You're wrong.
Everyone who's posting a no answer is wrong.
Although, that doesn't really make much of a difference. Here's why:
Domain squatters buy domains based on links and google rank. If it has a google rank, and you let it expire... you're virtually guaranteed to have it squatted. It can be gotten back, usually by back ordering in a year or two, once the traffic dies off, and the domain is no longer in google... and as such, no longer valuable to the squatter.
Problem with all that however, is that once it's been caught by Google as a squatted domain... good luck getting it back in. That too can be done with energy and a fiendish amount of persistence, however you are likely to be better off just ordering a new domain and starting from scratch.
That's my two cents.
I worked for a major software company years ago.
I came into a project where 80 to 90 percent of the code used was from assorted forums and help sites, but with minor tweaks to put the whole thing together. Much of it needed to be rewritten because it leaked, and generated errors because of things that were changed here and there. It was a pain. As a developer... it sucked.
When I brought this up to my supervisors the consensus was, "So?"
Really depends more on the culture you're working in than the code being used.
Some companies are far more liberal than others.
If I were the top poster, I would let this one slide and allow someone else to pick it up, bring it to the attention of the forces that be; and allow them to come off looking like an idiot.
Little things like this are not worth brining up, especially if you're the only person who will ever see it.
They're going to laugh at you.
They're going to mock you.
They're going to call you every name in the book, regardless as to what your code looks like, or how well it works.
People suck. People who believe they're entitled to unconditional support on OSS projects suck even worse.
You'll never hear from the thousands of people that like your code, because it works... most of the time... on most servers... for most people.
It's easy to get disheartened with it, very easy.
The only time you'll ever get a thank you, or any sort of pat on the back, is when the project is discontinued, and it can't be found anywhere anymore.
It's enough to make you never want to do it again.
If you're smart, you won't.
The comcast bandwidth limit is wayyyyy up there!
It's crazy to think think any one single person, or even an entire family could hit it by themselves in private use.
No let me re-phrase that. It's damn near impossible. If people are hitting the limit, they're doing something weird, like streaming live porn 24 hours a day, from a hotel full of hookers or something. Not that I have much experience with that, mind you.
Something is fishy about this story.
It's my understanding that all 42(?) books (baum,thompson,snow) are in the public domain. That said. The term "Wizard of Oz" along with many of the likenesses and representations in the MGM movie are trademarked by Turner, even though he's done little to enforce it over the years.It is my understanding that the MGM movie is NOT in the public domain as of yet. But the Broadway show and all of the silent films are.
That "Wizard of Oz" trademark really covers everything but print, and some kinds of Web Sites. I was looking into it yesterday. For example, an informational web site would not be covered. But a site featuring wizard of oz games or streaming video would be, if they were to use the specific term "Wizard of Oz." If these same games were to be called "Oz games," and featured in the same context, there is no trademark issue. Oz itself is not trademarked, in and of itself, but other Oz variations are. Lots of little things like that out there. Thing is, I'm not sure MGM was granted any of these rights beyond film to begin with, and I think the Baum Estate might have something to say about it.
But, not being a lawyer or a member of the Baum trust, my opinion doesn't mean much.
No, you're right.
They're not.
Then again, they weren't creating a new law when they overturned Sodomy prohibition in Texas either, and the conservatives had a field day with it.
We could really use pharmco reform in this country. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
When this came up, I was absolutely certain, given the way that this Supreme Court has acted lately... that it wouldn't go through. In fact, it almost seems out of character for this court. Strange.
Anyway, Beyond the context of the decision itself there's something else I usually expect to see when a decision like this comes down the tubes. Generally, you see a hoard of free market conservatives talking about legislating from the bench.
This time however, those voices seem silent. I find that boggling.
Good point.
I hate to sound like the eternal optimist here, but I think this is the kind of thing that the market will sort out. Companies who refuse to allow their products to be sold at a reduced price will find that stores and internet retailers are less likely to stock their products, in favor of products that do not have such limitations. Consumers hold little loyalty to brands anymore, so I don't think consumers will really care all that much. And of course, manufacturers of imported goods will see this as an opportunity. And they'll be right.
Sound great,
but I don't know how much good it will do. For some god awful reason, they've been trying to kill internet radio for the last year or so. Legal internet radio has been one of the few things proven at least moderately successful in curbing internet music piracy. Making Internet Radio prohibitively expensive to do just kind of plays into the p2p networks hands. I wonder if this is their way of trying to "encourage" internet radio to grow. I bring that up because the industry always seems to do the exact opposite of what they're trying to accomplish. So it seems logical to me that by trying to "encourage" something, they set out to kill it. This seems like yet another example of the music industry neglecting to understand the basic economics of the internet... again. Not that I care mind you.
I would love to see the color of the sky on his planet.
I know it wasn't specifically mentioned, but if piracy is in the hundreds of billions, then it's not law enforcement that's being mismanaged, it's his accounting department. Does he want to spend less time on fraud so he can keep spewing out numbers like this, I wonder?
I don't think Microsoft would dare, unless they could get public support for it.
Based on the Wording, I'm not so worried about Wine and the other mentioned in the article. But considering that it is Novell, and this wording did come up, I would say that they were talking almost specifically about Mono.
"That's great. Now if Microsoft would actually implement a few web standards (rather than spewing out more Microsoft "standards") I might actually trust them. As it happens, though, I don't."
Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but wasn't C# released as an ECMA standard? I guess what I'm not clear on from your post is what exactly a "microsoft standard" entails. If open standards like ECMA-334 aren't good enough for you, what is?
You're lucky. Windows Vista, or MeII as they dubbed it is a nightmare. It's the only OS I've ever wanted to throw out a window. To give you some perspective, I usually like new Microsoft operating systems. Indulge me in being a karma whore for a minute:
"These two actions by Microsoft are proof of what I suggested three years ago. Microsoft has lost its ability to twist arms, and now it is going to die. It can't compete on level ground, so is left with backpedalling and discounts of almost 100 times."
I like the inquirer. They're on of the better publications of their genre. Although both the Inquirer and the Register are always quick to point out the fact that Microsoft will die. And, while I agree that Microsoft will die at some point, I think that saying Microsoft will die when they hold the three dominant computing platforms in terms of known users is a little premature.
I say "known users" because Microsoft controls the outlet. You would think that would be enough, but it's not. So, as a result they start intentionally confusing users, this edition, that edition, some other edition. They put DRM features that do nothing to pirates, but harm lagitimate users. Then, as if all this wearen't enough they dumb down the multi media and sell it as a "high definition OS." And here's the kicker... everyone else (think Adobe) follows suit. Seems to me that if Lemmings really did jump off cliffs, they would look a lot like Microsoft executives... or the MeII's of the software industry.
Huh... First, I think it's interesting that SCO is saying anything non Linux related in public. But they seem to want to have a lot of things banned. Anyone else remember the time they tried to have the GPL banned, and all of the code licensed under GPL put into the public domain? Or how about the time they declared that they are going to start selling licenses to use C++? SCO people should just stop talking. Although, it's fun to watch when you need a chuckle. I wonder if anyone has compiled a full list of the bone headed things SCO has said over the years.
I think what it comes down to is that developers do not want to keep two sets of code for their web sites. Another possibility is that they're checking versions numbers and the script that's doing it was written before the advent of firefox. In this particular case, the thing that points to that is the fact that they're asking you to use IE 5.
Seems to me that from a design standpoint, if you are not going to support a web browser, it makes a lot more sense to put a little unobtrusive link somewhere on the page that says something the the affect of "Hey, some features on this site may not work properly in anything but IE because the guy who designed this site doesn't feel like taking the time to use anything but frontpage to put it together, sorry" and link to the Ms site. Leave it at that. At that point, you've done your job, enforced your philosophy on your viewing public, and demonstrated that your dick is very large. You're a smart one, you should pat yourself on the back.
Screening users out all together is bad design. It shows a lack of skill and understanding. It is not your users who need to adjust to you. It is you who need to adjust to your users. They're going to use anything they want to access your web site, and damnit, they're going to expect it to work and look right. You need to deal with that, and use open standards where possible, or widely accepted closed standards like flash where it's not. If you insist on IE usage to the extent that you're willing to turn away paying customers or people who otherwise generate revenue for your company, say by viewing ads, then you deserve what you get... as a business that is.
One thing I advocate when I run into this kind of thing is contacting the decision makers at companies that use them. You'll find more often than not that the CEO of one of these companies for example, has no idea that IE is required... unless he himself is a firefox user. Angry phone calls where you and a few close friends threaten not to work with them, (to banks especially) work wonders in this area.
well said.
The whole problem with upgrading to vista is well, living with vista.
The only operating system that's ever made me want to throw a perfectly good laptop out the window.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got $30, if you're interested?
Internets, or puppies?
I know for a fact that I have at least one of either.
You're wrong. Everyone who's posting a no answer is wrong. Although, that doesn't really make much of a difference. Here's why: Domain squatters buy domains based on links and google rank. If it has a google rank, and you let it expire... you're virtually guaranteed to have it squatted. It can be gotten back, usually by back ordering in a year or two, once the traffic dies off, and the domain is no longer in google... and as such, no longer valuable to the squatter. Problem with all that however, is that once it's been caught by Google as a squatted domain... good luck getting it back in. That too can be done with energy and a fiendish amount of persistence, however you are likely to be better off just ordering a new domain and starting from scratch. That's my two cents.
I worked for a major software company years ago. I came into a project where 80 to 90 percent of the code used was from assorted forums and help sites, but with minor tweaks to put the whole thing together. Much of it needed to be rewritten because it leaked, and generated errors because of things that were changed here and there. It was a pain. As a developer... it sucked. When I brought this up to my supervisors the consensus was, "So?" Really depends more on the culture you're working in than the code being used. Some companies are far more liberal than others. If I were the top poster, I would let this one slide and allow someone else to pick it up, bring it to the attention of the forces that be; and allow them to come off looking like an idiot. Little things like this are not worth brining up, especially if you're the only person who will ever see it.
Dude, google started this whole web 2.0 "thing" as you put it.
They're going to laugh at you. They're going to mock you. They're going to call you every name in the book, regardless as to what your code looks like, or how well it works. People suck. People who believe they're entitled to unconditional support on OSS projects suck even worse. You'll never hear from the thousands of people that like your code, because it works... most of the time... on most servers... for most people. It's easy to get disheartened with it, very easy. The only time you'll ever get a thank you, or any sort of pat on the back, is when the project is discontinued, and it can't be found anywhere anymore. It's enough to make you never want to do it again. If you're smart, you won't.
The comcast bandwidth limit is wayyyyy up there! It's crazy to think think any one single person, or even an entire family could hit it by themselves in private use. No let me re-phrase that. It's damn near impossible. If people are hitting the limit, they're doing something weird, like streaming live porn 24 hours a day, from a hotel full of hookers or something. Not that I have much experience with that, mind you. Something is fishy about this story.
It's my understanding that all 42(?) books (baum,thompson,snow) are in the public domain.
That said. The term "Wizard of Oz" along with many of the likenesses and representations in the MGM movie are trademarked by Turner, even though he's done little to enforce it over the years.It is my understanding that the MGM movie is NOT in the public domain as of yet. But the Broadway show and all of the silent films are.
That "Wizard of Oz" trademark really covers everything but print, and some kinds of Web Sites. I was looking into it yesterday. For example, an informational web site would not be covered. But a site featuring wizard of oz games or streaming video would be, if they were to use the specific term "Wizard of Oz." If these same games were to be called "Oz games," and featured in the same context, there is no trademark issue. Oz itself is not trademarked, in and of itself, but other Oz variations are. Lots of little things like that out there. Thing is, I'm not sure MGM was granted any of these rights beyond film to begin with, and I think the Baum Estate might have something to say about it.
But, not being a lawyer or a member of the Baum trust, my opinion doesn't mean much.
I had a dream like that once. creepy
No, you're right. They're not. Then again, they weren't creating a new law when they overturned Sodomy prohibition in Texas either, and the conservatives had a field day with it.
I hope you're right.
We could really use pharmco reform in this country.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
When this came up, I was absolutely certain, given the way that this Supreme Court has acted lately... that it wouldn't go through. In fact, it almost seems out of character for this court. Strange.
Anyway,
Beyond the context of the decision itself there's something else I usually expect to see when a decision like this comes down the tubes. Generally, you see a hoard of free market conservatives talking about legislating from the bench.
This time however, those voices seem silent.
I find that boggling.
Good point. I hate to sound like the eternal optimist here, but I think this is the kind of thing that the market will sort out. Companies who refuse to allow their products to be sold at a reduced price will find that stores and internet retailers are less likely to stock their products, in favor of products that do not have such limitations. Consumers hold little loyalty to brands anymore, so I don't think consumers will really care all that much. And of course, manufacturers of imported goods will see this as an opportunity. And they'll be right.
Sound great, but I don't know how much good it will do. For some god awful reason, they've been trying to kill internet radio for the last year or so. Legal internet radio has been one of the few things proven at least moderately successful in curbing internet music piracy. Making Internet Radio prohibitively expensive to do just kind of plays into the p2p networks hands. I wonder if this is their way of trying to "encourage" internet radio to grow. I bring that up because the industry always seems to do the exact opposite of what they're trying to accomplish. So it seems logical to me that by trying to "encourage" something, they set out to kill it. This seems like yet another example of the music industry neglecting to understand the basic economics of the internet... again. Not that I care mind you.
I would love to see the color of the sky on his planet. I know it wasn't specifically mentioned, but if piracy is in the hundreds of billions, then it's not law enforcement that's being mismanaged, it's his accounting department. Does he want to spend less time on fraud so he can keep spewing out numbers like this, I wonder?
Why do you people keep doing this?
I don't think Microsoft would dare, unless they could get public support for it. Based on the Wording, I'm not so worried about Wine and the other mentioned in the article. But considering that it is Novell, and this wording did come up, I would say that they were talking almost specifically about Mono.
Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but wasn't C# released as an ECMA standard? I guess what I'm not clear on from your post is what exactly a "microsoft standard" entails. If open standards like ECMA-334 aren't good enough for you, what is?
You're lucky.
Windows Vista, or MeII as they dubbed it is a nightmare. It's the only OS I've ever wanted to throw out a window. To give you some perspective, I usually like new Microsoft operating systems. Indulge me in being a karma whore for a minute:
"These two actions by Microsoft are proof of what I suggested three years ago. Microsoft has lost its ability to twist arms, and now it is going to die. It can't compete on level ground, so is left with backpedalling and discounts of almost 100 times."
I like the inquirer. They're on of the better publications of their genre. Although both the Inquirer and the Register are always quick to point out the fact that Microsoft will die. And, while I agree that Microsoft will die at some point, I think that saying Microsoft will die when they hold the three dominant computing platforms in terms of known users is a little premature.
I say "known users" because Microsoft controls the outlet. You would think that would be enough, but it's not.
So, as a result they start intentionally confusing users, this edition, that edition, some other edition. They put DRM features that do nothing to pirates, but harm lagitimate users. Then, as if all this wearen't enough they dumb down the multi media and sell it as a "high definition OS." And here's the kicker... everyone else (think Adobe) follows suit. Seems to me that if Lemmings really did jump off cliffs, they would look a lot like Microsoft executives... or the MeII's of the software industry.
Seems likely that it's the original owner opening up an account and doing it anonymously. Possibly through a translator or a proxy for good measure.
Makes sense. That's exactly what I would do.
Huh...
First, I think it's interesting that SCO is saying anything non Linux related in public.
But they seem to want to have a lot of things banned. Anyone else remember the time they tried to have the GPL banned, and all of the code licensed under GPL put into the public domain? Or how about the time they declared that they are going to start selling licenses to use C++? SCO people should just stop talking. Although, it's fun to watch when you need a chuckle. I wonder if anyone has compiled a full list of the bone headed things SCO has said over the years.
I think what it comes down to is that developers do not want to keep two sets of code for their web sites.
Another possibility is that they're checking versions numbers and the script that's doing it was written before the advent of firefox. In this particular case, the thing that points to that is the fact that they're asking you to use IE 5.
Seems to me that from a design standpoint, if you are not going to support a web browser, it makes a lot more sense to put a little unobtrusive link somewhere on the page that says something the the affect of "Hey, some features on this site may not work properly in anything but IE because the guy who designed this site doesn't feel like taking the time to use anything but frontpage to put it together, sorry" and link to the Ms site. Leave it at that. At that point, you've done your job, enforced your philosophy on your viewing public, and demonstrated that your dick is very large. You're a smart one, you should pat yourself on the back.
Screening users out all together is bad design. It shows a lack of skill and understanding. It is not your users who need to adjust to you. It is you who need to adjust to your users. They're going to use anything they want to access your web site, and damnit, they're going to expect it to work and look right. You need to deal with that, and use open standards where possible, or widely accepted closed standards like flash where it's not. If you insist on IE usage to the extent that you're willing to turn away paying customers or people who otherwise generate revenue for your company, say by viewing ads, then you deserve what you get... as a business that is.
One thing I advocate when I run into this kind of thing is contacting the decision makers at companies that use them. You'll find more often than not that the CEO of one of these companies for example, has no idea that IE is required... unless he himself is a firefox user. Angry phone calls where you and a few close friends threaten not to work with them, (to banks especially) work wonders in this area.
Just my 2p
I don't know, but I imagine you could probably factor it if you could figure out how many gas stations there are in North America.
Yes, but I just can't see using it on the bus.
well said. The whole problem with upgrading to vista is well, living with vista. The only operating system that's ever made me want to throw a perfectly good laptop out the window.