"In a few months, there will be exactly two browsers that get CSS-1 right: Mozilla/Nav 6 for all platforms, and IE5/Mac which we have now."
Bullshit.
*Right Now* Opera v3.6 gets CSS1 more 'right' than MSIE5.
Opera v4 is in beta testing. It's aiming for CSS2 and XML (with CSS styling).
You'd think a fellow who does HTML design as part of his living would know about Opera. It's a helluvagreat tool for designing W3C-compliant tagging and CSS.
Of course, perhaps it's because Opera costs a rockin' thirty bucks. It seems many people figure 'free' is better than 'great' or 'now'...
You should see a significant decrease in bulk addressed mail, telephone solicitations and suchlike when you follow the Direct Marketing Association's instructions for opting out:
Canadians: Do Not Mail/Do Not Call Service Canadian Marketing Association PO Box 706 Don Mills, ON M3C 2T6 Fax: 416-391-1237
Also, Canucks can call their local PO and have them stop unaddressed bulk mail deliveries.
Finally, there is a telemarketers do-not-call service for us Canucks. It's a 1-800 number, but I long-ago lost it. I suggest you rip Sprint Canada a new asshole the next time they call you, to the point where they *want* to give you the opt-out number.:-)
*THIS DOES WORK* I receive virtually no bulk mail (some bulk mailers don't belong to the association) and so few telemarketing calls as to be inconsequential.
I've just tried the American DMA's email opt-out thang. Godz willing, I'll see a decrease in spam. Oh, how I hope!
Feel free to make a website telling everyone about this!
Write an educational virus. It wouldn't have a destructive payload ('cept for worming itself through address book). But it sure would *pretend* to be doing nasty things. Scare the bejeezus outta the idiots who doubleclick it. Bright lights, beeps, shit like that.
And then pop up a message saying it *COULD* have nuked their system, but didn't, and that maybe they should finally learn their lesson: don't open attachments!
(Yes, literally: "DON'T OPEN ATTACHMENTS!" Those sorts of dolts are better off never opening them than having to choose which ones to open...)
I wish I could move some of my +5 marks to the above posting: it's the first I've seen that has a comprehensive counter-argument that has some grounding in reality.
If anyone has a moderator point or two left, *PLEASE* mark CBM's post up! It's needed to counterbalance my own posts!
It was used in one or two book titles. It was not in common usage. The phrase "it makes your mouth smile" is certainly a phrase that has seen occasional use -- but that does not prevent Nabisco from trademarking it for some cracker product or other.
So, fact: IDG owns the trademark.
Fact: They must insist that it not be used in a manner that dilutes their trademark.
Fact: They can and will keep a trademark on it, because they did think to trademark it before you or I did.
Period. It's theirs, all the way. If there is a problem, it is with the law, not with IDG, who has been nothing but polite and patient in their letters to web page owners.
Non-profits are *not* explicitly excluded. Just because Mountain Equipment Co-op, a co-operative outdoor equipment supplier, is non-profit, does *NOT* mean that they can name their house-brand boots "Scarpa", their semi-permeable raingear system "Gore-Tex" nor their low-impact handbook "Hiking for Dummies".
And nor does "not making money from it" necessarily count. Though the original web page was not for-profit, it was distinctly in competition with IDG Books, in that it was a published "how to" guide.
Once again, IDG's legal council is absolutely correct in understanding that they must insist that their trademark not be used as a title for a publication, lest they lose control of their trademark.
See comment in other half of the thread for the original posting.
Basically, publication of "how to" guides on the Internet is competition against printed "how to" guides published by IDG. Hence, it's wrong to title your "how to" guide using IDG's trademark.
Just as it is illegal to create a new, free operating system and name it... oh, say, Linux or Windows. Just because it's free/freely available doesn't mean it's non-commercial and free of trademark restrictions.
Ah, but you're not off the hook that easily. I'm enjoying mental masturbation this morning, and you're my willing co-stroker!
1) Yes, it was a published work. It was published on the Internet.
Note that IDG is not protesting the parody book cover that leads into the site. They are protesting a how-to guide titled "How to Screenprint for Dummies." IDG's "for Dummies" books are how-to guides, and so this Internet-published work directly competes with their product line.
2) IDG owns the use of the "for Dummies" phrase for use as a title. I don't think there's anything they could do about someone releasing scalpels and bonesaws under a "Brain Surgery for Dummies Home Trepanning Kit" brand name. Though I could be completely wrong about that. Point is, they certainly do have to be concerned about the use of their phrase as a title for publications -- and web pages are a publication.
3) Pick up a writers magazine. You'll find you're dead wrong: all companies are zealously protecting their trademarks/brand names, because if they don't, they lose them.
The problem isn't with IDG. It's with the law. IDG's hands are pretty much tied: they gotta do what they gotta do.
"Just because people weren't using... as a joke/buzzword... doesn't mean..."
Er, yes it does. Quite clearly, it does, otherwise they couldn't possibly have obtained a trademark for it.
The law does allow the use of these trademarks in reporting, so I'm afraid you're more or less out of luck this time around. However, if I were to ever use your phrase for whatever usage you've obtained trademark status for it (books, consumer products, manufacturing process, etc), then you'd have a leg to stand on.
However, IDG's beef isn't with things like the fantastic spoof that Aussie site did with a fake book cover.
It was with another work, which certainly doesn't seem to be a parody. It's a more-or-less accurate description of how to do screenprinting. It is mildly amusing, but it certainly isn't a parody.
It may have been intended to be non-commercial, but it still failed under 4.A: the Internet certainly can be considered to be comparitively promotional, and offering advice in a humourous manner does compete with the "for Dummies" series.
Again, IDG gains bugger all in harassing people. But they *must* do it, because the law demands it.
The phrase "for Dummies" was not in common usage before 1991, when IDG started using it in the title of their books.
It is in common usage *because* IDG uses it, not in spite of them.
If you were to read some of the higher-ranked previous postings for this article, you will, in fact, discover that this point has been made previously.
IDG owns copyright of the "For Dummies" phrase for use on 'Books and Printed Matters.'
IANAL, but I rather suspect that the court interpretation of this is that you can not use that phrase as part of a title; and that there's a good chance that you can't use it in body text in a way that suggests that it is the title of a work.
I'm quite sure you can use it in speech, in parody, and in off-hand comments like "ILOVEYOU is a virus for dummies!"
IDG just has to make sure that it isn't used in a way that implies that the phrase is part of the title of a published work. Otherwise, they can't control the use of the phrase in the use of titles. Which, in turn, means anyone can create a "for Dummies" series in competition with them.
Jesus, what part of "the law says they *MUST* do this" don't you understand?
It's not a choice. If IDG does not enforce their trademark, they *completely lose* their trademark.
At which point even a knob like you would be able to publish a bright yellow book with garish black graphics titled "How to Masturbate Yourself to Success for Dummies," thus causing confusion in the marketplace.
And if you actually took a minute, you'd discover that the legal department of IDG was bloody polite and patient.
The problem is not with IDG. It is with the law: it is stupidly written and forces companies to take action that they would, in all likelyhood, prefer to turn a blind eye to.
The only point you make that is at all legitimate is that it *is* appalling that a series that insults its readers can be so successful. That, however, would be more a failing of "How to Keep Your Self Respect for Complete Fucking Halfwits" consumer public.
IDG more or less invented the "for Dummies" phrase. It certainly wasn't in popular use before about 1991, when IDG started publishing the "for Dummies" series.
It is their unique distinguishing product name. Their trademark. And in order to retain ownership of the name, they are legally *required* to send cease-and-desist letters to everyone who titles their works using the "for Dummies" phrase.
Pick up one of those cheap wanna-be-an-author magazines down at the local bookstore. You'll find that three-quarters of the advertising is from companies protecting their trademark: Xerox telling writers to use the phrase "photocopy"; Kleenex telling writers to use the phrase "tissue"; and so on.
It's no different than if someone were to start offering "Red Hat BSD", "SUSE Windows" or the "Slashdot Porn: Sluts for Nerds. Stuff that creams ya!"
Anyway, it's stupid and irresponsible for Slashdot to be resurrecting this non-issue. IDG is doing what IDG *must* do, not what it wants to do. The law is written in a way that forces them into this position.
And by all appearances, they are most polite and patient. Give them a freaking break.
I no longer browse at less than +3 comments, so perhaps this has previously been mentioned:
What really needs is for someone to release a worm that teaches people a lesson. It would go in, delete and scramble a ton of files, wreak absolute havoc to their system...
...and tell them while it does it...
...and then stop, display a window that explains they just got away damned lucky, that nothing actually happened, but that IT COULD HAVE DESTROYED THEIR SYSTEM. In big fiery letters.
Perhaps... just *perhaps*... those people who mindlessly double-click every attachment they receive would *FINALLY* get a clue.
Though, that idea all stated and free for the taking, I really doubt that anything short of a two-by-four upside the head is really going to clue most of them.
This article wasn't News. It wasn't Nerdy. And it doesn't matter.
Slashdot's star is rapidly fading, in my opinion. Moderation has been a significant failure: as a meta-moderator, I saw many posts mis-moderated, and as a reader, I see many posts that are two-bit opinion, idiot babble or off-topic. The quality of stories is declining: less newsworthy, less innovative, a poorer quality of writing and simply not interesting.
My user id is in the low thousands, and only because I didn't bother logging in for a month or two. For the number of postings I've made (a few dozen), I've got good karma: as far as I remember, I've never been marked down below my bonus score. I've meta-moderated with care, I've provided feedback and suggestions to the Slashdot team, and I've been a faithful daily reader.
But in the past week, I've given up moderation, have become utterly disinterested in reading comments, am about to move my postings threshold to three or four, and may just walk away from Slashdot entirely.
My hope for this posting is that it'll be moderated up to a level 5, so that it gets some attention from the alpha geeks.
Microsoft does most of the HTML, CSS and graphics standards right. A helluva lot more right than Netscape, that's for sure. Netscape, the browser you can crash with compliant CSS...
Anyway, thought I'd mention that Opera does PNG. But, for reasons I can't fathom, it doesn't do them 100% correctly: alpha blends don't.
Absurd, given that the source for PNG is complete and free for the taking.
The primary use of my computer is extremely specific: I use it for creating paper-based documents -- work activity flowcharts, SOPs, training manuals, etcetera.
Why the hell would you have me waste my time, worth anywhere between $40 and $100 an hour depending on the job, pissing about with wrangling with command lines, control files and other crap?
Using the computer isn't a hobby for me. It's my employment. I'm either productive and getting paid, or unproductive and losing money. I've got real work to do, and hacking X's initialization file reduces my productivity.
Make Linux easier to use, and if it benefits my bottom line, I'll use it. Insist on my spending weeks learning esoteric shit, and I won't.
Ahhhh, and now the truth is revealed: you want Linux to remain your own little exclusionary playground, somehow thinking that by letting people like me use it, you lose something.
Shame. That sort of thinking is utterly foolish. Linux isn't like an apple pie: there isn't a limit to how much it can be shared. My having a piece doesn't make your piece smaller.
Agreed, it should be optional. Be even better if I could have only the wordprocessor without the rest of the package.
But do keep in mind that this is Star**OFFICE**, to be used by people who might not be so computer-literate as you. Much easier, cheaper and less-error-prone to have a single, constrained interface to the entire suite than to force the end user to learn an OS GUI that's different from the applications' GUIs.
Slashdot Mirror
"In a few months, there will be exactly two browsers that get CSS-1 right: Mozilla/Nav 6 for all platforms, and IE5/Mac which we have now."
Bullshit.
*Right Now* Opera v3.6 gets CSS1 more 'right' than MSIE5.
Opera v4 is in beta testing. It's aiming for CSS2 and XML (with CSS styling).
You'd think a fellow who does HTML design as part of his living would know about Opera. It's a helluvagreat tool for designing W3C-compliant tagging and CSS.
Of course, perhaps it's because Opera costs a rockin' thirty bucks. It seems many people figure 'free' is better than 'great' or 'now'...
--
Not two minutes later, I finally clue in that there may be a CMA website to compliment the DMA one...
So, Canucks, you can do it online (unlike the poor Americans) by visiting: http://www.the-cma.org/main.html and poking through the "consumer" section.
EMail spam, telemarketing spam and addressed bulk mail spam are all addressed! Whoo-hoo!
--
You should see a significant decrease in bulk addressed mail, telephone solicitations and suchlike when you follow the Direct Marketing Association's instructions for opting out:
c e.html
:-)
Americans:
http://www.the-dma.org/consumers/consumerassistan
Canadians:
Do Not Mail/Do Not Call Service
Canadian Marketing Association
PO Box 706
Don Mills, ON
M3C 2T6
Fax: 416-391-1237
Also, Canucks can call their local PO and have them stop unaddressed bulk mail deliveries.
Finally, there is a telemarketers do-not-call service for us Canucks. It's a 1-800 number, but I long-ago lost it. I suggest you rip Sprint Canada a new asshole the next time they call you, to the point where they *want* to give you the opt-out number.
*THIS DOES WORK* I receive virtually no bulk mail (some bulk mailers don't belong to the association) and so few telemarketing calls as to be inconsequential.
I've just tried the American DMA's email opt-out thang. Godz willing, I'll see a decrease in spam. Oh, how I hope!
Feel free to make a website telling everyone about this!
--
Lower your points filter, and keep an eye out for the "Natalie Portman" postings. You know it's him!
--
Write an educational virus. It wouldn't have a destructive payload ('cept for worming itself through address book). But it sure would *pretend* to be doing nasty things. Scare the bejeezus outta the idiots who doubleclick it. Bright lights, beeps, shit like that.
And then pop up a message saying it *COULD* have nuked their system, but didn't, and that maybe they should finally learn their lesson: don't open attachments!
(Yes, literally: "DON'T OPEN ATTACHMENTS!" Those sorts of dolts are better off never opening them than having to choose which ones to open...)
--
It posts, but anonymously.
Rule of thumb: if you want security or privacy, do not use a Microsoft product.
--
I wish I could move some of my +5 marks to the above posting: it's the first I've seen that has a comprehensive counter-argument that has some grounding in reality.
If anyone has a moderator point or two left, *PLEASE* mark CBM's post up! It's needed to counterbalance my own posts!
--
It was used in one or two book titles. It was not in common usage. The phrase "it makes your mouth smile" is certainly a phrase that has seen occasional use -- but that does not prevent Nabisco from trademarking it for some cracker product or other.
So, fact: IDG owns the trademark.
Fact: They must insist that it not be used in a manner that dilutes their trademark.
Fact: They can and will keep a trademark on it, because they did think to trademark it before you or I did.
Period. It's theirs, all the way. If there is a problem, it is with the law, not with IDG, who has been nothing but polite and patient in their letters to web page owners.
--
Non-profits are *not* explicitly excluded. Just because Mountain Equipment Co-op, a co-operative outdoor equipment supplier, is non-profit, does *NOT* mean that they can name their house-brand boots "Scarpa", their semi-permeable raingear system "Gore-Tex" nor their low-impact handbook "Hiking for Dummies".
And nor does "not making money from it" necessarily count. Though the original web page was not for-profit, it was distinctly in competition with IDG Books, in that it was a published "how to" guide.
Once again, IDG's legal council is absolutely correct in understanding that they must insist that their trademark not be used as a title for a publication, lest they lose control of their trademark.
--
See comment in other half of the thread for the original posting.
Basically, publication of "how to" guides on the Internet is competition against printed "how to" guides published by IDG. Hence, it's wrong to title your "how to" guide using IDG's trademark.
Just as it is illegal to create a new, free operating system and name it... oh, say, Linux or Windows. Just because it's free/freely available doesn't mean it's non-commercial and free of trademark restrictions.
--
Ah, but you're not off the hook that easily. I'm enjoying mental masturbation this morning, and you're my willing co-stroker!
1) Yes, it was a published work. It was published on the Internet.
Note that IDG is not protesting the parody book cover that leads into the site. They are protesting a how-to guide titled "How to Screenprint for Dummies." IDG's "for Dummies" books are how-to guides, and so this Internet-published work directly competes with their product line.
2) IDG owns the use of the "for Dummies" phrase for use as a title. I don't think there's anything they could do about someone releasing scalpels and bonesaws under a "Brain Surgery for Dummies Home Trepanning Kit" brand name. Though I could be completely wrong about that. Point is, they certainly do have to be concerned about the use of their phrase as a title for publications -- and web pages are a publication.
3) Pick up a writers magazine. You'll find you're dead wrong: all companies are zealously protecting their trademarks/brand names, because if they don't, they lose them.
The problem isn't with IDG. It's with the law. IDG's hands are pretty much tied: they gotta do what they gotta do.
--
"Just because people weren't using... as a joke/buzzword ... doesn't mean..."
Er, yes it does. Quite clearly, it does, otherwise they couldn't possibly have obtained a trademark for it.
The law does allow the use of these trademarks in reporting, so I'm afraid you're more or less out of luck this time around. However, if I were to ever use your phrase for whatever usage you've obtained trademark status for it (books, consumer products, manufacturing process, etc), then you'd have a leg to stand on.
--
Touche'.
However, IDG's beef isn't with things like the fantastic spoof that Aussie site did with a fake book cover.
It was with another work, which certainly doesn't seem to be a parody. It's a more-or-less accurate description of how to do screenprinting. It is mildly amusing, but it certainly isn't a parody.
It may have been intended to be non-commercial, but it still failed under 4.A: the Internet certainly can be considered to be comparitively promotional, and offering advice in a humourous manner does compete with the "for Dummies" series.
Again, IDG gains bugger all in harassing people. But they *must* do it, because the law demands it.
The *law* is the ass, not IDG!
--
I suggest YOU READ POSTS before you post.
The phrase "for Dummies" was not in common usage before 1991, when IDG started using it in the title of their books.
It is in common usage *because* IDG uses it, not in spite of them.
If you were to read some of the higher-ranked previous postings for this article, you will, in fact, discover that this point has been made previously.
I apologise for saying that you masturbate.
--
IDG owns copyright of the "For Dummies" phrase for use on 'Books and Printed Matters.'
IANAL, but I rather suspect that the court interpretation of this is that you can not use that phrase as part of a title; and that there's a good chance that you can't use it in body text in a way that suggests that it is the title of a work.
I'm quite sure you can use it in speech, in parody, and in off-hand comments like "ILOVEYOU is a virus for dummies!"
IDG just has to make sure that it isn't used in a way that implies that the phrase is part of the title of a published work. Otherwise, they can't control the use of the phrase in the use of titles. Which, in turn, means anyone can create a "for Dummies" series in competition with them.
--
LOL.
Oops, my ass-umptions are showing.
I meant for a company that is not Red Hat releasing a Red Hat BSD. Red Hat = trademark.
Poor example, sorry to confuse y'all.
--
Jesus, what part of "the law says they *MUST* do this" don't you understand?
It's not a choice. If IDG does not enforce their trademark, they *completely lose* their trademark.
At which point even a knob like you would be able to publish a bright yellow book with garish black graphics titled "How to Masturbate Yourself to Success for Dummies," thus causing confusion in the marketplace.
And if you actually took a minute, you'd discover that the legal department of IDG was bloody polite and patient.
The problem is not with IDG. It is with the law: it is stupidly written and forces companies to take action that they would, in all likelyhood, prefer to turn a blind eye to.
The only point you make that is at all legitimate is that it *is* appalling that a series that insults its readers can be so successful. That, however, would be more a failing of "How to Keep Your Self Respect for Complete Fucking Halfwits" consumer public.
--
I believe the satire laws do apply.
The Aussie site, with the fantastic parody book cover, is parodying *after the fact*. Their original web page wasn't at all a parody.
--
IDG more or less invented the "for Dummies" phrase. It certainly wasn't in popular use before about 1991, when IDG started publishing the "for Dummies" series.
It is their unique distinguishing product name. Their trademark. And in order to retain ownership of the name, they are legally *required* to send cease-and-desist letters to everyone who titles their works using the "for Dummies" phrase.
Pick up one of those cheap wanna-be-an-author magazines down at the local bookstore. You'll find that three-quarters of the advertising is from companies protecting their trademark: Xerox telling writers to use the phrase "photocopy"; Kleenex telling writers to use the phrase "tissue"; and so on.
It's no different than if someone were to start offering "Red Hat BSD", "SUSE Windows" or the "Slashdot Porn: Sluts for Nerds. Stuff that creams ya!"
Anyway, it's stupid and irresponsible for Slashdot to be resurrecting this non-issue. IDG is doing what IDG *must* do, not what it wants to do. The law is written in a way that forces them into this position.
And by all appearances, they are most polite and patient. Give them a freaking break.
--
I no longer browse at less than +3 comments, so perhaps this has previously been mentioned:
What really needs is for someone to release a worm that teaches people a lesson. It would go in, delete and scramble a ton of files, wreak absolute havoc to their system...
...and tell them while it does it...
...and then stop, display a window that explains they just got away damned lucky, that nothing actually happened, but that IT COULD HAVE DESTROYED THEIR SYSTEM. In big fiery letters.
Perhaps... just *perhaps*... those people who mindlessly double-click every attachment they receive would *FINALLY* get a clue.
Though, that idea all stated and free for the taking, I really doubt that anything short of a two-by-four upside the head is really going to clue most of them.
Sigh.
--
I have to support you, Frosty.
This article wasn't News. It wasn't Nerdy. And it doesn't matter.
Slashdot's star is rapidly fading, in my opinion. Moderation has been a significant failure: as a meta-moderator, I saw many posts mis-moderated, and as a reader, I see many posts that are two-bit opinion, idiot babble or off-topic. The quality of stories is declining: less newsworthy, less innovative, a poorer quality of writing and simply not interesting.
My user id is in the low thousands, and only because I didn't bother logging in for a month or two. For the number of postings I've made (a few dozen), I've got good karma: as far as I remember, I've never been marked down below my bonus score. I've meta-moderated with care, I've provided feedback and suggestions to the Slashdot team, and I've been a faithful daily reader.
But in the past week, I've given up moderation, have become utterly disinterested in reading comments, am about to move my postings threshold to three or four, and may just walk away from Slashdot entirely.
My hope for this posting is that it'll be moderated up to a level 5, so that it gets some attention from the alpha geeks.
--
Seems to me the more likely culprit is Windows: in all likelyhood, it's misreporting the CPU usage. Ne pas?
--
Microsoft does most of the HTML, CSS and graphics standards right. A helluva lot more right than Netscape, that's for sure. Netscape, the browser you can crash with compliant CSS...
Anyway, thought I'd mention that Opera does PNG. But, for reasons I can't fathom, it doesn't do them 100% correctly: alpha blends don't.
Absurd, given that the source for PNG is complete and free for the taking.
--
wtf?
The primary use of my computer is extremely specific: I use it for creating paper-based documents -- work activity flowcharts, SOPs, training manuals, etcetera.
Why the hell would you have me waste my time, worth anywhere between $40 and $100 an hour depending on the job, pissing about with wrangling with command lines, control files and other crap?
Using the computer isn't a hobby for me. It's my employment. I'm either productive and getting paid, or unproductive and losing money. I've got real work to do, and hacking X's initialization file reduces my productivity.
Make Linux easier to use, and if it benefits my bottom line, I'll use it. Insist on my spending weeks learning esoteric shit, and I won't.
Ahhhh, and now the truth is revealed: you want Linux to remain your own little exclusionary playground, somehow thinking that by letting people like me use it, you lose something.
Shame. That sort of thinking is utterly foolish. Linux isn't like an apple pie: there isn't a limit to how much it can be shared. My having a piece doesn't make your piece smaller.
--
Calm down, bubbleboy.
Agreed, it should be optional. Be even better if I could have only the wordprocessor without the rest of the package.
But do keep in mind that this is Star**OFFICE**, to be used by people who might not be so computer-literate as you. Much easier, cheaper and less-error-prone to have a single, constrained interface to the entire suite than to force the end user to learn an OS GUI that's different from the applications' GUIs.
--