Spam is spam, whatever the source, but how much of that crap in your inbox (or stopped by your filter) is from a "legitimate" source? I for one would be immensely happy if the only spam I received was legitimate advertising as opposed to the phishing and fraud which makes up the vast majority of spam -- probably in the neighborhood of 99.9%.
I say more power to the DMA. They are annoying, but they are not the problem. If they are willing to spend their money helping combat the spammers that are the problem, we should be cheering for them, not just bitching and whining. They've got the incentive to combat spam -- do you really think local and federal law enforcement is going to worry about it unless the majority of the work is done for them? They've got dope-smokers and speeding drivers to bust.
If you let someone use something under a license which cannot be revoked (e.g., GPL) then you cannot turn around and sue them for either patent or copyright infringment. They may or may not have a valid, enforceable patent to anything in the MySQL code, but that's not going to stop anyone forking the project under the terms of the GPL.
It would be too bad if something were to happen to this here computer, wouldn't it Rocky?
Why, it sure would, Guido. That's an awfully nice computer. It would be a pity if someone were to, say, surf with IE on it, or open attachments in Outlook, wouldn't it Guido?
Or even Outlook Express, Rocky.
Hey, now -- that's going a little too far. I do got standards, you know? No women, no kids, and no using Outlook Express.
The rebuttals and criticisms of this book may not make CNN, but then neither will the book. For anyone to whom the publishing of this book is news, the furor about it is even better news. The more (well-reasoned) uproar over this piece of trash now, the more likely that any time it is mentioned in the press the doubts about it will be too.
Just for the record, I survived the peak traffic from the link in the parent, but I've been having a deuce of a time with my DSL and it went down on me (see details on my homepage, if you're curious). I'm too cheap to pay for a static IP, so that link will be dead until the DNS servers update. Sorry.
That's right. The ruling determined "the relevant and proper time at which to measure whether the Windows trademark is generic." The court said prior to 1985 is that time. Which means that what has happened with the "windows" name since doesn't matter.
No, and that's why Lindows is using this strategy. It knows it's toast if the Windows trademark is valid, so it's attacking that validity. If Windows is generic, it doesn't matter how pathetic someone might have been in copying that name, because it has no protection.
the Court declares it will instruct the jury to consider whether the Windows mark was generic during the period before Microsoft Windows 1.0 entered the marketplace in November 1985. Furthermore, the Court will not instruct the jury that even if Windows were generic prior to November 1985, the trademark would nonetheless be valid today so long as the primary significance of the term today is not generic.
This doesn't mean that the judge has ruled that "windows" is generic, but it does mean that Lindows can (try to)point out to the jury that "windows" was used generically before Microsoft started using it. If it is generic, Microsoft loses their trademark protection in that name (althought "Microsoft Windows" would probably still be valid). Now it's all about the status of that term in the computer industry, including the commercial side of it, prior to 1985.
Re:Was it the TV or....
on
Video T-shirts
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I think what you'd get in that case is a sort of fish-eye distortion. What you need is a model with, ahem, sufficient girth to support the wide screen.
But . . . but . . .
on
Video T-shirts
·
· Score: 4, Funny
. . . I'm supposed to be staring at your chest, aren't I?
I think what you're missing is that the majority of those zombie boxes are not set up with mail servers prior to infection. Yes, it may be an extra hoop to jump through when setting up a mail server, but I think something like this will indeed differentiate between spam (at least from zombie boxes) and legitimate email.
I'll reserve judgment on the effectiveness of this particular system, and I'm sure there are loopholes (there always are), but I like the concept.
Not only is deforestation in the US a myth, its completely opposite the truth. Take a drive through the midwest sometime. What was once the "Great Plains" actually has more trees now than a hundred years ago, primarily from trees planted as windbreaks along the edges of fields. In areas where the ground is not longer tilled, the trees have taken over and created wooded areas.
Only if you can convince the judge. It isn't automatic, it has to be ordered by the court. Given the government's arguments (right or wrong), this case is a natural for a gag order.
Article summary:
85% of market value of US companies == intangible
intangible value == IP
F/OSS software == anti-IP (& in fact will destroy it, somehow)
Therefore, F/OSS == the destruction of 85% of the value of US companies
I don't know where to begin, this article is so full of holes.
Probably the most glaring error is equating "intangible value" with "IP," and claiming that F/OSS will destroy the former by avoiding the latter. First of all, F/OSS is not anti-IP. If anything, it is merely anti exploiting-IP-till-it-squeaks, but the GPL (etc.) are all about copyright, not against it. Second, what the hell does any of that have to do with trademarks? Last, but certainly not least, where are this guy's numbers? If 85% of "market value" of companies is intangible, and open source and outsourcing are going to destroy that value, wouldn't there be some measurable impact since 1998 (when the 85% number came from) with the increase of Linux market share and outsourcing the last several years? There ought to be some evidence for his position if it is at all defensible.
Well, that's enough rant for now. I've probably made even less sense then this bozo, but idiotic, scare-mongering, groundless spin like this makes my blood boil. (Which is why I avoid TV even more in an election year.)
What I said was: Law firms and the like don't need much other than WP, a browser and email. The word processor is probably the most used application on the computer.
"With all due respect," servicing a law office's computers doesn't exactly give you any special insight into what an attorney actually needs/uses on a day-to-day basis. At best, you know what some sales rep has convinced them they need.
IAAL, so I have a pretty damned good idea of how a law office is run. The only application you mentioned that might be an issue is a time keeping program such as Timeslips. We don't use one at our office, so I didn't think about that.
All legal research -- if not out of a book -- is online through Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw, and Mozilla can access them much more stably then IE. As for the "Legal Edition" of WP, even if it is not eventually ported to Linux all you lose are some forms that you would have to customize for your local courts anyway and some legal terms already in the spell checking dictionary.
I'm sure our accountant has different needs, but here's what I use on a day-to-day basis for work (and as the research/brief writing guru of the firm I probably use my computer more than any other attorney here): Outlook for email & scheduling; WP for word processing & converting documents to.pdf format for submission to federal court; and Mozilla Firefox for research and to access the federal ECF system.
Slashdot Mirror
Spam is spam, whatever the source, but how much of that crap in your inbox (or stopped by your filter) is from a "legitimate" source? I for one would be immensely happy if the only spam I received was legitimate advertising as opposed to the phishing and fraud which makes up the vast majority of spam -- probably in the neighborhood of 99.9%.
I say more power to the DMA. They are annoying, but they are not the problem. If they are willing to spend their money helping combat the spammers that are the problem, we should be cheering for them, not just bitching and whining. They've got the incentive to combat spam -- do you really think local and federal law enforcement is going to worry about it unless the majority of the work is done for them? They've got dope-smokers and speeding drivers to bust.
If you let someone use something under a license which cannot be revoked (e.g., GPL) then you cannot turn around and sue them for either patent or copyright infringment. They may or may not have a valid, enforceable patent to anything in the MySQL code, but that's not going to stop anyone forking the project under the terms of the GPL.
Wooooooo! Pig Soooooie!
Wooooooo! Pig Soooooie!
Wooooooo! Pig Soooooie!
Razorbacks!
And, no, I'm not kidding.
On the other hand, Amazon claims "Date first available at Amazon: July 5, 2002"
You can theoretically pre-order, but it doesn't seem to be working right now.
It would be too bad if something were to happen to this here computer, wouldn't it Rocky?
Why, it sure would, Guido. That's an awfully nice computer. It would be a pity if someone were to, say, surf with IE on it, or open attachments in Outlook, wouldn't it Guido?
Or even Outlook Express, Rocky.
Hey, now -- that's going a little too far. I do got standards, you know? No women, no kids, and no using Outlook Express.
. . . the other 52.4% having had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex at some point in their life.
The rebuttals and criticisms of this book may not make CNN, but then neither will the book. For anyone to whom the publishing of this book is news, the furor about it is even better news. The more (well-reasoned) uproar over this piece of trash now, the more likely that any time it is mentioned in the press the doubts about it will be too.
Don't you mean John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?
Or maybe that's just me. It is my name too, after all.
I'm holding off on the soldiering kit as long as I can ;) ).
But why? The combat boots and rucksack offer a really impressive multimedia experience.
Just for the record, I survived the peak traffic from the link in the parent, but I've been having a deuce of a time with my DSL and it went down on me (see details on my homepage, if you're curious). I'm too cheap to pay for a static IP, so that link will be dead until the DNS servers update. Sorry.
to get back on the cool side
;-)
Well then, I think this may have been a tactical blunder:
i'm an attorney
Hmm. That makes me wonder who's doing the tech support for these fine instutions . . .
That's right. The ruling determined "the relevant and proper time at which to measure whether the Windows trademark is generic." The court said prior to 1985 is that time. Which means that what has happened with the "windows" name since doesn't matter.
No, and that's why Lindows is using this strategy. It knows it's toast if the Windows trademark is valid, so it's attacking that validity. If Windows is generic, it doesn't matter how pathetic someone might have been in copying that name, because it has no protection.
Here (until /. fries my server): http://thewillards.us/owned-ms.html
Please be kind.
From the trial judge's ruling:
the Court declares it will instruct the jury to consider whether the Windows mark was generic during the period before Microsoft Windows 1.0 entered the marketplace in November 1985. Furthermore, the Court will not instruct the jury that even if Windows were generic prior to November 1985, the trademark would nonetheless be valid today so long as the primary significance of the term today is not generic.
This doesn't mean that the judge has ruled that "windows" is generic, but it does mean that Lindows can (try to)point out to the jury that "windows" was used generically before Microsoft started using it. If it is generic, Microsoft loses their trademark protection in that name (althought "Microsoft Windows" would probably still be valid). Now it's all about the status of that term in the computer industry, including the commercial side of it, prior to 1985.
I think what you'd get in that case is a sort of fish-eye distortion. What you need is a model with, ahem, sufficient girth to support the wide screen.
. . . I'm supposed to be staring at your chest, aren't I?
I think what you're missing is that the majority of those zombie boxes are not set up with mail servers prior to infection. Yes, it may be an extra hoop to jump through when setting up a mail server, but I think something like this will indeed differentiate between spam (at least from zombie boxes) and legitimate email.
I'll reserve judgment on the effectiveness of this particular system, and I'm sure there are loopholes (there always are), but I like the concept.
Not only is deforestation in the US a myth, its completely opposite the truth. Take a drive through the midwest sometime. What was once the "Great Plains" actually has more trees now than a hundred years ago, primarily from trees planted as windbreaks along the edges of fields. In areas where the ground is not longer tilled, the trees have taken over and created wooded areas.
justification to gag any case.
Only if you can convince the judge. It isn't automatic, it has to be ordered by the court. Given the government's arguments (right or wrong), this case is a natural for a gag order.
Article summary:
85% of market value of US companies == intangible
intangible value == IP
F/OSS software == anti-IP (& in fact will destroy it, somehow)
Therefore, F/OSS == the destruction of 85% of the value of US companies
I don't know where to begin, this article is so full of holes.
Probably the most glaring error is equating "intangible value" with "IP," and claiming that F/OSS will destroy the former by avoiding the latter. First of all, F/OSS is not anti-IP. If anything, it is merely anti exploiting-IP-till-it-squeaks, but the GPL (etc.) are all about copyright, not against it. Second, what the hell does any of that have to do with trademarks? Last, but certainly not least, where are this guy's numbers? If 85% of "market value" of companies is intangible, and open source and outsourcing are going to destroy that value, wouldn't there be some measurable impact since 1998 (when the 85% number came from) with the increase of Linux market share and outsourcing the last several years? There ought to be some evidence for his position if it is at all defensible.
Well, that's enough rant for now. I've probably made even less sense then this bozo, but idiotic, scare-mongering, groundless spin like this makes my blood boil. (Which is why I avoid TV even more in an election year.)
Hmm -- I see two potential problems with a "suit-only" space transport system:
(1) massive wedgie on lift off
(2) re-entry/splashdown -- if you're not fried to a crisp, you'd better hope you land on something soft.
Hmmm. Just went back and read my original post, and I still can't see what got you so fired up.
I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
What I said was: Law firms and the like don't need much other than WP, a browser and email. The word processor is probably the most used application on the computer.
.pdf format for submission to federal court; and Mozilla Firefox for research and to access the federal ECF system.
"With all due respect," servicing a law office's computers doesn't exactly give you any special insight into what an attorney actually needs/uses on a day-to-day basis. At best, you know what some sales rep has convinced them they need.
IAAL, so I have a pretty damned good idea of how a law office is run. The only application you mentioned that might be an issue is a time keeping program such as Timeslips. We don't use one at our office, so I didn't think about that.
All legal research -- if not out of a book -- is online through Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw, and Mozilla can access them much more stably then IE. As for the "Legal Edition" of WP, even if it is not eventually ported to Linux all you lose are some forms that you would have to customize for your local courts anyway and some legal terms already in the spell checking dictionary.
I'm sure our accountant has different needs, but here's what I use on a day-to-day basis for work (and as the research/brief writing guru of the firm I probably use my computer more than any other attorney here): Outlook for email & scheduling; WP for word processing & converting documents to