I'm more worried about the little players among content providers. The big guys will get by even if they have to negotiate agreements with the communications providers, but random websites run by individuals or small groups or companies will disappear in an environment that requires everyone to pay ISPs for carrying their content (or carrying it at a speed and quality that users will tolerate). That could effectively eliminate all Internet content not sponsored by large corporations.
Considering that the porn sites send their spam indiscriminately and do typo-squatting trying to catch people who mistype sites like disney.com, I seriously doubt they're interested in limiting themselves to a.xxx domain.
If you have a DSL or cable connection, unless you're turning it on and off all the time, you likely keep the same IP address for weeks or months. They can do some pretty good tracking with that. And of course they could get together with the ISPs and do an even better job.
The problem is that the phone lines are far better controlled than e-mail is (also people have many, many more e-mail addresses than phone numbers). It's nearly impossible to hold anyone responsible for an e-mail message -- at least, not anyone who's accessible to US law. As the use of VOIP increases, it could be that spam calls will be increasing again.
Thanks. It looks like the point with regard to obviousness is not that the prior art does the same thing as the invention in the patent, but that the difference between the invention and whatever prior art existed is obvious. Otherwise non-obviousness would be an entirely pointless criterion, since anything that matches prior art is already clearly not novel.
So any online order system would be an example of prior art relevant to non-obviousness, assuming you could show that the one-click variation is obvious. Or any system of putting things on an account without filling out paperwork (for example, by asking the clerk behind the counter, who recognizes you, to put it on your account) would be relevant prior art, assuming you could demonstrate that sticking "on the web" after it was obvious.
It seems that the problem isn't with finding the prior art but with demonstrating that the differences are obvious.
Hmm, but now novelty seems like a useless criterion, since clearly a difference that doesn't exist at all is trivially obvious.
Novelty and non-obviousness are two separate requirements that must be met for something to be patentable. IANAL, but prior art seems to relate to disproving novelty more than disproving non-obviousness.
The GPL says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Some obfuscated derivative of the source code doesn't count.
The problem I envision is with the times when the envelope FROM address actually exists, so the bounce doesn't bounce. Thus instead of alerting the admin of the open relay, it annoys some innocent third party, much as virus bounces do. It seems to me that that would be a frequent occurrence, but I don't have a solution.
But doesn't returning a 55x code end up resulting in a bounce message, if the spam is coming through an open relay or otherwise not coming directly from the spammer's software to your server? Now, in that case you might say that it's the open relay's fault that an innocent person gets hit with bounce messages, not yours, but it's still a problem.
No, "the, word, is, in, than, had, a" did not come from "das, wort, ist, in, denn, hat, ein", any more than humans came from apes or you came from your cousin. Both came from a common ancestor.
Part of the problem is that in English the words "German" and "Germanic" are similar. That doesn't mean that all Germanic languages come from German. In other languages, the confusion doesn't arise: deutsch/germanisch, aleman/germanico, tedesco/germanico, for example.
When was the last time VeriSign had the trust of the Internet community? That was gone long ago, especially after they started sending fake domain renewal notices to people whose domains weren't registered with them. If they have a monopoly on issuing SSL certificates, why would they need to care about their reputation?
True, but the MPAA did get the copyright terms extended retroactively for works that had already been created long ago but hadn't quite passed into the public domain yet. It's a very similar changing of the rules after the fact.
And it hardly makes sense to claim that extending terms on existing works encourages their creation, unless you have access to a time machine.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm more worried about the little players among content providers. The big guys will get by even if they have to negotiate agreements with the communications providers, but random websites run by individuals or small groups or companies will disappear in an environment that requires everyone to pay ISPs for carrying their content (or carrying it at a speed and quality that users will tolerate). That could effectively eliminate all Internet content not sponsored by large corporations.
Considering that the porn sites send their spam indiscriminately and do typo-squatting trying to catch people who mistype sites like disney.com, I seriously doubt they're interested in limiting themselves to a .xxx domain.
If you have a DSL or cable connection, unless you're turning it on and off all the time, you likely keep the same IP address for weeks or months. They can do some pretty good tracking with that. And of course they could get together with the ISPs and do an even better job.
I suppose you also write "molybdenium" and "tantalium"?
The problem is that the phone lines are far better controlled than e-mail is (also people have many, many more e-mail addresses than phone numbers). It's nearly impossible to hold anyone responsible for an e-mail message -- at least, not anyone who's accessible to US law. As the use of VOIP increases, it could be that spam calls will be increasing again.
Then why do they grab typos for non-porn domains? Are people going to disney.com looking for porn?
Isn't Google Groups up to four years in beta now?
Thanks. It looks like the point with regard to obviousness is not that the prior art does the same thing as the invention in the patent, but that the difference between the invention and whatever prior art existed is obvious. Otherwise non-obviousness would be an entirely pointless criterion, since anything that matches prior art is already clearly not novel.
So any online order system would be an example of prior art relevant to non-obviousness, assuming you could show that the one-click variation is obvious. Or any system of putting things on an account without filling out paperwork (for example, by asking the clerk behind the counter, who recognizes you, to put it on your account) would be relevant prior art, assuming you could demonstrate that sticking "on the web" after it was obvious.
It seems that the problem isn't with finding the prior art but with demonstrating that the differences are obvious.
Hmm, but now novelty seems like a useless criterion, since clearly a difference that doesn't exist at all is trivially obvious.
Novelty and non-obviousness are two separate requirements that must be met for something to be patentable. IANAL, but prior art seems to relate to disproving novelty more than disproving non-obviousness.
Indexes generally are supposed to help with > and queries as well as =. How would a hash-based index do that?
PETA actually was involved in similar disputes on both sides of the issue, since they themselves registered ringlingbrothers.com for a protest site.
The GPL says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Some obfuscated derivative of the source code doesn't count.
NYC firefighters make $288,000 a year? Do you have a source for that?
Yes, and all the papers that have headlines saying "Smith Wins" after an election are plagiarizing as well.
There's nothing particularly original about that headline. Besides, the Register headline uses "anti-spam", not "spam", so it's not verbatim.
You seem to be a little confused yourself. There's a difference between the envelope FROM (the MAIL FROM parameter) and the HELO domain as well.
I don't see anything in the article about censoring search results or removing sites from the index. This is about ads, not search results.
Your points about motivation may still apply, but they're undermined when you bring up irrelevant issues.
I think if they were in the American electorate they'd say "with yet another mistake does anyone trust voting period".
Try looking under "shark":
The problem I envision is with the times when the envelope FROM address actually exists, so the bounce doesn't bounce. Thus instead of alerting the admin of the open relay, it annoys some innocent third party, much as virus bounces do. It seems to me that that would be a frequent occurrence, but I don't have a solution.
But doesn't returning a 55x code end up resulting in a bounce message, if the spam is coming through an open relay or otherwise not coming directly from the spammer's software to your server? Now, in that case you might say that it's the open relay's fault that an innocent person gets hit with bounce messages, not yours, but it's still a problem.
I don't think cnn.com was much affected by SiteFinder.com, since typos of such a short name are unlikely to result in unassigned domains.
No, "the, word, is, in, than, had, a" did not come from "das, wort, ist, in, denn, hat, ein", any more than humans came from apes or you came from your cousin. Both came from a common ancestor.
Part of the problem is that in English the words "German" and "Germanic" are similar. That doesn't mean that all Germanic languages come from German. In other languages, the confusion doesn't arise: deutsch/germanisch, aleman/germanico, tedesco/germanico, for example.
When was the last time VeriSign had the trust of the Internet community? That was gone long ago, especially after they started sending fake domain renewal notices to people whose domains weren't registered with them. If they have a monopoly on issuing SSL certificates, why would they need to care about their reputation?
What are you talking about? There's nothing magical going on. Both are registered:
c om
Registrant:
Alvaro Collazo (SLASHODT-ORG-DOM)
Manuel Oribe 2028
Tarariras, Colonia 70000
R.O.U.
+1.7029778198
info@alvarocollazo.
Domain Name: SLASHODT.ORG
Administrative Contact:
Alvaro Collazo info@alvarocollazo.com
Manuel Oribe 2028
Tarariras, Colonia 70000
R.O.U.
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Alvaro Collazo info@alvarocollazo.com
Manuel Oribe 2028
Tarariras, Colonia 70000
R.O.U.
Record last updated on 23-Jul-2003.
Record expires on 21-Jul-2004.
Record created on 21-Jul-2003.
==========
Registrant:
Joaquin Navarro
Plaza Lizana 6
Huesca, Huesca 45000
ES
0034963527520
Domain Name: SLASHDTO.ORG
Administrative Contact:
NAVARRO, Joaquin rayder@iname.com
Plaza Lizana 6
Huesca, Huesca 45000
ES
0034963527520
Technical Contact:
NAVARRO, Joaquin rayder@iname.com
Plaza Lizana 6
Huesca, Huesca 45000
ES
0034963527520
Record expires on 04-25-2004
Record created on 04-25-2003
True, but the MPAA did get the copyright terms extended retroactively for works that had already been created long ago but hadn't quite passed into the public domain yet. It's a very similar changing of the rules after the fact.
And it hardly makes sense to claim that extending terms on existing works encourages their creation, unless you have access to a time machine.