You're right, she does. Gail Zappa goes after cover bands who use Frank Zappa's name, forcing them to take all references and photos of him off of their websites and their flyers. The most they can do is say something like 'Performing the music of FZ" or "...the music of a guy named Frank," and the whole thing starts to look ridiculous.
Really, to smother Frank Zappa's name and image under a mountain of lawyers like that seems kind of odd, especially considering how much disdain the man himself had for the music industry's choke-hold on everything.
A bunch of college kids are sharing copyrighted corporate products (music and maybe movies), so we have to put them in prison because people who share music and movies online are a bunch of child molesters and terrorists. Yeah, makes sense to me.
This is the kind of thing that Frank Zappa warned us was going to happen.
Sure, we say it all the time, "Corporations are running the country," meaning that corporations have undue influence over lawmakers; but it's getting to the point that we're going to have to find a stronger statement, like "Corporations are completely and utterly in charge of every aspect of our daily lives, using the government and their nearly exclusive control of all media content to keep it that way." Or something shorter if we can think of it.
You know, that's the thing about gambling... I'm at heart a liberal and something of a libertarian.
I don't object to casinos, and even visit the ones nearby with friends once in a while, blow twenty bucks, and then leave.
But these online casinos are bad news, I think. To have a casino piped into someone's home and for these casinos to accept credit cards is just asking for trouble. Compulsive gamblers are drawn to these sites like moths to the proverbial candle flame, and in the privacy of their own homes, with no-one even observing their behavior who might be able to step in to stop a spiralling descent into bankruptsy, these sites can wreak all the more havok.
I really feel like people should have the right to gamble if they want, but I think allowing casino websites is like allowing a toddler to have a loaded firearm. Sure, maybe nothing bad will happen. But it's awfully likely that something will.
To me, ethics deals with having an appreciation for how one's actions affects others, and morality has to do with how one's actions affects one's self.
So, for instance, one can believe that it is morally correct to kill someone of another religion or nationality, but I cannot imagine someone making an ethical argument in favor of doing so.
Gambling is basically a scam. People participate willingly in the scam, often under the mistaken notion that somehow they'll get ahead of the game and strike it rich, but it's a scam nonetheless, in my book.
Gambling sites are popular with identity thieves, and I applaud credit card companies that refuse to authorize transactions originating with offshore gambling websites.
I'm not some neo-conservative, either. My objections to gambling websites are mathematical and ethical, not moral.
As far as keeping them off of US soil, I guess I'm in favor of keeping the ban in place. It's not like there are hordes of consumers clamoring to blow their money on rigged online gambling. Or are there?
I'm glad I'm not an Israeli soldier... I'd be worried about over-winding the propeller and breaking the rubber band, or cutting my finger on the thing.
All joking aside, those things would be hot sellers here in the USA.
Ever wonder what's going on behind the ten-foot-high stone walls of that rich dude's house on the corner? Why, just sent your drone flying overhead.
Police departments would dig those things, too, and so would rescue units.
And don't get me started on what the tabloid paparazzi could do with those things.
Every scene in that movie is hilarious, from the shopkeeper who refuses to sell a fake beard without haggling first, to the Roman guard who insists that grafitti in the Latin language be grammatically correct.
I'm going to round up everyone I know who's never seen it and drag them to the cinema.
When pressed about his decision, Scott McNealy admitted, "Well, we were going to open source Java until we realized that the phrase 'open source' is really more of a noun than a verb."
I wonder if the Wal*Mart music store can make change for one of these million-dollar bills I've got here.
At the same time, I wonder if Wal*Mart will make musicians perform for 18 cents an hour in sweat-shop conditions in China in order to keep costs down.
I respect Wal*Mart for being the wealthiest and biggest company in the world in the same way that I respect tobacco for being the #1 preventable cause of death.
Similarly under scrutiny is the Bush Administration claim that an extended mission into space could be paid for with a fifty dollar Sears gift certificate and another round of tax cuts. The administration has asserted that the devil is in no way involved in this particular figure, but has not ruled out the future involvement of the Prince of Darkness.
I swear that some of these kinds of decisions are made by people with grilled cheese for brains.
It is unfathomable to me that someone would block incoming traffic to an article on their website. Maybe redirect the visitor to the home if it's that necessary to force people to come in through the "front door," as it were, but to make the visitor feel like he's intruding somehow... that just seems pretty dumb to me.
Website operators need to think about how what they do is perceived by visitors, the same way hotel operators and shopping mall operators think about it. Don't make visitors feel unwelcome, for Pete's sake!
Finally, someone posted something that explains what this suit is about.
I can see why this guy would be peeved about the way his company is listed in Google, but shouldn't he just try to outrank that page with his own site? He needs to have some other sites link to his and increase its popularity so that it pushes that government site's listing down a bit.
Perhaps he could counter by having a page on his own site that explains why the Google listing is misleading. You know, tell his side of the story.
Again, I sympathize with the guy. I'd be miffed if a search of my company's name brought up as its first listing a result that appears to state that I surrendered my license in 1993. But I can't see a judge allowing this case to go to trial. I can't see how a lawyer has any chance of proving actual harm in court. I'm pretty sure that someone who sees that listing is not going to base his or her decision on whether to use an accountant solely on what they see in the Google listing... they'd click on the link and see what the page has to say, and once the judge gets that idea into his or her head I'd say it's game over for the poor accountant.
But who knows, maybe they'll settle out of court for a half-million dollars, especially since Google refuses to do anything about the problem.
Yes, yes, yes, Apple's about to bite to dust, we've been hearing that for years.
Check out the Apple Death Knell Counter for links to many, many other articles, dating back to 1995, all of which have experts predicting that Apple is about to go bust.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a very relgious man, but AMEN, BROTHER!
Unless you're a friggin' vampire or a god, 95 years ain't a "limited time" by any standard.
You're right, she does. Gail Zappa goes after cover bands who use Frank Zappa's name, forcing them to take all references and photos of him off of their websites and their flyers. The most they can do is say something like 'Performing the music of FZ" or "...the music of a guy named Frank," and the whole thing starts to look ridiculous.
Really, to smother Frank Zappa's name and image under a mountain of lawyers like that seems kind of odd, especially considering how much disdain the man himself had for the music industry's choke-hold on everything.
Oh, well.
A bunch of college kids are sharing copyrighted corporate products (music and maybe movies), so we have to put them in prison because people who share music and movies online are a bunch of child molesters and terrorists. Yeah, makes sense to me.
This is the kind of thing that Frank Zappa warned us was going to happen.
Sure, we say it all the time, "Corporations are running the country," meaning that corporations have undue influence over lawmakers; but it's getting to the point that we're going to have to find a stronger statement, like "Corporations are completely and utterly in charge of every aspect of our daily lives, using the government and their nearly exclusive control of all media content to keep it that way." Or something shorter if we can think of it.
Mein Gott, what can we do?
Now, to be fair, Apple's ads said that the G5 was the fastest and first 64-bit PC that wasn't made by a company that isn't Apple.
Or maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
Where'd I put my darn bong?
Oh, here it is, hidden behind my G5.
Hey, when did I get a G5?
Who am I, again?
You know, that's the thing about gambling... I'm at heart a liberal and something of a libertarian.
I don't object to casinos, and even visit the ones nearby with friends once in a while, blow twenty bucks, and then leave.
But these online casinos are bad news, I think. To have a casino piped into someone's home and for these casinos to accept credit cards is just asking for trouble. Compulsive gamblers are drawn to these sites like moths to the proverbial candle flame, and in the privacy of their own homes, with no-one even observing their behavior who might be able to step in to stop a spiralling descent into bankruptsy, these sites can wreak all the more havok.
I really feel like people should have the right to gamble if they want, but I think allowing casino websites is like allowing a toddler to have a loaded firearm. Sure, maybe nothing bad will happen. But it's awfully likely that something will.
Your post hahz become tiresome.
Now's ze time on Sprockets ven ve dahnce!
That's an excellent question.
To me, ethics deals with having an appreciation for how one's actions affects others, and morality has to do with how one's actions affects one's self.
So, for instance, one can believe that it is morally correct to kill someone of another religion or nationality, but I cannot imagine someone making an ethical argument in favor of doing so.
Does that make sense? Am I insane?
Gambling is basically a scam. People participate willingly in the scam, often under the mistaken notion that somehow they'll get ahead of the game and strike it rich, but it's a scam nonetheless, in my book.
Gambling sites are popular with identity thieves, and I applaud credit card companies that refuse to authorize transactions originating with offshore gambling websites.
I'm not some neo-conservative, either. My objections to gambling websites are mathematical and ethical, not moral.
As far as keeping them off of US soil, I guess I'm in favor of keeping the ban in place. It's not like there are hordes of consumers clamoring to blow their money on rigged online gambling. Or are there?
I'm glad I'm not an Israeli soldier... I'd be worried about over-winding the propeller and breaking the rubber band, or cutting my finger on the thing.
All joking aside, those things would be hot sellers here in the USA.
Ever wonder what's going on behind the ten-foot-high stone walls of that rich dude's house on the corner? Why, just sent your drone flying overhead.
Police departments would dig those things, too, and so would rescue units.
And don't get me started on what the tabloid paparazzi could do with those things.
It's true!
Nine out of ten British housewives cannot tell MS Office from a dead crab!
Seriously, though, it does seem like the very fact that MS is paying attention to the open source stuff means a lot.
But you can't convince a British housewife of that.
Every scene in that movie is hilarious, from the shopkeeper who refuses to sell a fake beard without haggling first, to the Roman guard who insists that grafitti in the Latin language be grammatically correct.
I'm going to round up everyone I know who's never seen it and drag them to the cinema.
When pressed about his decision, Scott McNealy admitted, "Well, we were going to open source Java until we realized that the phrase 'open source' is really more of a noun than a verb."
I wonder if the Wal*Mart music store can make change for one of these million-dollar bills I've got here.
At the same time, I wonder if Wal*Mart will make musicians perform for 18 cents an hour in sweat-shop conditions in China in order to keep costs down.
I respect Wal*Mart for being the wealthiest and biggest company in the world in the same way that I respect tobacco for being the #1 preventable cause of death.
Similarly under scrutiny is the Bush Administration claim that an extended mission into space could be paid for with a fifty dollar Sears gift certificate and another round of tax cuts. The administration has asserted that the devil is in no way involved in this particular figure, but has not ruled out the future involvement of the Prince of Darkness.
I swear that some of these kinds of decisions are made by people with grilled cheese for brains.
It is unfathomable to me that someone would block incoming traffic to an article on their website. Maybe redirect the visitor to the home if it's that necessary to force people to come in through the "front door," as it were, but to make the visitor feel like he's intruding somehow... that just seems pretty dumb to me.
Website operators need to think about how what they do is perceived by visitors, the same way hotel operators and shopping mall operators think about it. Don't make visitors feel unwelcome, for Pete's sake!
Finally, someone posted something that explains what this suit is about.
I can see why this guy would be peeved about the way his company is listed in Google, but shouldn't he just try to outrank that page with his own site? He needs to have some other sites link to his and increase its popularity so that it pushes that government site's listing down a bit.
Perhaps he could counter by having a page on his own site that explains why the Google listing is misleading. You know, tell his side of the story.
Again, I sympathize with the guy. I'd be miffed if a search of my company's name brought up as its first listing a result that appears to state that I surrendered my license in 1993. But I can't see a judge allowing this case to go to trial. I can't see how a lawyer has any chance of proving actual harm in court. I'm pretty sure that someone who sees that listing is not going to base his or her decision on whether to use an accountant solely on what they see in the Google listing... they'd click on the link and see what the page has to say, and once the judge gets that idea into his or her head I'd say it's game over for the poor accountant.
But who knows, maybe they'll settle out of court for a half-million dollars, especially since Google refuses to do anything about the problem.
I haven't been this creeped out since the first time I saw that Quiznos Subs commercial.
And what's with that glowing blue Terminator eye? Imagine that thing chasing Linda Hamilton around.Can't he cover that thing with fur or something? Make it look like a toy instead of like something out of madman's nightmare?
This is like the Borg assimilating Harcourt Fenton Mudd.
Sheesh, they can have him.
There's a post above by a guy who claims to have paid for his new PowerMac by threatening to sue a junk faxer.
He got something like twelve grand that he split 50/50 with his lawyer, and now he has a new Mac.
Good for him!
Geez, that point, obvious as it is, went right over my head, just like must have gone over the head of the analyst.
It's like in HGtG when God exclaims, "Oh dear, I hadn't thought o that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Yes, yes, yes, Apple's about to bite to dust, we've been hearing that for years.
Check out the Apple Death Knell Counter for links to many, many other articles, dating back to 1995, all of which have experts predicting that Apple is about to go bust.
I'd better charge up the batteries in my Subetha signalling device and hope the Dentressi are feeling like a bit of company for the voyage back!