I was speaking less to his politics and more towards the way he portrays himself. On his blog he seems to be almost as or more concerned about how people see him than his issues (see sidebar for example). It's like he's trying to show off his expert skills at getting a reaction... And this legal action and the resulting inevitable backlash (you don't think he wants that) will give him plenty of material for his soapbox.
I didn't register to that mixed address. It was originally a registration to a PA address. It was changed later (bout a year after registering) shortly after moving to France but for some reason the form didn't submit/store correctly. I didn't even notice it until it was pointed out in the complaint (how often do you whois yourself?), after which it was promptly corrected.
Yes, but that's not what the article implies. It says he was posing as Donal Blarney, not copying his work. All in all I think Donal is doing this not to get something removed from the internet, but for attention, and to portray himself as some sort of martyr/avatar of justice who stands up against the legions of internet ruffians. He's more or less an attention seeking troll and I think we all play a part in the guilt of feeding him. Take a look at his blog and tell me he doesn't strike you as the sort of person who would do that.
I totally agree, which is why I think the summary and the BBC were incorrect in the use of their terminology. "Copyright" and "Trademark" are very often confused. You can't copyright certain things for sure, but you can easily claim your own name as a mark in an attempt to stop another person from speaking about you, which is most likely what is happening here and what happened in my case.
You can attempt to trademark your own name, but it rarely holds up in court, especially against the many fair use defenses. I should know. I run a website that had to deal with a WIPO dispute from a woman claiming her name was trademarked (decision here, full details and all case files here). Her argument was similar that a person could misunderstand my site to be hers, but even if that were true, there are cases dealing with that specifically, finding it to be acceptable for public comment purposes (form of protest). One of the funny things is she registered the mark only after I put up the website about her.
Actually, "Anonymous coward" is exactly the term the real Blarney actually used on his blog, writing "I successfully obtained, thanks to the masterful advocacy of Matthew Richardson, in the High Court today compelling an anonymous coward to stop pretending to be me on Twitter and to reveal his or her identity.".
First off, can you come up with a credible (even remotely) reason why your mother would ever need to access those files? I can count on my fingers the times I've ever needed to, and that was only to access/usr/bin, etc, to install command line utilities such as wget binaries which came without an installer (mac os comes with curl instead by default). Very little of actual use is hidden cept the core core of the OS. Secondly, if you ever did need to help her remotely, turning on ssh is a tickbox, as is VNC.
This encroachment of freedom you describe is fearmongering. It doesn't need to happen.
It sort of does. What mechanism prevents it. The very argument you claim is implausible is being made by several govt officials as outlined in TFA.
Has this happened in any other country with universal healthcare? I think I would have heard of it if it had. This is a classic slippery slope argument that has no basis in fact. Come back when the government is seriously considering food-control collars that measure your food intake.
Not collars, but they can influence the social behavior of people by affecting prices. It's almost worse since it's a gradual process and people don't realize how and to what extent they're being influenced.
Here's a little additional perspective on that as well. Why do people eat junk food? Why are foods filled with nasty preservatives and thick with sugars? Why do people eat and eat and eat? Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people keep coming back to foods that make them sick? Why do people become alcoholics? All of these are results of some weakness or lack of education. Do you think this is the state people want to be in?
It's irrelevant. It's their choice and/or consequences of their choices. It's not the state's job to coach people to make "better" (determined by the state) choices. So what if a person want's to mess up their body. They own it. They have to live with the consequences and if they didn't work to prepare financially or otherwise for those consequences... well that sucks, but don't expect a bailout. All it does is encourage others to be lazy and irresponsible, just as bailouts for banks encourage them to continue bad practices. Without real consequences there is no incentive for change.
Do you think someone wants to be a fat smoking alcoholic? Do you think someone wants to be drained of energy and feel sick all the time?
Hey. It's Darwin in action. Not the state's job. If you want to do something "good" (short term) for those people, start a diet program, but leave my tax-dollars out of it. I shouldn't have to pay for the bad decisions of other people who choose to misuse/abuse substances when I can handle them responsibly.
You can set a pref to allow finder to view hidden/system files and folders, just like you can on windows. It's just off by default as it would clutter things up otherwise (again, same on windows). Command is "defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles -bool true". If I need to go to a hidden folder I can either type that in a terminal windows and browse or simply hit command+shift+g in any finder window to bring up a "go to folder" dialog where any location, even one normally hidden (such as "/tmp") can be entered. There is a little utility you can download called OnyX that has this pref and many others available form the GUI... but if you're advanced enough to need to get to those places such as "/usr/bin" you can probably use, and probably prefer the command line anyway.
Or you could call it civil disobedience. He is deliberately calling out the AG so he can hopefully win without the trouble, time, and expense of a court fight.
Yup. I think people should join in. 10 people doing it is a lot stronger than one. I've already mirrored a copy. If you have web space, why not join in.
Context: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," And in that point in time "abolish" meant war against the current government. Clearly the founding fathers gave us guns for more than just protection from fellow citizens.
Also, the second amendment never gives you any Constitutionally protected right to revolt. It gives a right to keep arms.
Not explicitly but it's implicit if you consider what else the founders wrote and the context in which the 2nd amendment was written. The purpose is for defense of the individual. That includes defense from an oppressive state.
I wonder what the long term consequences are of wearing one of these things all the time. As it is we're lazy. Now we don't even have to use our own muscles?
Another clumsy, cynical attempt to pander to the geeks. Totally disingenuous. "Independent of one's personal opinions", my ass. Lying: bad. It's pretty simple, really.
So what if he gets invited to speak on IT issues. Nothing there says he is paid, and even if he was, it's only fair compensation for his time and travel expenses.
Furthermore, if you read his personal bio you'd see that the dude was a democrat until 2008. Most of his opinions on stuff seems to be further left than you'd expect. It hardly seems that he even opposes 3200 at all. He just seems to want it done right.
And you point out his previous article on the bank bailout with a "HAHAHAHHAH". Need I remind you that plenty of liberals were upset with the bailout when it happened.
Even if all the things you said about this guy were true, it's still ad hominem. You're not addressing his arguments at all.
Deceptive bullshit is deceptive bullshit.
Where is anything deceptive? Are you claiming that he was paid to write that blog? Where is your evidence of that?
Pointing that out doesn't make anyone "far left". Your perspective is so skewed... I'm not far left, I'm normal, which makes you a fascist or easily manipulated.
Lol. Sorry. I'm a libertarian. There are more political directions in this country than D/R.
It seems to me like much of the far left you like to label any movement and any critic you don't like as "astroturfing". It's really nothing more than a hollow word at this point. Do you have any evidence whatsoever he's taking money from political parties or corporations to voice his opinions?
Anybody who tagged it that probably didn't RTFA. It's hard to see whether he's taking an opinion in any given political direction. He's just "debugging".
Slashdot Mirror
-verb (used with object)
3. to stamp or otherwise place a trademark designation upon.
4. to register the trademark of
I was speaking less to his politics and more towards the way he portrays himself. On his blog he seems to be almost as or more concerned about how people see him than his issues (see sidebar for example). It's like he's trying to show off his expert skills at getting a reaction... And this legal action and the resulting inevitable backlash (you don't think he wants that) will give him plenty of material for his soapbox.
Good point. Maybe you can get some crack smoking judge to write and injunction on your behalf against him. Has about as much merit.
I didn't register to that mixed address. It was originally a registration to a PA address. It was changed later (bout a year after registering) shortly after moving to France but for some reason the form didn't submit/store correctly. I didn't even notice it until it was pointed out in the complaint (how often do you whois yourself?), after which it was promptly corrected.
Yes, but that's not what the article implies. It says he was posing as Donal Blarney, not copying his work. All in all I think Donal is doing this not to get something removed from the internet, but for attention, and to portray himself as some sort of martyr/avatar of justice who stands up against the legions of internet ruffians. He's more or less an attention seeking troll and I think we all play a part in the guilt of feeding him. Take a look at his blog and tell me he doesn't strike you as the sort of person who would do that.
I totally agree, which is why I think the summary and the BBC were incorrect in the use of their terminology. "Copyright" and "Trademark" are very often confused. You can't copyright certain things for sure, but you can easily claim your own name as a mark in an attempt to stop another person from speaking about you, which is most likely what is happening here and what happened in my case.
You can attempt to trademark your own name, but it rarely holds up in court, especially against the many fair use defenses. I should know. I run a website that had to deal with a WIPO dispute from a woman claiming her name was trademarked (decision here, full details and all case files here). Her argument was similar that a person could misunderstand my site to be hers, but even if that were true, there are cases dealing with that specifically, finding it to be acceptable for public comment purposes (form of protest). One of the funny things is she registered the mark only after I put up the website about her.
Actually, "Anonymous coward" is exactly the term the real Blarney actually used on his blog, writing "I successfully obtained, thanks to the masterful advocacy of Matthew Richardson, in the High Court today compelling an anonymous coward to stop pretending to be me on Twitter and to reveal his or her identity.".
First off, can you come up with a credible (even remotely) reason why your mother would ever need to access those files? I can count on my fingers the times I've ever needed to, and that was only to access /usr/bin, etc, to install command line utilities such as wget binaries which came without an installer (mac os comes with curl instead by default). Very little of actual use is hidden cept the core core of the OS. Secondly, if you ever did need to help her remotely, turning on ssh is a tickbox, as is VNC.
This encroachment of freedom you describe is fearmongering. It doesn't need to happen.
It sort of does. What mechanism prevents it. The very argument you claim is implausible is being made by several govt officials as outlined in TFA.
Has this happened in any other country with universal healthcare? I think I would have heard of it if it had. This is a classic slippery slope argument that has no basis in fact. Come back when the government is seriously considering food-control collars that measure your food intake.
Not collars, but they can influence the social behavior of people by affecting prices. It's almost worse since it's a gradual process and people don't realize how and to what extent they're being influenced.
Here's a little additional perspective on that as well. Why do people eat junk food? Why are foods filled with nasty preservatives and thick with sugars? Why do people eat and eat and eat? Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people keep coming back to foods that make them sick? Why do people become alcoholics? All of these are results of some weakness or lack of education. Do you think this is the state people want to be in?
It's irrelevant. It's their choice and/or consequences of their choices. It's not the state's job to coach people to make "better" (determined by the state) choices. So what if a person want's to mess up their body. They own it. They have to live with the consequences and if they didn't work to prepare financially or otherwise for those consequences... well that sucks, but don't expect a bailout. All it does is encourage others to be lazy and irresponsible, just as bailouts for banks encourage them to continue bad practices. Without real consequences there is no incentive for change.
Do you think someone wants to be a fat smoking alcoholic? Do you think someone wants to be drained of energy and feel sick all the time?
Hey. It's Darwin in action. Not the state's job. If you want to do something "good" (short term) for those people, start a diet program, but leave my tax-dollars out of it. I shouldn't have to pay for the bad decisions of other people who choose to misuse/abuse substances when I can handle them responsibly.
You can set a pref to allow finder to view hidden/system files and folders, just like you can on windows. It's just off by default as it would clutter things up otherwise (again, same on windows). Command is "defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles -bool true". If I need to go to a hidden folder I can either type that in a terminal windows and browse or simply hit command+shift+g in any finder window to bring up a "go to folder" dialog where any location, even one normally hidden (such as "/tmp") can be entered. There is a little utility you can download called OnyX that has this pref and many others available form the GUI... but if you're advanced enough to need to get to those places such as "/usr/bin" you can probably use, and probably prefer the command line anyway.
They didn't give a Constitutional protection to revolt for fairly obvious reasons.
Among which is that it really doesn't need to be stated. What they did do is make sure it was possible.
passive-aggressive
Or you could call it civil disobedience. He is deliberately calling out the AG so he can hopefully win without the trouble, time, and expense of a court fight.
Yup. I think people should join in. 10 people doing it is a lot stronger than one. I've already mirrored a copy. If you have web space, why not join in.
What I wouldn't give for a mod point.
Context: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," And in that point in time "abolish" meant war against the current government. Clearly the founding fathers gave us guns for more than just protection from fellow citizens.
Also, the second amendment never gives you any Constitutionally protected right to revolt. It gives a right to keep arms.
Not explicitly but it's implicit if you consider what else the founders wrote and the context in which the 2nd amendment was written. The purpose is for defense of the individual. That includes defense from an oppressive state.
Mirror should be completed here in an hour or so.
I'm mirroring it right now. Should be done in an hour or so (slow upload).
Then prosecute that person for breaking the law. Such a major infringement on everybody's privacy is not necessary.
This is the federal government we're talking about here.
Should be modded "informative", not funny.
I wonder what the long term consequences are of wearing one of these things all the time. As it is we're lazy. Now we don't even have to use our own muscles?
YES, already! That's his freaking career.
Another clumsy, cynical attempt to pander to the geeks. Totally disingenuous. "Independent of one's personal opinions", my ass. Lying: bad. It's pretty simple, really.
So what if he gets invited to speak on IT issues. Nothing there says he is paid, and even if he was, it's only fair compensation for his time and travel expenses. Furthermore, if you read his personal bio you'd see that the dude was a democrat until 2008. Most of his opinions on stuff seems to be further left than you'd expect. It hardly seems that he even opposes 3200 at all. He just seems to want it done right. And you point out his previous article on the bank bailout with a "HAHAHAHHAH". Need I remind you that plenty of liberals were upset with the bailout when it happened. Even if all the things you said about this guy were true, it's still ad hominem. You're not addressing his arguments at all.
Deceptive bullshit is deceptive bullshit.
Where is anything deceptive? Are you claiming that he was paid to write that blog? Where is your evidence of that?
Pointing that out doesn't make anyone "far left". Your perspective is so skewed... I'm not far left, I'm normal, which makes you a fascist or easily manipulated.
Lol. Sorry. I'm a libertarian. There are more political directions in this country than D/R.
It seems to me like much of the far left you like to label any movement and any critic you don't like as "astroturfing". It's really nothing more than a hollow word at this point. Do you have any evidence whatsoever he's taking money from political parties or corporations to voice his opinions?
Anybody who tagged it that probably didn't RTFA. It's hard to see whether he's taking an opinion in any given political direction. He's just "debugging".