Looking at the agreement summary, it is OBVIOUS to me Yahoo would sign it. While we like to focus (and we do) on how evil the chinese government can be (and they are), this may not be the best example of that.
What Yahoo seems to have agreed to: 1) Don't host anything illegal to your target audience. 2) Don't promote porn to China. 3) Don't attempt to incite revolution.
I'm sure once you take local laws into context (which their TOS already does, no doubt) it seems to be nothing they haven't already agreed to before.
Go ahead, post pictures to yahoo of hardcore porn where someone uses a bomb as vibrator and explains how to make it. See your browser smoke as they pull the page as fast as they can, even on Yahoo USA.
He is beyond hardcore. To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing (and geeks should all know who he is) is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
Reading the Art of Computer Programing is like translating the Bible from the original greek. You know there is something profound there, but until you've done it a few times and looked back on it, you are more concerned with trying to figure out each word.
Can someone explain exactly what this is and what it means in very small words?
My understanding of the article is that:
A) You can't predict prime numbers. B) That guy predicted prime numbers. C) Alot of money goes to whoever proves how the hell he predicted prime numbers. Ca)If we know how he predicted them we can crack old codes and make new ones?
Even if you are succesfull, do you think the attempt deserves a Darwin Honorable Mention?
At least they follow their own advice.
on
Built For Use
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Unlike certain people railing against pop-up ads, THESE guys practice what they preach. Total time starting from www.humanlogic.com to end of purchase at Barnes and Nobles was less than a minute.
font SIZE="3" COLOR="#CCCCCC" FACE="helvetica"> FORD DROPS APPEAL - 2600 VICTORY AFFIRMED
Posted 28 Jun 2002 05:40:29 UTC
Ford Motor Company has officially and unconditionally conceded its complete,
utter, and perpetual loss on the merits of the FORD v. 2600 "FuckGeneralMotors.com" case.
Ford has dismissed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals,
meaning that Ford has completely given up all attempts to reverse the
victory that 2600 Enterprises won on December 20, 2001. The mutually agreed
dismissal papers were officially entered by the Sixth Circuit on June 27,
2002.
In the words of another FORD from Michigan -- former President Gerald Ford,
"Our long national nightmare is over."
2600, which has given up nothing other than an extremely improbable claim
for getting its attorneys' fees back from FORD, has expressly reserved the
right to point "FuckGeneralMotors.com" anyplace whatsoever that 2600
pleases -- including at the FORD homepage -- at any time whatsoever, with or
without notice.
Of course, the plan in March, 2001, when the lawsuit arose, was to point the
address someplace more suitable than the FORD homepage, probably as soon as
mid-April or early May, 2001. In other words, the lawsuit has actually
delayed 2600's prior plans (several other domain names that were part of the
same project have been re-pointed several times, while FuckGeneralMotors.com
has remained pointed at FORD). Now that the lawsuit has been won, 2600 will
be soliciting suggestions during the H2K2 conference, for the best place to
point the Domain Name. Ultimately, this just proves how silly and
counterproductive FORD's litigation strategy always has been from the
beginning.
In December, 2001, Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan,
dismissed FORD's lawsuit in its entirety for "failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted" -- which means that even assuming every single
allegation in FORD's pleadings to be true (but the allegations weren't all
true), FORD still had no legal right whatsoever to prohibit 2600 from
pointing FuckGeneralMotors.com at FORD's homepage.
Needless to say, FORD did not like that outcome. Neither did a lot of other
intellectual property interests all over the world. Indeed, a google search
will reveal a number of PowerPoint(tm) presentations published on the Web
(e.g., http://austlii.edu.au/ hkitlaw/resources/Pun_IP.pdf) by various
intellectual property lawyers, emphasizing that the decision is being
appealed. Well, now it isn't.
The decision stands. It is published at 177 F. Supp. 2d 661. And it is
binding precedent. The decision has even been cited by the Sixth Circuit
already, in an interim order that was issued in the "TaubmanSucks" case
handled by Paul Levy of Public Citizen. http://www.citizen.org/documents/TaubDecision-3-11 -02.pdf.
When FORD filed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in
January, 2002, FORD sought to have the case reinstated so that FORD could
take it to trial. 2600 filed a cross-appeal, solely on the issue of whether
FORD should be required to reimburse 2600 for its legal bills (such fee
awards, in cases under the Lanham Trademark Act, are not especially common
and occur only in "exceptional" cases -- so the Sixth Circuit was likely to
defer to Judge Cleland's decision to award 2600 its "costs" but not its
attorneys' fees). 2600 still gets to take its "costs" back from FORD, and
our lawyer is preparing to serve a deposition notice on Bill Ford, to gather
the information necessary to garnish FORD's bank accounts, unless FORD cuts
us a reimbursement check forthwith.
But the key point is that 2600's victory is permanent and FORD has
voluntarily foregone any appeals. The savings, in terms of attorneys' fees,
from our standpoint, are enormous.
What causes the vulnerability?
The vulnerability results because of a flaw in how Windows Media Player handles certain types of licenses for secure media files when the media file is stored in the IE cache. Specifically, when a type of secure Windows Media file is opened, the media player erroneously returns information to the server that discloses the location of the IE cache as it processes the request to the site for the licensing information.
Excellent point. You are running a modified browser, it does NOTHING to their actual page, just how you see it. Are your font options any different? What about using Mozilla to block ads?
How far behind are lawsuits against Mozilla, Webwasher, Cookie cop, etc?
People make fun of the slashdot editors for bad grammar, how about what the reporter said in the article?
They searched all but three residences in Sylvania Township, two in Toledo, and the one in Monclova Township.
Either Sylvania is a REALLY small town, or they got alot of use out of those six search warrents.
Re:Have you learned nothing?
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
in a country with absurdly tight border restrictions
Absurdly tight? Which part? The part where thousands of Mexicans (by customs estimates) cross every month? The parts where you can go from Canada to the US with only a small roadsign telling you which is which? The part where you can take a boat across any of five very large lakes to enter the country, and customs consists of calling in on the honor system to let us know you've arrived?
The part where any fool can hop a ride to any of a dozen small islands in the Carribean and take a charter to Florida without EVER going through US Customs?
Sorry, but while the United States does it's best, there is no way you can call the border restrictions absurdly tight.
Doesn't take that much effort to get into the country. It doesn't take more than a swatch watch to have four simultaneous attacks, and until we AT LEAST give pilots TASIRs (-sp?) it ain't that hard to take out a jet.
As them being able to launch a "cyber attack" being a script kiddie doesn't cut it. That's a cyber nuisance at best. Taking out one misconfigured system (and much of DOS and even DDOS attacks can be taken care of by reconfiguring) does not a battle make.
You DO need some decent skills to do damage that lasts longer than a server reboot takes. Quite frankly few people have them. A real attack:
Needs to last long enough without detection to corrupt back ups
Needs to take out more than one system
Needs gain some type of strategic advantage, ie cause real death, erase vital records, allow easier access to the country for actual terrorist people
Needs to have the source provable, no honor for anon cowards
How many times does this need to come up before there is a conclusive precendent set? It seems there needs to be a nice hard fast ruling on deep links.
Google on linking: Searched the web for linking suit settle. Results 1 - 10 of about 12,500. Search took 0.15 seconds
It seems to me companies keep settling just to prevent the law from ever being decided on by a judge. Deep linking should not be a website's ATM.
FCC Regulation. Your device was legally required to accept Best Buy's interference. Look for this: --- This device complies with Part 15 of FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
1) Why outlook? I'd like this for Mozilla (Mailzilla?)
2) How is this a war? I hate unneeded escalation. War is when you fight an enemy you respect enough to fear. Invasions are when you fight an enemy you don't respect enough to fear. This is neither, this is more like ignoring an annoying child.
Slashdot Mirror
Because last time I checked, we STILL can't export the good stuff to them anyway. Or post the source. Or talk about it too loud.
Sometimes Slashdotters just ASK for it.
Your idea for if you won the lottery involves sitting next to your girlfriend WHILE SURFING THE INTERNET!
Damn man, look up some porn and figure out what you SHOULD BE DOING.
But it has to be done:
QT5? What Quicktime 5?
There was no Quicktime 5. All of you must be remembering wrong. There is only Quicktime 6.
Is how submersive sites are judged.
Looking at the agreement summary, it is OBVIOUS to me Yahoo would sign it. While we like to focus (and we do) on how evil the chinese government can be (and they are), this may not be the best example of that.
What Yahoo seems to have agreed to:
1) Don't host anything illegal to your target audience.
2) Don't promote porn to China.
3) Don't attempt to incite revolution.
I'm sure once you take local laws into context (which their TOS already does, no doubt) it seems to be nothing they haven't already agreed to before.
Go ahead, post pictures to yahoo of hardcore porn where someone uses a bomb as vibrator and explains how to make it. See your browser smoke as they pull the page as fast as they can, even on Yahoo USA.
Predicted Items Programming Porn Linux Internet Hardware Database Applications Misc Windows Companies Consoles Gaming Audio
I was SURE Mozilla would come up on that.
He is beyond hardcore. To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing (and geeks should all know who he is) is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
Reading the Art of Computer Programing is like translating the Bible from the original greek. You know there is something profound there, but until you've done it a few times and looked back on it, you are more concerned with trying to figure out each word.
I'm a little awestruck by him.
By the way, the Paul reference is not a flippant one, check out his other books,Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About , and 3: 16: Bible Texts Illuminated, for explanations of why not every christian is a fool.
Or I guess better would be: There WAS a screenshot. Didn't you hear it? Gah, I hate it when I think of something better right after the submit.
There WAS a screenshot. Didn't you see it?
Are we very sure they weren't trying to signal AMSAT-OSCAR 7 and just missed?
Can someone explain exactly what this is and what it means in very small words?
My understanding of the article is that:
A) You can't predict prime numbers.
B) That guy predicted prime numbers.
C) Alot of money goes to whoever proves how the hell he predicted prime numbers.
Ca)If we know how he predicted them we can crack old codes and make new ones?
Even if you are succesfull, do you think the attempt deserves a Darwin Honorable Mention?
Unlike certain people railing against pop-up ads, THESE guys practice what they preach. Total time starting from www.humanlogic.com to end of purchase at Barnes and Nobles was less than a minute.
Posted 28 Jun 2002 05:40:29 UTC
Ford Motor Company has officially and unconditionally conceded its complete, utter, and perpetual loss on the merits of the FORD v. 2600 "FuckGeneralMotors.com" case. Ford has dismissed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, meaning that Ford has completely given up all attempts to reverse the victory that 2600 Enterprises won on December 20, 2001. The mutually agreed dismissal papers were officially entered by the Sixth Circuit on June 27, 2002.
In the words of another FORD from Michigan -- former President Gerald Ford, "Our long national nightmare is over."
2600, which has given up nothing other than an extremely improbable claim for getting its attorneys' fees back from FORD, has expressly reserved the right to point "FuckGeneralMotors.com" anyplace whatsoever that 2600 pleases -- including at the FORD homepage -- at any time whatsoever, with or without notice.
Of course, the plan in March, 2001, when the lawsuit arose, was to point the address someplace more suitable than the FORD homepage, probably as soon as mid-April or early May, 2001. In other words, the lawsuit has actually delayed 2600's prior plans (several other domain names that were part of the same project have been re-pointed several times, while FuckGeneralMotors.com has remained pointed at FORD). Now that the lawsuit has been won, 2600 will be soliciting suggestions during the H2K2 conference, for the best place to point the Domain Name. Ultimately, this just proves how silly and counterproductive FORD's litigation strategy always has been from the beginning.
In December, 2001, Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan, dismissed FORD's lawsuit in its entirety for "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" -- which means that even assuming every single allegation in FORD's pleadings to be true (but the allegations weren't all true), FORD still had no legal right whatsoever to prohibit 2600 from pointing FuckGeneralMotors.com at FORD's homepage.
Needless to say, FORD did not like that outcome. Neither did a lot of other intellectual property interests all over the world. Indeed, a google search will reveal a number of PowerPoint(tm) presentations published on the Web (e.g., http://austlii.edu.au/ hkitlaw/resources/Pun_IP.pdf) by various intellectual property lawyers, emphasizing that the decision is being appealed. Well, now it isn't.
The decision stands. It is published at 177 F. Supp. 2d 661. And it is binding precedent. The decision has even been cited by the Sixth Circuit already, in an interim order that was issued in the "TaubmanSucks" case handled by Paul Levy of Public Citizen. http://www.citizen.org/documents/TaubDecision-3-11 -02.pdf .
When FORD filed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in January, 2002, FORD sought to have the case reinstated so that FORD could take it to trial. 2600 filed a cross-appeal, solely on the issue of whether FORD should be required to reimburse 2600 for its legal bills (such fee awards, in cases under the Lanham Trademark Act, are not especially common and occur only in "exceptional" cases -- so the Sixth Circuit was likely to defer to Judge Cleland's decision to award 2600 its "costs" but not its attorneys' fees). 2600 still gets to take its "costs" back from FORD, and our lawyer is preparing to serve a deposition notice on Bill Ford, to gather the information necessary to garnish FORD's bank accounts, unless FORD cuts us a reimbursement check forthwith.
But the key point is that 2600's victory is permanent and FORD has voluntarily foregone any appeals. The savings, in terms of attorneys' fees, from our standpoint, are enormous.
s/right/write/ sigh
From http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default
Excellent point. You are running a modified browser, it does NOTHING to their actual page, just how you see it.
Are your font options any different?
What about using Mozilla to block ads?
How far behind are lawsuits against Mozilla, Webwasher, Cookie cop, etc?
Either Sylvania is a REALLY small town, or they got alot of use out of those six search warrents.
Absurdly tight? Which part? The part where thousands of Mexicans (by customs estimates) cross every month? The parts where you can go from Canada to the US with only a small roadsign telling you which is which? The part where you can take a boat across any of five very large lakes to enter the country, and customs consists of calling in on the honor system to let us know you've arrived?
The part where any fool can hop a ride to any of a dozen small islands in the Carribean and take a charter to Florida without EVER going through US Customs?
Sorry, but while the United States does it's best, there is no way you can call the border restrictions absurdly tight.
Doesn't take that much effort to get into the country. It doesn't take more than a swatch watch to have four simultaneous attacks, and until we AT LEAST give pilots TASIRs (-sp?) it ain't that hard to take out a jet.
As them being able to launch a "cyber attack" being a script kiddie doesn't cut it. That's a cyber nuisance at best. Taking out one misconfigured system (and much of DOS and even DDOS attacks can be taken care of by reconfiguring) does not a battle make.
You DO need some decent skills to do damage that lasts longer than a server reboot takes. Quite frankly few people have them. A real attack:
both broadcasting and accepting signals.
We don't want the first extraterrestrial slashdotting.
Very likely
As for Stephen King, if he's dead, the NY Times, CNN, and www.stephenking.com don't know about it yet.
How many times does this need to come up before there is a conclusive precendent set? It seems there needs to be a nice hard fast ruling on deep links.
Google on linking:
Searched the web for linking suit settle.
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,500. Search took 0.15 seconds
It seems to me companies keep settling just to prevent the law from ever being decided on by a judge. Deep linking should not be a website's ATM.
FCC Regulation. Your device was legally required to accept Best Buy's interference.
Look for this:
---
This device complies with Part 15 of FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
(1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
---
1) Why outlook? I'd like this for Mozilla (Mailzilla?)
2) How is this a war? I hate unneeded escalation. War is when you fight an enemy you respect enough to fear. Invasions are when you fight an enemy you don't respect enough to fear. This is neither, this is more like ignoring an annoying child.
Yes, in fact, in the redo digital version of "The Lion King" when Simba sighs and blows flower petals up in the air, it will spell out: "I - E - 6"
Perverts.