If you read 1 and A, Microsoft is hosed. B can be ignored because it's an OR dependency, not an AND.
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -- (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person
>The fact that they aren't should tell you something.
This *just happened* and you expect them to file a lawsuit without doing any research first? Without trying other solutions first, In the first week? You are what, 12 years old?
I merely countered your assertion that Microsoft was not in the wrong, legally, which you still haven't even provided a link to back up anything you've said. I've cited the law. Your move.
But then they will be building the impossible while we only build the possible. They will have assumed that we have working Poiuyts and attempt to build them themselves, not knowing that they don't work. The biggest problem in not getting something done is assuming it can't be done. The Chinese will assume it can be done, and do it.
We will then be having generals and captains of industry bemoaning the Poiuyt Gap, which must be closed and we will spend trillions building Poiuyts.
But you are not entitled to your own facts. And passing off your opinion as fact means you are a fraud. These "science" classes and "science" teachers are frauds in the worst sense of the word.
This is deliberately mentally poisoning children with nonsense so they cannot get accepted into any decent college or university.
This is child abuse. It is as much child abuse as hitting a kid with your fist. Except it's done to the brain.
Totally ignoring the Sherman Antitrust act, the FSF has an open-and-shut case using the Lanham Act. Really, there isn't any debating about it. Microsoft spread the lie that the FSF is a gambling site and impacted the FSF monetarily. That's just as much libel as if I took out an ad in the newspaper calling you a criminal with no basis in fact.
And that guy gets modded up, which is fucking ridiculous.
Nearly half of the US population believes in Creationism. Every year, this study is done, and it's always the same - somewhere around 46-48 percent.
This nations is full of dumb twits. Look around you. Consider who you think is average. Half of everyone is dumber than that, by definition.
>Hands up if you went to a public, private or catholic school that taught you Nessie was real and the Ku Klux Klan is a great force for good.
Reductio ad absurdam.
Evangelical private schools teach that Man walked with dinosaurs and use "Of Pandas and People" as a text. That is a fact on the ground, and as seen in the Dover School Board scandal, they keep trying to bring ID/Creationism into public schools.
>FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena.
Lanham act.
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -- (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.
In other words, if you slander or libel a trademark holder and do economic damage to the good name of the trademark holder, you are liable for damages.
"In other words "I have nothing but "studies" handed to me by the BSA "
What part of "if it doesn't match the MD5 it's junk and can't be trusted" do you not understand? You seem to be an admin somewhere, and if I was your boss and I read what you wrote, I would have had you fired so fucking fast that you wouldn't know what happened until you were hurtling down the highway in your retard-mobile.
Personal fuckin' experience. And if you are so crippled as to not find the official downloads at Microsoft through MyDigitalLife, then I don't know what to fuckin' tell you.
Fuck off. Honestly. You are one of the dumbest people here.
Which means it's only happened once in US history, when the Whigs got pushed out.
Which means in the last 223 years of Constitutional Law, we've only had one real shake-up. Our electoral system does not encourage, in any way, new parties. It actively discourages them by design.
A vote for a third party this time around is a vote for Romney, and considering who he's naming as his advisors and potential cabinet members, my response is not just "no" but "oh my gawd, fuck no."
The immediacy of a derp-driven Pax Americana PNAC Redux But We Call it FPI Now Romney Presidency is a more immediate threat than a lack of third party viability.
Go to TPB and you'll see they have "Windows 7 all versions pre-activated" DVD which will give you ANY version from Basic to Ultimate and they all get full Windows Updates using the bootloader hack.
Just a heads-up for anyone considering going to TPB or any other torrent site and downloading one of these things to install:
Welcome to the botnet.
Every single one of them is infected. The ones that scan clean have simply not had their rootkits entered into the malware databases yet, and it takes a good while for it to happen. Some people download these because they are pre-trimmed and degoobered. Microsoft has its own trimmed down Windows versions, like WinFLP which is spectacularly good for VMs. Use those instead.
Any and all Windowses you acquire should match the MD5 sums available at Microsoft. If it doesn't match, then it's garbage.
It's not difficult to install the loader yourself on a clean copy.
Or you can just forego all the above and install Linux and never have to worry about that bullshit again.
"why put your support behind one you dislike a wee bit less than the other?"
Because your characterisation of the differences dismisses the scale.
Because I do not wish to go back to the days of the PNAC running the country, and Romney is doing his best rounding up the old crowd.
It's not a choice between "someone I dislike slightly less" and the other guy, it's the choice between "someone who has disappointed me, but is not really a bad guy" versus "oh my fucking god, what a fucking disaster!"
>WTF? That makes no sense. How does publishing a PAPER somehow unleash the virus?
Because the powers that be that make these decisions know nothing about virology and everything about politics.
These are the same idiots that call terrorists that try to explode their underpants "sophisticated" on national television.
Sophisticated is what the USSR was doing up until the collapse - making nuclear weapons that could explode at a desired height above ground within a couple of meters accuracy in 3 dimensions and wipe out an entire city.
Yet according to them, we should wet their pants over a paper or exploding underpants. The mental gymnastics of this sort of doublethink are olympic-class.
>But "free speech" is only applicable to the published speech. A person who can't pay to distribute his speech to the public has no protection for his right to do so.
As if this hasn't been the case since Gutenberg made his movable-type press.
"Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses"
While you seem to be mourning the death of free speech, I've been watching it spread far and wide, wider than it ever was in the past history of the human race. -- BMO
the extent to which computers have a constitutional right to free speech.
They are machines, they do not.
'This may sound like a fanciful question,
No, it's a bullshit question. Computers are machines, like printing presses are machines. Like transmitters are machines. Like the phone is a machine.
a matter of philosophy or science fiction.
No, right now, it's a matter of complete bullshit by a lawyer who doesn't even understand what computers are and should be kept as far away from the computing machinery as possible.
But it's become a real issue with important consequences,'
What consequences? Really, what consequences that are really any different than the consequences of broadcast and print media?
Wu writes. First it was Google defending â" and winning â" a civil suit on grounds that search results are constitutionally protected speech.
Because Google is basically a publisher, and the people who run it use computers as a tool of business and communications, thus, their speech.
I can't go on. I'm not going to give this guy the click from the obvious trolling with an argument that starts off with a false premise, that machines have rights. No, you dumbfuck, the people who own the machines have rights, and those rights are the ones that the courts deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a logical OR between parts A and B.
If you read 1 and A, Microsoft is hosed. B can be ignored because it's an OR dependency, not an AND.
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which --
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person
Try reading again.
--
BMO
>The fact that they aren't should tell you something.
This *just happened* and you expect them to file a lawsuit without doing any research first? Without trying other solutions first, In the first week? You are what, 12 years old?
I merely countered your assertion that Microsoft was not in the wrong, legally, which you still haven't even provided a link to back up anything you've said. I've cited the law. Your move.
--
BMO
>get proven wrong by the actual text of the law.
>attempt to ridicule
Yup.
Meet your new status.
--
BMO
But then they will be building the impossible while we only build the possible. They will have assumed that we have working Poiuyts and attempt to build them themselves, not knowing that they don't work. The biggest problem in not getting something done is assuming it can't be done. The Chinese will assume it can be done, and do it.
We will then be having generals and captains of industry bemoaning the Poiuyt Gap, which must be closed and we will spend trillions building Poiuyts.
--
BMO - What, me worry?
But you are not entitled to your own facts. And passing off your opinion as fact means you are a fraud. These "science" classes and "science" teachers are frauds in the worst sense of the word.
This is deliberately mentally poisoning children with nonsense so they cannot get accepted into any decent college or university.
This is child abuse. It is as much child abuse as hitting a kid with your fist. Except it's done to the brain.
--
BMO
Totally ignoring the Sherman Antitrust act, the FSF has an open-and-shut case using the Lanham Act. Really, there isn't any debating about it. Microsoft spread the lie that the FSF is a gambling site and impacted the FSF monetarily. That's just as much libel as if I took out an ad in the newspaper calling you a criminal with no basis in fact.
And that guy gets modded up, which is fucking ridiculous.
--
BMO
It's not bullshit.
Nearly half of the US population believes in Creationism. Every year, this study is done, and it's always the same - somewhere around 46-48 percent.
This nations is full of dumb twits. Look around you. Consider who you think is average. Half of everyone is dumber than that, by definition.
>Hands up if you went to a public, private or catholic school that taught you Nessie was real and the Ku Klux Klan is a great force for good.
Reductio ad absurdam.
Evangelical private schools teach that Man walked with dinosaurs and use "Of Pandas and People" as a text. That is a fact on the ground, and as seen in the Dover School Board scandal, they keep trying to bring ID/Creationism into public schools.
--
BMO
This, it's pure child abuse.
And I will bet you if we look closer, there will be a lot of physical coercion going on too, physical abuse.
These idiots actually teach each other how to hit kids and not show marks.
--
BMO
>FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena.
Lanham act.
In other words, if you slander or libel a trademark holder and do economic damage to the good name of the trademark holder, you are liable for damages.
--
BMO
"In other words "I have nothing but "studies" handed to me by the BSA "
What part of "if it doesn't match the MD5 it's junk and can't be trusted" do you not understand? You seem to be an admin somewhere, and if I was your boss and I read what you wrote, I would have had you fired so fucking fast that you wouldn't know what happened until you were hurtling down the highway in your retard-mobile.
Fuck you.
--
BMO
>A vote for a third party is also a vote for Obama.
Only if you're a Republican it is.
>Besides, do you really think that Obama is really that different than Romney?
Romney wants to attack Iran. This is apparent from his statements and who he has hired as his foreign policy advisors.
You should pay attention to this stuff. It's important.
> As far as I can see they are very similar.
Ah, the "they're both the same so vote Republican."
Yeah.
>Both will institute similar policies
Obama isn't hankerin' to bomb Iran.
> People like you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Oh good, a personal attack.
Get fucked.
--
BMO
>Citation please?
Personal fuckin' experience. And if you are so crippled as to not find the official downloads at Microsoft through MyDigitalLife, then I don't know what to fuckin' tell you.
Fuck off. Honestly. You are one of the dumbest people here.
Bye.
--
BMO
>It's already happened once in US history
Which means it's only happened once in US history, when the Whigs got pushed out.
Which means in the last 223 years of Constitutional Law, we've only had one real shake-up. Our electoral system does not encourage, in any way, new parties. It actively discourages them by design.
A vote for a third party this time around is a vote for Romney, and considering who he's naming as his advisors and potential cabinet members, my response is not just "no" but "oh my gawd, fuck no."
The immediacy of a derp-driven Pax Americana PNAC Redux But We Call it FPI Now Romney Presidency is a more immediate threat than a lack of third party viability.
--
BMO
Go to TPB and you'll see they have "Windows 7 all versions pre-activated" DVD which will give you ANY version from Basic to Ultimate and they all get full Windows Updates using the bootloader hack.
Just a heads-up for anyone considering going to TPB or any other torrent site and downloading one of these things to install:
Welcome to the botnet.
Every single one of them is infected. The ones that scan clean have simply not had their rootkits entered into the malware databases yet, and it takes a good while for it to happen. Some people download these because they are pre-trimmed and degoobered. Microsoft has its own trimmed down Windows versions, like WinFLP which is spectacularly good for VMs. Use those instead.
Any and all Windowses you acquire should match the MD5 sums available at Microsoft. If it doesn't match, then it's garbage.
It's not difficult to install the loader yourself on a clean copy.
Or you can just forego all the above and install Linux and never have to worry about that bullshit again.
--
BMO
Indeed, dear RDB.
--
BMO
"why put your support behind one you dislike a wee bit less than the other?"
Because your characterisation of the differences dismisses the scale.
Because I do not wish to go back to the days of the PNAC running the country, and Romney is doing his best rounding up the old crowd.
It's not a choice between "someone I dislike slightly less" and the other guy, it's the choice between "someone who has disappointed me, but is not really a bad guy" versus "oh my fucking god, what a fucking disaster!"
--
BMO
I'm right with ya there, brah. I'd be drinking beer in the queue, as it has Vitamin P.
--
BMO
Yet AQ cannot even get someone's underpants to explode correctly.
--
BMO
I said: "Yet according to them, we should wet their pants"
OUR, not THEIR.
Daffy Duck: "Pronoun trouble"
--
BMO
>WTF? That makes no sense. How does publishing a PAPER somehow unleash the virus?
Because the powers that be that make these decisions know nothing about virology and everything about politics.
These are the same idiots that call terrorists that try to explode their underpants "sophisticated" on national television.
Sophisticated is what the USSR was doing up until the collapse - making nuclear weapons that could explode at a desired height above ground within a couple of meters accuracy in 3 dimensions and wipe out an entire city.
Yet according to them, we should wet their pants over a paper or exploding underpants. The mental gymnastics of this sort of doublethink are olympic-class.
--
BMO
>When they develop also develop the antidote or cure.
No released research = no cure.
Your move.
--
BMO
>Censored for a half year
Read the summary much?
How long does censorship have to last before it's "safe" to release research?
What about next time? A year? Two? Never?
--
BMO
"could help them detect dangerous virus strains in nature."
But since it's "woowoo scary" we bury this research in spite of the benefits.
--
BMO
>But "free speech" is only applicable to the published speech. A person who can't pay to distribute his speech to the public has no protection for his right to do so.
As if this hasn't been the case since Gutenberg made his movable-type press.
"Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses"
What the Internet has done is make "printing presses" really cheap, cheap enough that a 9 year old blogger can have one and use it to criticise school lunches. http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/pictures/banned-school-meal-blogger-s-father-in-talks-with-council-1-2369015
While you seem to be mourning the death of free speech, I've been watching it spread far and wide, wider than it ever was in the past history of the human race.
--
BMO
the extent to which computers have a constitutional right to free speech.
They are machines, they do not.
'This may sound like a fanciful question,
No, it's a bullshit question. Computers are machines, like printing presses are machines. Like transmitters are machines. Like the phone is a machine.
a matter of philosophy or science fiction.
No, right now, it's a matter of complete bullshit by a lawyer who doesn't even understand what computers are and should be kept as far away from the computing machinery as possible.
But it's become a real issue with important consequences,'
What consequences? Really, what consequences that are really any different than the consequences of broadcast and print media?
Wu writes. First it was Google defending â" and winning â" a civil suit on grounds that search results are constitutionally protected speech.
Because Google is basically a publisher, and the people who run it use computers as a tool of business and communications, thus, their speech.
I can't go on. I'm not going to give this guy the click from the obvious trolling with an argument that starts off with a false premise, that machines have rights. No, you dumbfuck, the people who own the machines have rights, and those rights are the ones that the courts deal with.
I don't even.
--
BMO