassle. But the fact that I ask for such an amount should in no way, shape or form constitute 'proof' of my bad intentions when I purchased the domain.
With that said... given that Mike only registered this domain very recently, a judge might decide that the names sound too similar. If he were to apply for a trademark, it would likely be rejected (in the Netherlands at least), because a) it sounds too similar to Microsoft, a well-established brand, b) they are both in the same business ("computers", which is close enough) and c) he has other options for a company name, like Mike Row Consulting or whatnot... This case isn't comparable to, say, the guy who registered McDonalds, which happened to be his last name.
KLM is no comparison to Northworst - wonderful service; attractive, friendly stewardesses; better seats; and more.
You mean there's an airline worse than KLM? Wow... I've experienced none of the nice things you mention, and I've flown them many times.
I flew back and forth between Amsterdam and Tokyo a few times, and I thought business class on KLM was quite nice, lucky me. That was, until my British co-workers described what 'business class' means to Virgin airlines. Damn... that Branson guy sure knows what he is doing.
Some time in a future, virtual worlds may become a more common medium for communication & it would be nice to preserve freedom of speech for the day when VR worlds become as the telephone is today...
Hell no... If you want unfettered communication, pick up the phone or go outside and talk to people. The whole idea, the very raison d'etre of MMORPGs is to provide a world that is different from our own. That includes different community standards.
The only freedom we need here is the freedom for game companies to set the community standards in their own systems. They should be allowed to... since they should have the right to control the gaming experience of their customers. That could mean no profanities or sexual speech in a family-oriented MMORPG like the Sims. It also means that game companies can take action against you (or more accurately: your account) if you use l33t-speak on a game server reserved for roleplayers. The very ability to offer different servers with different community standards, hinges on the freedom to limit speech on these servers. Your freedom is the freedom not to participate in their game.
If freedom of speech rights are extended to MMORPGs, what is next? Outlawing murder and theft? Equal opportunity rules? Abolishing slavery? Believe me, there are plenty of kooky(*) activist groups and committees who would love to get their grubby mits on these games, to push their own agenda, because they hate MMORPGs, or just to be a nuisance.
* No, not all activists are kooky. I'm talking about the kind of people that forced computer suppliers to stop using the words 'master' and 'slave'. I'm not kidding.
SA's laws are out in the open, not a secret, and they are horrible.
And SA's laws were written by their geeks? I don't see how the statement 'Saudi Geeks, all Saudi Geeks, treat their women like lesser beings' can be construed as a fact, rather that the obvious stereotype that it is.
No. They stand by while this goes one. It is as much their fault as their rulers.
I think this is a particularly evil line of reasoning. When faced with injustice, many people have little choice but to bear it and get on with their lives. This is especially true under the more oppressive regimes. I applaud those few courageous individuals who endeavour to change these oppressive regimes, often at great personal cost and with live and limb at risk. But I will not condemn those who are too afraid to fight the system. Sitting in your comfy armchair in your safe country, do you have any idea what 'fighting the system' entails in countries like that? Don't be too quick to condemn those that stand idly by.
Moreover, the political and religious leaders in those countries control the media and education. Read '1984' some time... if you control those, you can to some extend control the way people think. I know quite a few muslims (there's plenty to be found in the Netherlands), and some of these people have been brought up with the belief that women are less than men. They are educated and reasonable people otherwise, but they all cling to this belief, including the women. If this has been told to them from birth, how are they going to form an opinion to the contrary?
The 'fact', and those websites, refer to the Saudi geeks, not to the people in general or their leaders. Perhaps the Saudi geeks are indeed like us, in the sense that they tend to be more openminded, better educated, more tolerant, and less dogmatic in their religions than the general populace. Instead of spending time on the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International websites, you may find it worthwhile to try and get to know some Saudi's, so you can form an opinion firsthand.
Also don't forget that it isn't very long ago when people in western civilisations thought of women in much the same way as certain Muslim zealots do.
Save for the fact that they treat women like lesser beings that have next to no rights...
Where does this 'fact' come from? I imagine from the same place as the 'fact' that all Americans are uncultured fat cowbows with no knowledge of the rest of the world whatsoever, or the 'fact' that all Europeans are liberal hippies who smell like cheese. It comes from ignorance.
You should know better than to generalise like that. Shame on you.
In fact I've heard anecdotes about real soldiers doing poorly in paintball matches simply because they're used to the Real Thing.
Soldiers generally do well in paintball matches, especially against non-soldiers (though maybe not agaist paintball pros). Not because they are better in hiding or shooting, but because they are much better at working as a team, moving in squads, listening to the leader, etc. etc. Pit soldiers against civvies, and the soldiers will usually win convincingly.
a) send copies of the offending code from your product and a copy of the GPL
Have you learned nothing from Darl?! You do not send the offending code, you merely tell them that there is tons of it in their software. Then you send them a bill for $699.
Ya know, I love Tolkien's work and I like to keep informed of domain squatting issues, but how is an article about domain squatting of Tolkien's name supposed to interest me?
It's not the cybersquatting that made it interesting, but the decision to turn the domain over to the Tolkien estate.
I have mixed feelings about this... I hate cybersquatters as much as the next guy, but what if some corporation decides it has more right to my domain name than I do, and asks the courts to give the domain to them? Such cases have already appeared in the past (one case involving McDonalds springs to mind). In one case, a judge ruled against a person owning a domain similar to his last name... the judge ruled that since the guy didn't use the domain, he was cybersquatting. Not "Using" it in this case meant not having a website there (the guy didn't have one); using the domain for a well-established mailing list and IRC server apparently didn't count.
Just imagine how happy these folks will be with a nuclear powered rocket
Be sarcastic all you want, but it's true... These people need an enemy to rally against, and with so many nuclear power stations being decommissioned around the world, they are running out of viable targets.
You can't make science work (or stop it from working) by decree. Who died and made you god?;-)
People thought heavier-than-air flying machines were a theoretical impossibility. They laughed at the idea of steel ships, or the idea that the earth is round and spins around the sun. Yes, some people laugh, others will go ahead anyway and achieve the impossible, despite popular opinion.
I think there actually might be a good market for the Harry Potter, Star Wars, Bob the Builder and similar Lego sets.... if those sets would be more compatible with the standard Lego blocks. None of the much-lamented specialty blocks that were only good for one thing, but 'themed' sets of generic or Technic Lego. There's no reason why they wouldn't sell well.
Modded as Funny, but it's simple truth (the first part anyway). What's the big deal with Linus visiting this or that town or university, if he's not there to hold a lecture or speak at some event? Sure, it might be interesting if you'd be able to sit down at the bar with him and chat... but would you want half the geek population to come running after you if you were Linus? *sigh*
Now if it was Bill Gates, I would want to know. I'd drive over to the location of his last sighting, and pick up a nice pie on the way;-)
I can stomach an up-front cost, a known trade of resources, or even a subscription
By contrast, I hate subscription sites, especially if I only need access to their info once. Especially since it usually involves credit cards, handing over my personal details and receiving, opening and replying to a confirmation e-mail.
I would much prefer to answer a simple dialog "This website charges $0,10 for access to this information. Pay yes/no?". Especially if the payment could be done anonymously.
A potential problem with such payment systems would be the websites that trick you into accepting, then try to feed you the information piecemeal. Pay $0,10 to access the article... and when you accept, it's another $0,20 to see the essential graphs and pictures, and $0,30 to get the conclusion. A bit like the $1 / minute phone services with a voice-response system..... that..... speaks..... really..... slow.... and has menu's of 22 levels deep. Not very honest, but not exactly illegal either.
1) Not true... well they won't work in very small rooms. It seems that all the models these days are short-throw... I put mine about 3 meters from the screen, which gives me an image of about 1.8 x 1 m. That's good to watch from 5 meters off (where the sofa is), to 3 meters. So even if your room is only 3 meters long, you can still use one. In a smaller room, just put the projector a bit closer to the screen for a smaller image.
2) Typical bulb life on modern units is 3000 - 4000 hours. Even using it 8 hours a day, you'll get over a year's worth of viewing from it. They are pricey... bulbs for the 1000 Lumen models cost 250 - 400 Euro's. But shop around! Prices vary by 100's of Euro's!
3) That's true... that is why I recommend projectors mainly to movie fans. Then again, I tried having the thing on in daylight with the lights on as well, and the picture was still pretty good. Good enough to have the news on so I can watch it from the kitchen, but for movies I do have to darken the room... which reminds me, I have to go and buy thicker curtains:)
The bulbs are rated for a certain number of burn hours. Typical values are 3000 - 4000 hours for a modern unit. The bulbs are very reliable, and are not supposed to just randomly *poof*, like regular light bulbs... they are also guaranteed for 3-6 months against that eventuality. But I have never heard of a bulb failing long before its expected life span, unless in cases where the cooling fan broke or someone dropped the unit or moved it while still warm.
At 3000 hours, a bulb will last you over a year even if you run it 8 hours a day!.
But bulb life isn't the most important drawback of using a projector to watch TV. The main thing is that you will need to darken your room at least somewhat in order to watch. That's fine for movies, but not very convenient for having a TV show running in the background while you do other things. If you watch TV a lot (or have it on, at least), I recommend a television. If you're like me and watch mainly movies, you'll love a projector.
Flat panel TV's are becoming more and more impressive... and they'd sure look nice in my living room. But why are they still so expensive? Even the small models. A 15" LCD TV would be perfect for my bedroom... by I'll be damned if I pay upwards of 600 Euro's for one, while a computer flat-panel LCD of the same dimensions costs less than half that. Somehow, I get the feeling I am being ripped off. It looks like some manufacturers of computer LCD screens agree with me... they're offering computer screens with a built-in tuner now, just for people like me who'll just rip the thing off its socket and hang it in their bedroom.
I'm glad to see that LCD projectors have come down in price. Since I watch a lot of movies but very little else, buying a big flat panel TV would be a really bad compromise: I'd still have this big thing sitting in my living room (even though smaller than a really large TV), and I'd have to pay some ridiculous price for it. No thanks... I just got a nice LCD projector. Do yourself a favour, dump the TV, and get a 1200 lumen entry-level model for 1100 Euro's, and a good roll-up projection screen for another 200. You'll never even think about flat-panel TVs anymore...
Plenty of choice here. Dial-up can be had for free:)
Consumer ADSL ranges from 19 Euro/month for 384/128 kb/s (down/up), to 80 Euro/month for 8Mb/1Mb on a 100GB/month limit (I've actually exceeded it a few times).
There are many, many providers, each offering varying rates, download limits, policies, quality, and facilities (web hosting, usenet, etc.). Even better: they are engaged in a price war at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, it could be worse... they could end up looking like the ICQ home page, gaaaah.
You are allowed to deliver any public speech, but not if you do it through a loudhailer at 3am in the morning. Content is not the issue, delivery is. And that's how most spam laws (should) work.
Mike rightly asked to be indemnified for any cost he incurs by giving up his domain name: business cards, stationary, getting a new domain name set up, informing clients, etc. $10.000 may be a bit high, but the $10 MS offered is ridiculous.
If I were asked to give up my intvelt.com (assuming someone would be interested in a domain named after a misspelled Dutch last name), I would likely ask for $10.000. Anything less and it would not be worth the hassle. But the fact that I ask for such an amount should in no way, shape or form constitute 'proof' of my bad intentions when I purchased the domain.
With that said... given that Mike only registered this domain very recently, a judge might decide that the names sound too similar. If he were to apply for a trademark, it would likely be rejected (in the Netherlands at least), because a) it sounds too similar to Microsoft, a well-established brand, b) they are both in the same business ("computers", which is close enough) and c) he has other options for a company name, like Mike Row Consulting or whatnot... This case isn't comparable to, say, the guy who registered McDonalds, which happened to be his last name.
I flew back and forth between Amsterdam and Tokyo a few times, and I thought business class on KLM was quite nice, lucky me. That was, until my British co-workers described what 'business class' means to Virgin airlines. Damn... that Branson guy sure knows what he is doing.
The only freedom we need here is the freedom for game companies to set the community standards in their own systems. They should be allowed to... since they should have the right to control the gaming experience of their customers. That could mean no profanities or sexual speech in a family-oriented MMORPG like the Sims. It also means that game companies can take action against you (or more accurately: your account) if you use l33t-speak on a game server reserved for roleplayers. The very ability to offer different servers with different community standards, hinges on the freedom to limit speech on these servers.
Your freedom is the freedom not to participate in their game.
If freedom of speech rights are extended to MMORPGs, what is next? Outlawing murder and theft? Equal opportunity rules? Abolishing slavery? Believe me, there are plenty of kooky(*) activist groups and committees who would love to get their grubby mits on these games, to push their own agenda, because they hate MMORPGs, or just to be a nuisance.
* No, not all activists are kooky. I'm talking about the kind of people that forced computer suppliers to stop using the words 'master' and 'slave'. I'm not kidding.
Moreover, the political and religious leaders in those countries control the media and education. Read '1984' some time... if you control those, you can to some extend control the way people think. I know quite a few muslims (there's plenty to be found in the Netherlands), and some of these people have been brought up with the belief that women are less than men. They are educated and reasonable people otherwise, but they all cling to this belief, including the women. If this has been told to them from birth, how are they going to form an opinion to the contrary?
The 'fact', and those websites, refer to the Saudi geeks, not to the people in general or their leaders. Perhaps the Saudi geeks are indeed like us, in the sense that they tend to be more openminded, better educated, more tolerant, and less dogmatic in their religions than the general populace. Instead of spending time on the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International websites, you may find it worthwhile to try and get to know some Saudi's, so you can form an opinion firsthand.
Also don't forget that it isn't very long ago when people in western civilisations thought of women in much the same way as certain Muslim zealots do.
You should know better than to generalise like that. Shame on you.
And last but not least... all weapons have been digitally replaced with walkie-talkies!!
I have mixed feelings about this... I hate cybersquatters as much as the next guy, but what if some corporation decides it has more right to my domain name than I do, and asks the courts to give the domain to them? Such cases have already appeared in the past (one case involving McDonalds springs to mind). In one case, a judge ruled against a person owning a domain similar to his last name... the judge ruled that since the guy didn't use the domain, he was cybersquatting. Not "Using" it in this case meant not having a website there (the guy didn't have one); using the domain for a well-established mailing list and IRC server apparently didn't count.
You can't make science work (or stop it from working) by decree. Who died and made you god? ;-)
People thought heavier-than-air flying machines were a theoretical impossibility. They laughed at the idea of steel ships, or the idea that the earth is round and spins around the sun. Yes, some people laugh, others will go ahead anyway and achieve the impossible, despite popular opinion.
I think there actually might be a good market for the Harry Potter, Star Wars, Bob the Builder and similar Lego sets.... if those sets would be more compatible with the standard Lego blocks. None of the much-lamented specialty blocks that were only good for one thing, but 'themed' sets of generic or Technic Lego. There's no reason why they wouldn't sell well.
Now if it was Bill Gates, I would want to know. I'd drive over to the location of his last sighting, and pick up a nice pie on the way
A potential problem with such payment systems would be the websites that trick you into accepting, then try to feed you the information piecemeal. Pay $0,10 to access the article... and when you accept, it's another $0,20 to see the essential graphs and pictures, and $0,30 to get the conclusion. A bit like the $1 / minute phone services with a voice-response system..... that..... speaks..... really..... slow.... and has menu's of 22 levels deep. Not very honest, but not exactly illegal either.
1) Not true... well they won't work in very small rooms. It seems that all the models these days are short-throw... I put mine about 3 meters from the screen, which gives me an image of about 1.8 x 1 m. That's good to watch from 5 meters off (where the sofa is), to 3 meters. So even if your room is only 3 meters long, you can still use one. In a smaller room, just put the projector a bit closer to the screen for a smaller image.
:)
2) Typical bulb life on modern units is 3000 - 4000 hours. Even using it 8 hours a day, you'll get over a year's worth of viewing from it. They are pricey... bulbs for the 1000 Lumen models cost 250 - 400 Euro's. But shop around! Prices vary by 100's of Euro's!
3) That's true... that is why I recommend projectors mainly to movie fans. Then again, I tried having the thing on in daylight with the lights on as well, and the picture was still pretty good. Good enough to have the news on so I can watch it from the kitchen, but for movies I do have to darken the room... which reminds me, I have to go and buy thicker curtains
The bulbs are rated for a certain number of burn hours. Typical values are 3000 - 4000 hours for a modern unit. The bulbs are very reliable, and are not supposed to just randomly *poof*, like regular light bulbs... they are also guaranteed for 3-6 months against that eventuality. But I have never heard of a bulb failing long before its expected life span, unless in cases where the cooling fan broke or someone dropped the unit or moved it while still warm.
At 3000 hours, a bulb will last you over a year even if you run it 8 hours a day!.
But bulb life isn't the most important drawback of using a projector to watch TV. The main thing is that you will need to darken your room at least somewhat in order to watch. That's fine for movies, but not very convenient for having a TV show running in the background while you do other things. If you watch TV a lot (or have it on, at least), I recommend a television. If you're like me and watch mainly movies, you'll love a projector.
Flat panel TV's are becoming more and more impressive... and they'd sure look nice in my living room. But why are they still so expensive? Even the small models. A 15" LCD TV would be perfect for my bedroom... by I'll be damned if I pay upwards of 600 Euro's for one, while a computer flat-panel LCD of the same dimensions costs less than half that. Somehow, I get the feeling I am being ripped off. It looks like some manufacturers of computer LCD screens agree with me... they're offering computer screens with a built-in tuner now, just for people like me who'll just rip the thing off its socket and hang it in their bedroom.
I'm glad to see that LCD projectors have come down in price. Since I watch a lot of movies but very little else, buying a big flat panel TV would be a really bad compromise: I'd still have this big thing sitting in my living room (even though smaller than a really large TV), and I'd have to pay some ridiculous price for it. No thanks... I just got a nice LCD projector. Do yourself a favour, dump the TV, and get a 1200 lumen entry-level model for 1100 Euro's, and a good roll-up projection screen for another 200. You'll never even think about flat-panel TVs anymore...
You still need to pay the phone bill :) I have no idea what the charges are, I haven't used a landline in years
Plenty of choice here. Dial-up can be had for free :)
Consumer ADSL ranges from 19 Euro/month for 384/128 kb/s (down/up), to 80 Euro/month for 8Mb/1Mb on a 100GB/month limit (I've actually exceeded it a few times).
There are many, many providers, each offering varying rates, download limits, policies, quality, and facilities (web hosting, usenet, etc.). Even better: they are engaged in a price war at the moment.