known for belligerence and terrorism? Or for oppressing people they disagree with?
That's right. They're not belligerent, as they actually work with people to get unblocked and often send notice to admins before canning them. They don't resort to terrorism - whose life have they threatened? Who have they oppressed? Not to mention that fascism is a form of GOVERNMENT, which SPEWS isn't.
Let's recall what they actually do: they publish a *list* of IP's that send spam. That's it. By referring to them as "terrorists," "oppressors," and "fascists (confused as you are on the matter)," you cheapen those terms. SPEWS provides information and that's it.
Unfortunately for you, the first amendment still protects that.
It seems to me that Just Sports CALLED SCO'S BLUFF
Right, but it doesn't matter. The only person to read his response will be just above intern, and the responses will come in two forms: those that have/promise payment, and those that don't. Those that don't probably get filed away regardless of the response.
Sorry, but "the majority is always right" is also known as "fascism" so, no, it's not a trite example.
Christ, where the hell did you go to school, ITT Tech? "Majority rules" is democracy.
For your education, here's a definition of fascism:
Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
As it turns out, the SPEWS RBL misses all these definitions, so yes, your example is trite and inaccurate.
Did the civil rights movement of the past 50 years mean nothing to you?
A great deal, but as it relates to SPEWS, nothing.
If by "hilarious" you mean "painful beyond all belief, because our system of Democracy has been so perverted and sidelined that our leaders spend all of their time backstabbing each other, and complaining about all of the backstabbing, instead of addressing the massive problems that our country and the world face," then yeah, I'd agree with that.
That's what I said, right?;)
I'd rather have someone who I believed honestly wanted to do good - but had a hard time of it, because they got distracted by power, and used it wrong... than someone who can't even convince me that they honestly want to do good.
I guess I'm too damned cynical, but I can't even see the difference.;(
Then I guess Microsoft is the most ethical company on the planet, eh?
No, that's different. By using SPEWS, people are endorsing the idea of it. And yes, by using MS, people implicitly grant that Word Processors are ethical. I'm talking the products, not the business practices.
Marketshare dictates whether SPEWS is "ethical", and it seems that enough people think that it is because enough people are tired enough of spam that they're willing to try it.
As far as any particular rejected email goes, this is about two people (email sender and recipient) and their ISPs. People focus on the sender and how they've been screwed by SPEWS, and should switch. Maybe - but shouldn't the recipient be the one to switch, if they're getting service from any IP address that someone said had an IP address kind of like a spammer? Particularly if they're rejecting the level 2 lists, which even SPEWS doesn't recommend.
What might be nice is if SPEWS used level 2 listings only internally for info, publishing only the level 1. I imagine most of the egregious blocking problems are from misuses of level 2 blocks, which SPEWS in no way recommends. I think it's unfair to blame them for such actions.
Why does every clipping have to mention how they are doing it "better" than Americans are.....
That's particularly difficult now, at a time when the American probe phoned home and the European one did not. Kind of sounds hollow and desperate.
Seems like the ESA has a serious case of American Penis Envy. Scratch that. The whole damn EU seems to have it.
Sounds as if Europe has decided to try to be a superpower again after 50 years of regional isolationism? Trying the "bigger, better" competition like the Soviets? Hopes it works out better for Europe.
Well, first I made up the numbers off the top of my head, so don't put any faith in them,
I know, I was just messing with ya.;)
but lets say you were running the site for a year, 52 weeks, and once a week you had to update files to stay current, that's less then two hours a week to add up to 100 hours.
Playing Devil's Ad, I'd assume the kid would get another domain and change the site. But I'd still give him 10 hours to make the changeover.
I admit it seems like a lot, but when you are dealing with rpm hell, it's doable.
The point was, the OP is talking about having a shielded distribution system. If the last few feet of the system is not shielded, it doesn't really matter. It just changes the length of the antenna from which to radiate.
Which is only relevant if the unshielded, in-house bit carries the full signal of the shielded version, which it won't.
That's like saying electricity isn't safe in your house because transmission lines carry 4000 Volts. Well, yeah, but it gets stepped down a couple of times on the way into my house, so I don't fear too much for my children.
...will sell to anyone they can dupe. With women, you can usually talk them into things by appealing to attractive if nonfunctional features, safety, reliability. With guys, particularly those who don't know what they're buying but won't admit it, you play with their egos.
Anything can be sold to almost anyone, using the right technique. But the one thing no salesperson wants to see is an educated buyer.
I think that under trademark law, as it has developed over the years, Playboy has a very strong argument for infringement. As the law exists, I think I am right.
We shall see. Certainly, since I agree with the original judge and you agree with the 2 of the three appellate judges, we both have a fair case here.;)
I don't know the facts of the original case, but the most important thing, in my opinion, is what those banner ads looked like. If they looked like they might belong to Playboy, then they infringed; if no reasonable person could think they did, then not.
I agree, how they did it is critical. But if it was simply a porno-related banner ad, on a page that somewhere else had info about Playboy, that's not reasonable for confusion. But yeah, if they had the word playboy right above it, then they're going down. But I don't think it will.
Also, I do think it makes a difference that this occurred in something more analogous to a broadcast medium as opposed to a newstand where only a few people (relatively) will ever see the alleged infringement.
Interetstingly enough, the courts have treated the internet as more analogous to print than broadcast in First Amendment cases (see all of the COPA arguments, for example). And in this case, it's a search engine, so only one person sees the results of any search.
Oh, and FYI, Coke, Kleenex, & Xerox are still valid trademarks.
They are, but they also have common generic usage that has become pretty estabished.
Teaching union. Union rhetoric to the contrary, the union does not represent all teachers who are members, just like the AARP doesn't really represent all of its members politically.
Certainly true, and while I'm generally anti-union in general, I haven't had too many problems with the teaching unions. My mother was somewhat involved with the state union in KY, and it usually fought for things that would benefit students.
I don't know as much about the NEA, so if you have any info of shitty crap they've done, I'd certainly read it.
There are no Martians to actively fight colonization, but there is a huge entrenched teaching union that will fight you tooth and nail for real school reform.
By and large I agree with your post, but I don't agree with the characterization of teachers. Usually, it's the teachers (by which I mean the people actually *in* the classroom) and parents against the mindless administrators. Teachers, when they fight/go on strike, usually fight for things like reduced class size, better classroom budgets, etc. in addition to meager cost-of-living raises that should be automatic.
I agree with the school board/bureaucrat characterization, as they're useless ideologues. Until they realize that some children cannot and do not want to be taught, and will prevent other children from being taught, no learning will occur in most schools.
First, to get the nit picked, trademark law and copyright law are two separate creatures.
Blah. Type-o, sorry. And that's one of my pet peeves, too.
Second, to use your analogy, what happened here was that someone came up and asked for a Playbory, and you handed him the Hustler without explanation. Does that change things? I think so.
It changes something, namely if I'm selling it to him it would be bait-and-switch. If I'm providing free porn as a service, and I offer said user a Hustler, do I run afoul of trademark law? I *really* doubt it. If he said "Hey man, I'm looking for playboys," and I hand him a Hustler, is that really illegal?
And third, this has nothing to do with the search engine or search results. Presumably those weren't an issue. What happened was the interjection of those ads for competitors when it was not clear they were in fact competitors'.
Right. And again, I'm not seeing the link to trademark law. Playboy's pissed because search engines providing links to their sites use that knowledge to sponsor banner ads. So let's be clear what's happening here - a company who discovers its customers/users are in the business for a certain trademarked product is PROHIBITED from separately marketing any other competing product toward these users. Because what playboy objected to were sponsored banner ads on the page that displayed the search results.
So to refine my analogy, it's more like the guy asked me what rack playboy's on and I said, "Third rack. Oh, and man, you should check out this month's Hustler!" That is exactly the function a search engine does, particularly one that survives on banner ad revenue (except they're not the proprieter of the store as in my example, but the difference is irrelevant). The question is, is that behavior illegal? And there's no way.
I'll bet that what's really happening is that Playboy is attempting to avoid getting Coked, Kleenexed, and Xeroxed - in other words, they have to fight the PD'ing of their trademark. But this instance is still ridiculous.
Also, my simply causing their trademark to become "confused" simply by offering competing products to users, particularly since I haven't even *mentioned* their trademark! Think about that - how can I violate a trademark I haven't used???. If I put the word "Playboy" above a Hustler, that would be one thing, but that hasn't happened here.
" Wrong.Velcro? Swiss inventor, 1948.Teflon? Ohio researcher, 1937.Care to try a few more? Plastics, maybe? Nope, 1908!Smoke detector? Nope
Yada yada...I think you're responding to someone else, and my Tang comment was a joke. I didn't say they were invented, but more likely 1) discovered from obscurity or 2) perfected by the needs of the space program. It ain't easy flinging people into space. Hell, between the defense industry and the military, we have derived virtually every single improvement in aviation, and that alone makes it worth it. Well, not wars, but you get the idea
1) Countries start working together instead of getting into pissing contests.
I'd like to agree, but unfortunately most technological advances come from pissing constests (cold war, war in general). Without ego, most people don't care.
3) Money is diverted from Military uses which really dont do anythign to benifit mankind at all. Well except for reducing populations that one could argue... nevermind.
Again, study your history. Not that it justifies it, but most technology transfer between cultures historically has been through warfare, as has most technological advancement. That and stupendous yet pointless projects (like, say, the pyramids or space exploration).
Slashdot Mirror
||_|
That's right. They're not belligerent, as they actually work with people to get unblocked and often send notice to admins before canning them. They don't resort to terrorism - whose life have they threatened? Who have they oppressed? Not to mention that fascism is a form of GOVERNMENT, which SPEWS isn't.
Let's recall what they actually do: they publish a *list* of IP's that send spam. That's it. By referring to them as "terrorists," "oppressors," and "fascists (confused as you are on the matter)," you cheapen those terms. SPEWS provides information and that's it.
Unfortunately for you, the first amendment still protects that.
I dunno about that, but you might find a serviceable 8-track player. Do those need decoding though?
Right, but it doesn't matter. The only person to read his response will be just above intern, and the responses will come in two forms: those that have/promise payment, and those that don't. Those that don't probably get filed away regardless of the response.
Remember silence is consent.
Tell that to Kobe. ;)
That's the funniest thing I'm likely to see all day.
Christ, where the hell did you go to school, ITT Tech? "Majority rules" is democracy.
For your education, here's a definition of fascism:
As it turns out, the SPEWS RBL misses all these definitions, so yes, your example is trite and inaccurate.
Did the civil rights movement of the past 50 years mean nothing to you?
A great deal, but as it relates to SPEWS, nothing.
That's what I said, right? ;)
I'd rather have someone who I believed honestly wanted to do good - but had a hard time of it, because they got distracted by power, and used it wrong... than someone who can't even convince me that they honestly want to do good.
I guess I'm too damned cynical, but I can't even see the difference. ;(
Readily granted! That's what makes this thing so damned hilarious. The Dems are probably pissed they didn't think of it first.
All the more reason not to run computers containing extremely sensitive information on friggin' windows.
Time for a third party, if you ask me.
Be nice if it worked, but I think the power hungry are all the same world-wide. Ie, not the people you want in power.
Though honestly, I'd like to know what this "glitch" is. Sounds like someone had a rootkit, and the tech didn't patch windows.
You're king of the trite example, aren't you? Comparing a software company to Hitler is ridiculous.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Right is right, even when everyone else is wrong.
And who decides what's what? *YOU*? Christ, how monstrously arrogant.
No, that's different. By using SPEWS, people are endorsing the idea of it. And yes, by using MS, people implicitly grant that Word Processors are ethical. I'm talking the products, not the business practices.
You are a character from a Jean Paul Sartre book, aren't you?
Marketshare dictates whether SPEWS is "ethical", and it seems that enough people think that it is because enough people are tired enough of spam that they're willing to try it.
As far as any particular rejected email goes, this is about two people (email sender and recipient) and their ISPs. People focus on the sender and how they've been screwed by SPEWS, and should switch. Maybe - but shouldn't the recipient be the one to switch, if they're getting service from any IP address that someone said had an IP address kind of like a spammer? Particularly if they're rejecting the level 2 lists, which even SPEWS doesn't recommend.
What might be nice is if SPEWS used level 2 listings only internally for info, publishing only the level 1. I imagine most of the egregious blocking problems are from misuses of level 2 blocks, which SPEWS in no way recommends. I think it's unfair to blame them for such actions.
That's particularly difficult now, at a time when the American probe phoned home and the European one did not. Kind of sounds hollow and desperate.
Seems like the ESA has a serious case of American Penis Envy. Scratch that. The whole damn EU seems to have it.
Sounds as if Europe has decided to try to be a superpower again after 50 years of regional isolationism? Trying the "bigger, better" competition like the Soviets? Hopes it works out better for Europe.
I know, I was just messing with ya. ;)
but lets say you were running the site for a year, 52 weeks, and once a week you had to update files to stay current, that's less then two hours a week to add up to 100 hours.
Playing Devil's Ad, I'd assume the kid would get another domain and change the site. But I'd still give him 10 hours to make the changeover.
I admit it seems like a lot, but when you are dealing with rpm hell, it's doable.
*Shudder* Gimme a good ole .tgz any day!
Which is only relevant if the unshielded, in-house bit carries the full signal of the shielded version, which it won't.
That's like saying electricity isn't safe in your house because transmission lines carry 4000 Volts. Well, yeah, but it gets stepped down a couple of times on the way into my house, so I don't fear too much for my children.
MS jokes aside, if it takes you 100 hours to set up a computer (including the buying part), you should be sued for being stoopid.
You do anything to your home grid serious enough to pose an RF risk to humans, and you'll blow the hell out of your breaker box.
Come on. Next cell phones really do cause cancer, I bet.
Anything can be sold to almost anyone, using the right technique. But the one thing no salesperson wants to see is an educated buyer.
We shall see. Certainly, since I agree with the original judge and you agree with the 2 of the three appellate judges, we both have a fair case here. ;)
I don't know the facts of the original case, but the most important thing, in my opinion, is what those banner ads looked like. If they looked like they might belong to Playboy, then they infringed; if no reasonable person could think they did, then not.
I agree, how they did it is critical. But if it was simply a porno-related banner ad, on a page that somewhere else had info about Playboy, that's not reasonable for confusion. But yeah, if they had the word playboy right above it, then they're going down. But I don't think it will.
Also, I do think it makes a difference that this occurred in something more analogous to a broadcast medium as opposed to a newstand where only a few people (relatively) will ever see the alleged infringement.
Interetstingly enough, the courts have treated the internet as more analogous to print than broadcast in First Amendment cases (see all of the COPA arguments, for example). And in this case, it's a search engine, so only one person sees the results of any search.
Oh, and FYI, Coke, Kleenex, & Xerox are still valid trademarks.
They are, but they also have common generic usage that has become pretty estabished.
Certainly true, and while I'm generally anti-union in general, I haven't had too many problems with the teaching unions. My mother was somewhat involved with the state union in KY, and it usually fought for things that would benefit students.
I don't know as much about the NEA, so if you have any info of shitty crap they've done, I'd certainly read it.
People are divided into two camps on Gentoo: those who use it, and those who wish all the fucking Gentoo disciples would go jump off a fucking cliff.
By and large I agree with your post, but I don't agree with the characterization of teachers. Usually, it's the teachers (by which I mean the people actually *in* the classroom) and parents against the mindless administrators. Teachers, when they fight/go on strike, usually fight for things like reduced class size, better classroom budgets, etc. in addition to meager cost-of-living raises that should be automatic.
I agree with the school board/bureaucrat characterization, as they're useless ideologues. Until they realize that some children cannot and do not want to be taught, and will prevent other children from being taught, no learning will occur in most schools.
Blah. Type-o, sorry. And that's one of my pet peeves, too.
Second, to use your analogy, what happened here was that someone came up and asked for a Playbory, and you handed him the Hustler without explanation. Does that change things? I think so.
It changes something, namely if I'm selling it to him it would be bait-and-switch. If I'm providing free porn as a service, and I offer said user a Hustler, do I run afoul of trademark law? I *really* doubt it. If he said "Hey man, I'm looking for playboys," and I hand him a Hustler, is that really illegal?
And third, this has nothing to do with the search engine or search results. Presumably those weren't an issue. What happened was the interjection of those ads for competitors when it was not clear they were in fact competitors'.
Right. And again, I'm not seeing the link to trademark law. Playboy's pissed because search engines providing links to their sites use that knowledge to sponsor banner ads. So let's be clear what's happening here - a company who discovers its customers/users are in the business for a certain trademarked product is PROHIBITED from separately marketing any other competing product toward these users. Because what playboy objected to were sponsored banner ads on the page that displayed the search results.
So to refine my analogy, it's more like the guy asked me what rack playboy's on and I said, "Third rack. Oh, and man, you should check out this month's Hustler!" That is exactly the function a search engine does, particularly one that survives on banner ad revenue (except they're not the proprieter of the store as in my example, but the difference is irrelevant). The question is, is that behavior illegal? And there's no way.
I'll bet that what's really happening is that Playboy is attempting to avoid getting Coked, Kleenexed, and Xeroxed - in other words, they have to fight the PD'ing of their trademark. But this instance is still ridiculous.
Also, my simply causing their trademark to become "confused" simply by offering competing products to users, particularly since I haven't even *mentioned* their trademark! Think about that - how can I violate a trademark I haven't used???. If I put the word "Playboy" above a Hustler, that would be one thing, but that hasn't happened here.
Yada yada...I think you're responding to someone else, and my Tang comment was a joke. I didn't say they were invented, but more likely 1) discovered from obscurity or 2) perfected by the needs of the space program. It ain't easy flinging people into space. Hell, between the defense industry and the military, we have derived virtually every single improvement in aviation, and that alone makes it worth it. Well, not wars, but you get the idea
1) Countries start working together instead of getting into pissing contests.
I'd like to agree, but unfortunately most technological advances come from pissing constests (cold war, war in general). Without ego, most people don't care.
3) Money is diverted from Military uses which really dont do anythign to benifit mankind at all. Well except for reducing populations that one could argue... nevermind.
Again, study your history. Not that it justifies it, but most technology transfer between cultures historically has been through warfare, as has most technological advancement. That and stupendous yet pointless projects (like, say, the pyramids or space exploration).