As a result, a Mazda dealership can't advertise as a Honda dealership in the yellow pages, and shouldn't be able to do the equivalent thing through AdWords.
Maybe. Your example is correct, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily the same thing. To continue with the car analogy, I don't believe the Mazda dealership is advertising as a Honda dealership. Rather, I think they are saying that it is entirely possible that somebody who thinks they want to buy a Honda might be convinced to buy a Mazda. They might buy the Honda KEYWORD, but I doubt their link says "Buy your Honda here!" with no such ability in the subsequent pages.
I liken it as somewhat similar to Amazon's "people who like this product also like..." section, with the main difference being that people buy the rights to be listed instead of having some algorithm decide it.
But the bottom line is France doesn't permit competetive advertising in the same way that we do in the United States so while we can argue which persepctive is more valuable or correct, I don't think it's fair to argue that the French misinterpret their own laws. (Maybe they did, but that is for French appeals courts to decide.)
And you say this lawsuit isn't about anti-Americanism, but your comment reeks of it.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw this. In fact nearly ALL of this person's comments in this thread have reaked of it, so it was hardly a slip of the tongue.
MS Office is integrated with IIS which is integrated with the OS
You missed a step! MS Office is integrated with IIS which is integrated with the OS which is more than happy to install the spyware installed from applications that have no business installing anything to begin with (video files anybody?)
Just because you're mad about the election is no reason to bust out idiocy like "evil neocon overlord." I hate Bush too, but please, reign in your rhetoric.
You also happen to be wrong. A fair portion of the US population did and more disturbingly STILL DOES believe Iraq was linked to 9/11.
Examples: "41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001."
"37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."
They are not majorities, but they are highly significant numbers. And a majority (62%) of Americans continue to beleive Hussein was strongly linked to Al Qaida. This was as of October 21, 2004.
Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
I can't speak for other states, but I can speak as somebody who has been out of an Illinois high school for a few years now.
In my particular high school, two years of history were required: One year World History, one year US History. In that mandatory US History class was a mandatory Constitution examination that had to be passed before a student could graduate. The same was true for me in 8th grade: There was a mandatory Constitution unit and a must-pass test to go with it. Additionally there were other "areas" that students had to complete courses in and although not mandatory, there were classes in Constitutional Law and Business Law. I'm sure the latter had to touch on the Constitution at least briefly; obviously the former was entirely focused on it, and I enjoyed the class thoroughly.
I'm pretty sure that the Constitution test requirement is a state law for high schools. Incidentally, I am also required to pass a Constitution test (or take a specific History class that presumably will cover it in no minor detail) for college.
Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material.
Indeed. I can understand how many students got this wrong. While it wasn't on the Internet, we've been bombarded recently with things such as the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" where it's made pretty clear that free speech rights are not absolute. I'm not surprised that students might not know where and under what circumstances these powers end. Unfortunately our laws tend to be so complicated that it seems only a lawyer can TRULY know for sure exactly what is and is not protected speech. And even then they sometimes have to prove it in court.
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
I'm honestly not sure what that means. How does one practice their First Amendment rights? By not getting arrested? I'll respond to your specific thought though.
Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams.
I had the opposite experience. Very few of my high school teachers for ANY subject would force you to regurgitate their opinion. Sometimes they would make you pick a side (pro or con, for or against a statement, etc) but almost all of them were looking for something specific. IE, in a History class they were probably looking for any sort of historical examples to back up your point. In English the major focus was on the quality of the discourse and the strength of argument rather than searching for specific factual points. Largely, the English teachers did not even care HOW a person wrote; I find they were much less concerned with structure of the paper than my college professors have been, and instead focused on the points raised.
That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers.
This is the point I disagree with you the most about (as the others seem to be mostly a different set of experiences). We can argue whether the government or media wants free thinkers, but that's not why schools are not providing newspapers or radio stations or whatnot for their students. It's an issue of money. I imagine the newspaper would be the cheapest (television/radio stations require at least large initial investments), and there are still printing costs and such involved.
As the article stated, 40% of those schools without such programs have removed them in the last five years. The economy has not been the best the last few years so I can fully understand needing to make some cuts such as this. Additionally there are some schools, probably mostly in big urban centers, where funding is a perrenial issue and the money just can't be d
If you know you are going to go shopping then call the bank on the way to the mall and get say 10 transactions ready.
Works fine, unless
- You stop at eleven stores
- You didn't plan on going shopping at all. Maybe you went with a friend or just realised you needed something on the way somewhere else.
- You thought you were going to spend less than $50 but the item cost more than you thought, you bought a higher-value like item (purposely or not), you figured in tax wrong, etc etc etc.
- You didn't have as much cash in your wallet as you thought you did. Pesky kids always swiping money from mom and dad!
And incidentally, if you're writing down a list of ten numbers that you have to give out essentially like a credit card number, it seems to me you have another problem there. Okay, so you won't hand a card with the number on it to a clerk; you'll read it aloud to him while another customer in line peeks over your shoulder instead and snags other numbers off the list instead.
A fine philosophy. Unfortunately, not how the Constitution has been interpreted thus far and, until such unlikely time as that changes, not of much practical use.
A company as big as Microsoft almost certainly has staff attorneys, likely getting paid whether they are actually doing anything or not. In that sense, it's almost more cost-effective to go ahead and appeal; you stand some chance of winning while paying the same amount instead of 0% by not trying.
The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.
Actually freedom of speech IS freedom to be a shithead without getting arrested for it.
Where we begin getting on sticky ground is if people are inciting others to violence or panic, etc. Incidentally, I make no comment on the specific case in this story, but speak in general.
A quote I have pasted before:
The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty.
Say a dog cares about her pups. If the dog could truely "think", she might think that she cares about her puppies the same way a human mother cares about her kids.
That is really a poor analogy. The grandparent's "completely human" attribute was indifference. Specifically, indifference to the tsunami that just occurred. This is something that is or is not. I am indifferent or I am not; God is indifferent or he is not.
To bring "love" in creates a situation in which there are now degrees of being. I love many people in my life, but not all of them equally. I have friends I would lay down my life for, and friends I don't go much beyond seeing a movie with or talking to once in a while.
To most humans I'D HOPE that that is an offensive thought. To think that a mom cares about her kids on the level of a dog and a pup... that's disgusting.
I love when humans pretend we're some awesome super-species because we have certain faculties and features that others do not. Personally I say that a mom's love for her children and a dog's love for her puppies is extremely similar, if not identical. They each protect their offspring, they provide for them, they teach them how to survive. Many animals would die to protect their offspring the same as many parents would. In fact I repeat myself; humans are animals. I am completely irreligious, but even the Bible seems to agree that giving one's life is the greatest form of love: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
" (John 15:13).
So what exactly is the distinction? Do you think that because we teach our children by sending them off to school instead of yanking them out into the woods to observe that we are somehow superior? Do you think that because we can "truely 'think'" that our love must be more meaningful?
I won't debate the specific stuff about god, it's just not worth it anymore.
Do let me know when I'll be free to start smoking marijuana, won't you?
You were somewhat free to do so after they passed it. Except that the law required you have the marijuana to get the license and required a license to have the marijuana.
The Supreme Court didn't laugh and ruled it unconstitutional in 1969 on the grounds that it forced self-incrimination. In 1970, it was officially made illegal in the Controlled Substances Act.
Why isn't primetime TV pre-empted for round the clock coverage of this? 8 Americans dead isn't enough to pre-empt programming.
Because by and large:
1. It does not affect most Americans. That is not to say people do not care or are not interested; I have not yet found a person I've mentioned this to who hasn't already told me that they know about it. But the reality is, the number of Americans touched directly isn't high. This isn't media bias, it's audience. Saying the media is biased against this is like saying networks should pre-empt programming to talk about elections in other nations. In many ways that would even be MORE important to us locally than a tsunami that, while terrible, is done with. And that said,
2. It is pretty much done with. Yes, there is a TON of cleanup and humanitarian things going on, but how much is there to say about it? "The UN is helping." Okay, great. Do we need to break into programming or dedicate 24/7 coverage on CNN to say that? Do we need experts brought in to talk about what food is or something? Be reasonable. Things like 9/11 are covered in depth not only because of how directly and vastly it affects the average American, but because of how many questions remain unanswered. This was an earthquake, and a tsunami caused by it. It doesn't NEED vast coverage.
Yeah. I'm sure no other country in the world is trying to listen in on US conversations, nor are there any countries in the world who try to protect themselves from other countries doing the same to them. It's exclusively a USA-only thing.
True. It sounds more like the slippery slope fallacy, wouldn't you agree?
Seriously, I agree with the base of what you're saying--I don't want my picture taken under these circumstances--but just because I might in theory support that action for some reason, it does not follow that I want my private conversations monitored and published. I hardly consider my appearance (ie, a picture of me) as big a privacy issue as monitoring private conversations, so while I happen to agree with you this time, I still think a strong argument can be made that you've shown no connection between why I must support the two things equally if I support either. Slippery slope.
You want to have an impact on the number of commercials you see before a movie? Stop attending the movie at a theater.
Why? Then the MPAA will bitch and moan about how it must be these illegal filesharers and bootleggers biting into their profits. I mean after all, they're FALTLESS! It couldn't be their product or their presentation. Nope, not a chance.
Maybe when movie (and music) companies realize that people are starting to get sick of their shit, rather than finding whatever conveinient excuse happens to be at hand, such a logical action would work. Until then? *shrugs*
I want us to be sending dozens or hundreds of people out there into space and not really just to another plant. Before we can do that though, we need a cheap space delivery system.
According to whom? It seem to me that "...and useful Arts" implies that Arts is a noun. "Made" is a verb, "artificial" is an adjective. It certainly seems like they were implying SOMETHING here.
There's no esthetic value judgement.
No, not a value judgment because that's tricky ground, but I don't see how "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" can be taken to mean that choosing an email address is copyrighted. Since @whatever.ext is essentially some routing information, does that mean if I was the first person to register ABC@anything.whatever that I could sue the crap out of anybody else who used it since they've violated my copyright?
Your middle name? Seems like it would be copyrighted to your parents, not you, at best; but again, come on! If we can secure a copyright on a single word, we've got serious issues. (First person to say something about trademarks gets whapped with a rolled-up newspaper.)
And where does fair use enter in here even if you were right? Sticking your name on the top of a report about you certainly seems to fit. It might have PRIVACY implications, but not COPYRIGHT. If you want to claim copyright on a specific collection of facts about yourself that you have compiled, that's cool--but it doesn't mean nobody can use any individual fact.
That DMCA "database protection" is just an abuse of copyright law to protect official ownership of "facts"
I believe you mean an "extension" of copyright law, whether you like it or not. Congress determines things about copyright. If you don't like what they decide, you can try to get a court to rule it unconstitutional or you can work to install new congressmen who will change it to your liking. Until either of those things happen, it IS copyright law.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully this isn't a joke or something I'm missing, but uh..
In times of war, the USCG comes under the command of the US Navy. There probably aren't many CG vessels out there right now but there likely are some.
Wow. It's a damn shame my mod points expired earlier today. Where's the +1 PutThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt mod when you need one?
Well said.
As a result, a Mazda dealership can't advertise as a Honda dealership in the yellow pages, and shouldn't be able to do the equivalent thing through AdWords.
Maybe. Your example is correct, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily the same thing. To continue with the car analogy, I don't believe the Mazda dealership is advertising as a Honda dealership. Rather, I think they are saying that it is entirely possible that somebody who thinks they want to buy a Honda might be convinced to buy a Mazda. They might buy the Honda KEYWORD, but I doubt their link says "Buy your Honda here!" with no such ability in the subsequent pages.
I liken it as somewhat similar to Amazon's "people who like this product also like..." section, with the main difference being that people buy the rights to be listed instead of having some algorithm decide it.
But the bottom line is France doesn't permit competetive advertising in the same way that we do in the United States so while we can argue which persepctive is more valuable or correct, I don't think it's fair to argue that the French misinterpret their own laws. (Maybe they did, but that is for French appeals courts to decide.)
And you say this lawsuit isn't about anti-Americanism, but your comment reeks of it.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw this. In fact nearly ALL of this person's comments in this thread have reaked of it, so it was hardly a slip of the tongue.
MS Office is integrated with IIS which is integrated with the OS
You missed a step! MS Office is integrated with IIS which is integrated with the OS which is more than happy to install the spyware installed from applications that have no business installing anything to begin with (video files anybody?)
Googlebar. You can highlight words, right click, Googlebar items, Search for selected text.
I'm running the Googlebar extension version 0.9.0.30 if it makes a difference.
I didn't read the article, so I'm hoping that's the sort of thing you were referring to.
Hes alluding to the fact that Microsofts most notable product is infact a flop.
90% market share. If I ever start a company, I'd love to have flops as big as that.
Just because you're mad about the election is no reason to bust out idiocy like "evil neocon overlord." I hate Bush too, but please, reign in your rhetoric.
You also happen to be wrong. A fair portion of the US population did and more disturbingly STILL DOES believe Iraq was linked to 9/11.
Examples: "41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001."
"37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."
(Source: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=50.)
They are not majorities, but they are highly significant numbers. And a majority (62%) of Americans continue to beleive Hussein was strongly linked to Al Qaida. This was as of October 21, 2004.
Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
I can't speak for other states, but I can speak as somebody who has been out of an Illinois high school for a few years now.
In my particular high school, two years of history were required: One year World History, one year US History. In that mandatory US History class was a mandatory Constitution examination that had to be passed before a student could graduate. The same was true for me in 8th grade: There was a mandatory Constitution unit and a must-pass test to go with it. Additionally there were other "areas" that students had to complete courses in and although not mandatory, there were classes in Constitutional Law and Business Law. I'm sure the latter had to touch on the Constitution at least briefly; obviously the former was entirely focused on it, and I enjoyed the class thoroughly.
I'm pretty sure that the Constitution test requirement is a state law for high schools. Incidentally, I am also required to pass a Constitution test (or take a specific History class that presumably will cover it in no minor detail) for college.
Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material.
Indeed. I can understand how many students got this wrong. While it wasn't on the Internet, we've been bombarded recently with things such as the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" where it's made pretty clear that free speech rights are not absolute. I'm not surprised that students might not know where and under what circumstances these powers end. Unfortunately our laws tend to be so complicated that it seems only a lawyer can TRULY know for sure exactly what is and is not protected speech. And even then they sometimes have to prove it in court.
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
I'm honestly not sure what that means. How does one practice their First Amendment rights? By not getting arrested? I'll respond to your specific thought though.
Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams.
I had the opposite experience. Very few of my high school teachers for ANY subject would force you to regurgitate their opinion. Sometimes they would make you pick a side (pro or con, for or against a statement, etc) but almost all of them were looking for something specific. IE, in a History class they were probably looking for any sort of historical examples to back up your point. In English the major focus was on the quality of the discourse and the strength of argument rather than searching for specific factual points. Largely, the English teachers did not even care HOW a person wrote; I find they were much less concerned with structure of the paper than my college professors have been, and instead focused on the points raised.
That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers.
This is the point I disagree with you the most about (as the others seem to be mostly a different set of experiences). We can argue whether the government or media wants free thinkers, but that's not why schools are not providing newspapers or radio stations or whatnot for their students. It's an issue of money. I imagine the newspaper would be the cheapest (television/radio stations require at least large initial investments), and there are still printing costs and such involved.
As the article stated, 40% of those schools without such programs have removed them in the last five years. The economy has not been the best the last few years so I can fully understand needing to make some cuts such as this. Additionally there are some schools, probably mostly in big urban centers, where funding is a perrenial issue and the money just can't be d
If you know you are going to go shopping then call the bank on the way to the mall and get say 10 transactions ready.
Works fine, unless
- You stop at eleven stores
- You didn't plan on going shopping at all. Maybe you went with a friend or just realised you needed something on the way somewhere else.
- You thought you were going to spend less than $50 but the item cost more than you thought, you bought a higher-value like item (purposely or not), you figured in tax wrong, etc etc etc.
- You didn't have as much cash in your wallet as you thought you did. Pesky kids always swiping money from mom and dad!
And incidentally, if you're writing down a list of ten numbers that you have to give out essentially like a credit card number, it seems to me you have another problem there. Okay, so you won't hand a card with the number on it to a clerk; you'll read it aloud to him while another customer in line peeks over your shoulder instead and snags other numbers off the list instead.
A fine philosophy. Unfortunately, not how the Constitution has been interpreted thus far and, until such unlikely time as that changes, not of much practical use.
A company as big as Microsoft almost certainly has staff attorneys, likely getting paid whether they are actually doing anything or not. In that sense, it's almost more cost-effective to go ahead and appeal; you stand some chance of winning while paying the same amount instead of 0% by not trying.
The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.
Actually freedom of speech IS freedom to be a shithead without getting arrested for it.
Where we begin getting on sticky ground is if people are inciting others to violence or panic, etc. Incidentally, I make no comment on the specific case in this story, but speak in general.
A quote I have pasted before:
Say a dog cares about her pups. If the dog could truely "think", she might think that she cares about her puppies the same way a human mother cares about her kids.
That is really a poor analogy. The grandparent's "completely human" attribute was indifference. Specifically, indifference to the tsunami that just occurred. This is something that is or is not. I am indifferent or I am not; God is indifferent or he is not.
To bring "love" in creates a situation in which there are now degrees of being. I love many people in my life, but not all of them equally. I have friends I would lay down my life for, and friends I don't go much beyond seeing a movie with or talking to once in a while.
To most humans I'D HOPE that that is an offensive thought. To think that a mom cares about her kids on the level of a dog and a pup... that's disgusting.
I love when humans pretend we're some awesome super-species because we have certain faculties and features that others do not. Personally I say that a mom's love for her children and a dog's love for her puppies is extremely similar, if not identical. They each protect their offspring, they provide for them, they teach them how to survive. Many animals would die to protect their offspring the same as many parents would. In fact I repeat myself; humans are animals. I am completely irreligious, but even the Bible seems to agree that giving one's life is the greatest form of love: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. " (John 15:13).
So what exactly is the distinction? Do you think that because we teach our children by sending them off to school instead of yanking them out into the woods to observe that we are somehow superior? Do you think that because we can "truely 'think'" that our love must be more meaningful?
I won't debate the specific stuff about god, it's just not worth it anymore.
...can you count? That's not a particularly hard one to prove.
Good is an adjective, well is an adverb.
You are GOOD at faking who you are.
You fake who you are WELL.
Do let me know when I'll be free to start smoking marijuana, won't you?
You were somewhat free to do so after they passed it. Except that the law required you have the marijuana to get the license and required a license to have the marijuana.
The Supreme Court didn't laugh and ruled it unconstitutional in 1969 on the grounds that it forced self-incrimination. In 1970, it was officially made illegal in the Controlled Substances Act.
Meh, no disrespect to the parent poster, but is it really +4 Insightful to say that a television show is doing something in an attempt to get ratings?
Why isn't primetime TV pre-empted for round the clock coverage of this? 8 Americans dead isn't enough to pre-empt programming.
Because by and large:
1. It does not affect most Americans. That is not to say people do not care or are not interested; I have not yet found a person I've mentioned this to who hasn't already told me that they know about it. But the reality is, the number of Americans touched directly isn't high. This isn't media bias, it's audience. Saying the media is biased against this is like saying networks should pre-empt programming to talk about elections in other nations. In many ways that would even be MORE important to us locally than a tsunami that, while terrible, is done with. And that said,
2. It is pretty much done with. Yes, there is a TON of cleanup and humanitarian things going on, but how much is there to say about it? "The UN is helping." Okay, great. Do we need to break into programming or dedicate 24/7 coverage on CNN to say that? Do we need experts brought in to talk about what food is or something? Be reasonable. Things like 9/11 are covered in depth not only because of how directly and vastly it affects the average American, but because of how many questions remain unanswered. This was an earthquake, and a tsunami caused by it. It doesn't NEED vast coverage.
Yeah. I'm sure no other country in the world is trying to listen in on US conversations, nor are there any countries in the world who try to protect themselves from other countries doing the same to them. It's exclusively a USA-only thing.
Fucking morons.
This is not an example of a strawman fallacy
True. It sounds more like the slippery slope fallacy, wouldn't you agree?
Seriously, I agree with the base of what you're saying--I don't want my picture taken under these circumstances--but just because I might in theory support that action for some reason, it does not follow that I want my private conversations monitored and published. I hardly consider my appearance (ie, a picture of me) as big a privacy issue as monitoring private conversations, so while I happen to agree with you this time, I still think a strong argument can be made that you've shown no connection between why I must support the two things equally if I support either. Slippery slope.
You want to have an impact on the number of commercials you see before a movie? Stop attending the movie at a theater.
Why? Then the MPAA will bitch and moan about how it must be these illegal filesharers and bootleggers biting into their profits. I mean after all, they're FALTLESS! It couldn't be their product or their presentation. Nope, not a chance.
Maybe when movie (and music) companies realize that people are starting to get sick of their shit, rather than finding whatever conveinient excuse happens to be at hand, such a logical action would work. Until then? *shrugs*
Exactly what is the point of this toolbar?
To make money of course. From their website:
I want us to be sending dozens or hundreds of people out there into space and not really just to another plant. Before we can do that though, we need a cheap space delivery system.
Gigantic catapult, anyone?
"Art" means "made", as in "artificial".
According to whom? It seem to me that "...and useful Arts" implies that Arts is a noun. "Made" is a verb, "artificial" is an adjective. It certainly seems like they were implying SOMETHING here.
There's no esthetic value judgement.
No, not a value judgment because that's tricky ground, but I don't see how "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" can be taken to mean that choosing an email address is copyrighted. Since @whatever.ext is essentially some routing information, does that mean if I was the first person to register ABC@anything.whatever that I could sue the crap out of anybody else who used it since they've violated my copyright?
Your middle name? Seems like it would be copyrighted to your parents, not you, at best; but again, come on! If we can secure a copyright on a single word, we've got serious issues. (First person to say something about trademarks gets whapped with a rolled-up newspaper.)
And where does fair use enter in here even if you were right? Sticking your name on the top of a report about you certainly seems to fit. It might have PRIVACY implications, but not COPYRIGHT. If you want to claim copyright on a specific collection of facts about yourself that you have compiled, that's cool--but it doesn't mean nobody can use any individual fact.
That DMCA "database protection" is just an abuse of copyright law to protect official ownership of "facts"
I believe you mean an "extension" of copyright law, whether you like it or not. Congress determines things about copyright. If you don't like what they decide, you can try to get a court to rule it unconstitutional or you can work to install new congressmen who will change it to your liking. Until either of those things happen, it IS copyright law.