Most of my previous comment was "tongue in cheek".
My point was that, living in the area, I am very aware of the extent of its problems. Believe me, going after these guys is the last thing we should be worried about.
I'm not saying they aren't guilty, or that they shouldn't be punished. I'm talking about prioritization and classification. There are drunk drivers, murderers, rapists, theives, and all manner of other types of criminals that get much lesser punishments than 9 years, or even get off entirely.
To answer your questions, I already pay for work programs such as having inmates clean roads, do construction, etc. Those are supervised: a couple of corrections officers drive around in a van and watch. So that's already paid for.
My guess is that paying for people to supervise work programs for non-violent offenders would be a LOT cheaper in the long run, and get a LOT more accomplished, than continuing to pay for the current penal system where "prisoners working" means "prisoners taking calls in call centers for catalog companies" (a security risk for sure...imagine someone convicted of going after credit card numbers being sent to prison where their prison job is working in a call center taking catalog orders over the phone...yeah, that makes sense). For example, maybe work programs where they collect trash or do environmental clean up (like cleaning up piles of dumped tires, etc, not something that requires training like cleaning up toxic waste).
IIRC, in Michigan at least, the largest single state government expense is corrections. That's just simply out of control.
Besides, he'd have to be catatonic to do a poor job if his job was to dress up in a big fuzzy suit and stand out on the curb waving cars into the parking lot.
I think it would have been better to run multiple ads over a series of weeks instead of one monster ad.
If the original goal was 2,500 names, but 10,000 were received, I think there would have been a lot more impact running 4 x 2,500 instead of 1 x 10,000. Maybe every Monday for 4 weeks in a row or something (and not over the holidays).
Make him work at a Lowe's for $6.50 an hour and no benefits for 9 years instead.
Make him the Lowe's mascot, put him in one of those big furry suits and make him stand outside waving cars into the parking lot.
I live in the Detroit area...what this guy did is the LEAST of our problems, by far. There're so many other problems we should be focusing on, and I, as a taxpayer, am not pleased that it will cost $60,000 or so every year to incarcerate this guy.
The currently available iRiver products don't have recording capability, except for recording FM broadcasts. I've been through the site, as well as the user guide, for the H3** series, and there's no mention whatsoever of recording anything but FM.
Is the only option, then, to get an older model used?
MTV was awesome back around 1981. I loved it...blew my mind. I still remember the original "jingle" and the original MTV interstitial that used the guy in a space suit on the moon, and the American flag was replaced by the flashing MTV logo in different color schemes. For the time, radical stuff.
My beef with the movies is that I pay money to see the movie, and then they show me ads. If they're going to show me the ads, then they should charge less (or not at all).
Same beef as cable, I guess...I'm paying for channel subscriptions that in turn show me commercials, but at least with TV there's TiVo. No such beast in the movie theater.
It never ceases to amaze me when people blame someone who buys something for being able to buy it.
As many concerns I have with EA, you can't blame them for buying something someone was willing to sell.
They didn't force the NFL into this agreement. The NFL sold it to them. If you're going to rant about anyone, rant about the NFL, because if the NFL was thinking long-term, they wouldn't issue long term exclusives to game companies.
Without seeing the contract, there's no way to judge, but if it had been me negotiating the deal, I wouldn't have done an exclusive. Or if I had, I would have tied EA's exclusivity to some benchmark of innovation over time. Sounds iffy, I know...my point is that the NFL suffers long term if they grant EA an exclusive and then EA does a crappy job because they get lazy and just want the money. Thus, if EA does a crappy job, they lose their exclusivity...to keep their exclusive, they have to agree to make the game "better" each year ("better" being a matter up for debate).
If EA does a crappy job a year or two from now, that's just going to disappoint fans, and if there's one thing a sports league should NEVER do (or want to do) is disappoint fans. Even video game fans.
If anyone is to blame in this deal, its the NFL (not that EA is unblemished). The fact remains that the NFL had something to sell and EA bought it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Right...the problem with that is it filters all ads delivered by blogads.com.
I don't mind ads, especially on blogs that I support. I would want such sites to receive their ad revenue from my visits. I do mind what I believe are "sneaky" methods of getting traffic in order to get more revenue.
At the very least, Roland's posts should say "My overview of this article is located here." Saying "this overview" instead is misleading...it leads the reader to believe that the original article's authors created something akin to a sidebar (like they do in magazines and newspapers) summarizing the high points of the article. The difference being that one is created by the original authors, the other created by someone just looking for traffic.
I keep forgetting about Roland Piquepaille, and I click on his damn "overview" link.
Why does/. post these damn things from him? The guy is a shameless shill.
There should be a highly visible disclaimer on everyone of his posts: "This link goes to an external site that is NOT the article's original site, and this external site is unendorsed by Slashdot. This external site profits from traffic generated by clicking on this link."
Someone needs to write a Firefox extension that filters any mention of his "overviews". Hmmmm....
First, why can't you just consider this an academic discussion? Why do you have to beat the guy (gal?) up over something they are thinking about doing? What, you think you have all the right answers? Your way is the only healthy way, the only good way? That's just selfish and arrogant (though no suprise here at/.).
Second, you CAN eat healthy without doing every little thing yourself. Example: http://www.sshe.com/
My company does pre-press work for marketing campaigns. If they need 15 minutes to render a postscript file (or PDF) they need better hardware. We use off-the-shelf gear (PC and Mac, none of it SMP) and nothing we do that is full-page size takes 15 minutes, even at 300 dpi.
If he's using someone's mark in a way that damages the mark, or devalues the mark, he almost certainly has a glaring liability and Apple almost certainly has a case.
Registering a domain does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want with someone's trademark.
If Apple can prove his use of that domain name damages their mark, they can "take it off him" quite easily.
You simply can't appropriate someone's mark and use it however you want, and you certainly can't use it for commercial gain, especially if you are doing something similar. Even in the UK. That's the whole point of trademarks in the first place.
If I use your mark to mislead consumers or site visitors, you have a case against me. It doesn't matter if I do it with a domain name, a publication, or anything else.
The FAQ you quoted is irrelevant...I said nothing about having a trademark giving you the legal right to the domain name. As one of the parents pointed out (fsa.co.uk) you can register a domain without having a trademark and be fine. There have been other cases, such as the World Wildlife Foundation vs. the World Wrestling Federation (or whatever their names are...the dispute was over wwf.com/org/net).
I said that you could own the domain name that uses my mark PROVIDED you don't harm my mark in the process.
If I take your mark, register a domain name using that mark, and then proceed to DAMAGE your mark, you have a case.
If I take your mark, register a domain name using that mark, and then proceed NOT to damage your mark, then your case is much weaker, especially if I can demonstrate that I registered the domain before you registered your mark.
You're right, you can register iTunes for something different than the way Apple uses it...I never said different. What you cannot do is register iTunes and use it for something similar, especially if you take no steps to clearly inform the public that you aren't Apple.
It most certainly DOES matter what he does with his domain. Whether he legally owns it or not is irrelevant...if he legally owns it and uses it to confuse consumers or harm Apple's trademark, Apple probably has a case.
If the UK lets anyone do anything they want with trademarks with no liability, remind me not to do business in the UK. Or rather, remind me to move to the UK and use everyone's trademarks with impunity.
There's no requirement for someone (corporation or not) to run around the globe buying up every domain name they think they might need just in case.
As one of the parents explained, Apple only has to prove that he's misleading legitimate consumers and site visitors with his use of their mark. When he registered the domain is irrelevant...its what he's doing with it that makes a difference. If he was discussing iTunes, had some forums there, a community (like ipodlounge.com), there'd be no problem. But that isn't what he's doing.
Sometimes, articles aren't news, and aren't meant to be in-depth technical discussions. Sometimes (especially in a fluff rag like Business Week) they're just articles featuring someone or something.
My whole family is left-handed. Immediate family, that is...four people (2 parents, 2 kids). I'll have to find out if my sister's son is left-handed or not...that would be interesting if he is.
As much as this topic interests me, and even though his publisher is mine, I just can't take him seriously if he's actually using the title "Reverend" after filling out a form on a website.
A common spammer technique is to simply put random characters as the recipient. This causes problems when you have your mail set up with a wildcard. That is, *@some-domain.com all goes to one mailbox. That way, you don't have to check many mailboxes.
For example, you could have name@domain.com, bank@domain.com, amazon@domain.com, etc. all going to your main Inbox with a wildcard. But that wildcard also allows zzzzz@domain.com, qwdghqi@domain.com and clkjc@domain.com.
So how do you prevent the garbage allowed by a wildcard while still letting multiple addresses go to one Inbox without forwarding? Goldlists.
Thus, whenever I register at a site, I use site@mydomain.com as the address (e.g. amazon@domain.com for my Amazon account). Then I add that to my goldlist. Now, not only have I prevented garbage from exploiting my wildcard and told my filters that it is OK for Amazon to send me mail using that address, I've also set up a tracker for that address...if I start getting spam on that address, I'll know Amazon (or whatever site it is) sold my e-mail address. Then I can complain and filter it without destroying the convenience of the wilcard, and I never have to have multiple Inboxes, one for each address.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of my previous comment was "tongue in cheek".
My point was that, living in the area, I am very aware of the extent of its problems. Believe me, going after these guys is the last thing we should be worried about.
I'm not saying they aren't guilty, or that they shouldn't be punished. I'm talking about prioritization and classification. There are drunk drivers, murderers, rapists, theives, and all manner of other types of criminals that get much lesser punishments than 9 years, or even get off entirely.
To answer your questions, I already pay for work programs such as having inmates clean roads, do construction, etc. Those are supervised: a couple of corrections officers drive around in a van and watch. So that's already paid for.
My guess is that paying for people to supervise work programs for non-violent offenders would be a LOT cheaper in the long run, and get a LOT more accomplished, than continuing to pay for the current penal system where "prisoners working" means "prisoners taking calls in call centers for catalog companies" (a security risk for sure...imagine someone convicted of going after credit card numbers being sent to prison where their prison job is working in a call center taking catalog orders over the phone...yeah, that makes sense). For example, maybe work programs where they collect trash or do environmental clean up (like cleaning up piles of dumped tires, etc, not something that requires training like cleaning up toxic waste).
IIRC, in Michigan at least, the largest single state government expense is corrections. That's just simply out of control.
Besides, he'd have to be catatonic to do a poor job if his job was to dress up in a big fuzzy suit and stand out on the curb waving cars into the parking lot.
I think it would have been better to run multiple ads over a series of weeks instead of one monster ad.
If the original goal was 2,500 names, but 10,000 were received, I think there would have been a lot more impact running 4 x 2,500 instead of 1 x 10,000. Maybe every Monday for 4 weeks in a row or something (and not over the holidays).
Make him work at a Lowe's for $6.50 an hour and no benefits for 9 years instead.
Make him the Lowe's mascot, put him in one of those big furry suits and make him stand outside waving cars into the parking lot.
I live in the Detroit area...what this guy did is the LEAST of our problems, by far. There're so many other problems we should be focusing on, and I, as a taxpayer, am not pleased that it will cost $60,000 or so every year to incarcerate this guy.
The currently available iRiver products don't have recording capability, except for recording FM broadcasts. I've been through the site, as well as the user guide, for the H3** series, and there's no mention whatsoever of recording anything but FM.
Is the only option, then, to get an older model used?
You are SO l33t!!!!
What a lame ass article. The only information in that entire article was:
1) hey, they stopped sending spam, but I still get some!
and
2) some people are idiots
I kept clicking "Next page" hoping for some real info, and never got it. That's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
MTV was awesome back around 1981. I loved it...blew my mind. I still remember the original "jingle" and the original MTV interstitial that used the guy in a space suit on the moon, and the American flag was replaced by the flashing MTV logo in different color schemes. For the time, radical stuff.
My beef with the movies is that I pay money to see the movie, and then they show me ads. If they're going to show me the ads, then they should charge less (or not at all).
Same beef as cable, I guess...I'm paying for channel subscriptions that in turn show me commercials, but at least with TV there's TiVo. No such beast in the movie theater.
Google is also doing Michigan's library (the University of Michigan, that is). Seven million volumes.
. htm
An announcement is forthcoming today.
Detroit Free Press article: http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend14e_20041214
It never ceases to amaze me when people blame someone who buys something for being able to buy it.
As many concerns I have with EA, you can't blame them for buying something someone was willing to sell.
They didn't force the NFL into this agreement. The NFL sold it to them. If you're going to rant about anyone, rant about the NFL, because if the NFL was thinking long-term, they wouldn't issue long term exclusives to game companies.
Without seeing the contract, there's no way to judge, but if it had been me negotiating the deal, I wouldn't have done an exclusive. Or if I had, I would have tied EA's exclusivity to some benchmark of innovation over time. Sounds iffy, I know...my point is that the NFL suffers long term if they grant EA an exclusive and then EA does a crappy job because they get lazy and just want the money. Thus, if EA does a crappy job, they lose their exclusivity...to keep their exclusive, they have to agree to make the game "better" each year ("better" being a matter up for debate).
If EA does a crappy job a year or two from now, that's just going to disappoint fans, and if there's one thing a sports league should NEVER do (or want to do) is disappoint fans. Even video game fans.
If anyone is to blame in this deal, its the NFL (not that EA is unblemished). The fact remains that the NFL had something to sell and EA bought it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Right...the problem with that is it filters all ads delivered by blogads.com.
I don't mind ads, especially on blogs that I support. I would want such sites to receive their ad revenue from my visits. I do mind what I believe are "sneaky" methods of getting traffic in order to get more revenue.
At the very least, Roland's posts should say "My overview of this article is located here." Saying "this overview" instead is misleading...it leads the reader to believe that the original article's authors created something akin to a sidebar (like they do in magazines and newspapers) summarizing the high points of the article. The difference being that one is created by the original authors, the other created by someone just looking for traffic.
I keep forgetting about Roland Piquepaille, and I click on his damn "overview" link.
/. post these damn things from him? The guy is a shameless shill.
Why does
There should be a highly visible disclaimer on everyone of his posts: "This link goes to an external site that is NOT the article's original site, and this external site is unendorsed by Slashdot. This external site profits from traffic generated by clicking on this link."
Someone needs to write a Firefox extension that filters any mention of his "overviews". Hmmmm....
I think you're just really really uptight.
/.).
First, why can't you just consider this an academic discussion? Why do you have to beat the guy (gal?) up over something they are thinking about doing? What, you think you have all the right answers? Your way is the only healthy way, the only good way? That's just selfish and arrogant (though no suprise here at
Second, you CAN eat healthy without doing every little thing yourself. Example: http://www.sshe.com/
Scaling text is just a calculation.
My company does pre-press work for marketing campaigns. If they need 15 minutes to render a postscript file (or PDF) they need better hardware. We use off-the-shelf gear (PC and Mac, none of it SMP) and nothing we do that is full-page size takes 15 minutes, even at 300 dpi.
What're they using, a PII-400???
If he's using someone's mark in a way that damages the mark, or devalues the mark, he almost certainly has a glaring liability and Apple almost certainly has a case.
Registering a domain does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want with someone's trademark.
If Apple can prove his use of that domain name damages their mark, they can "take it off him" quite easily.
You simply can't appropriate someone's mark and use it however you want, and you certainly can't use it for commercial gain, especially if you are doing something similar. Even in the UK. That's the whole point of trademarks in the first place.
I do see the difference, but you don't.
If I use your mark to mislead consumers or site visitors, you have a case against me. It doesn't matter if I do it with a domain name, a publication, or anything else.
The FAQ you quoted is irrelevant...I said nothing about having a trademark giving you the legal right to the domain name. As one of the parents pointed out (fsa.co.uk) you can register a domain without having a trademark and be fine. There have been other cases, such as the World Wildlife Foundation vs. the World Wrestling Federation (or whatever their names are...the dispute was over wwf.com/org/net).
I said that you could own the domain name that uses my mark PROVIDED you don't harm my mark in the process.
If I take your mark, register a domain name using that mark, and then proceed to DAMAGE your mark, you have a case.
If I take your mark, register a domain name using that mark, and then proceed NOT to damage your mark, then your case is much weaker, especially if I can demonstrate that I registered the domain before you registered your mark.
You're right, you can register iTunes for something different than the way Apple uses it...I never said different. What you cannot do is register iTunes and use it for something similar, especially if you take no steps to clearly inform the public that you aren't Apple.
It most certainly DOES matter what he does with his domain. Whether he legally owns it or not is irrelevant...if he legally owns it and uses it to confuse consumers or harm Apple's trademark, Apple probably has a case.
If the UK lets anyone do anything they want with trademarks with no liability, remind me not to do business in the UK. Or rather, remind me to move to the UK and use everyone's trademarks with impunity.
There's no requirement for someone (corporation or not) to run around the globe buying up every domain name they think they might need just in case.
As one of the parents explained, Apple only has to prove that he's misleading legitimate consumers and site visitors with his use of their mark. When he registered the domain is irrelevant...its what he's doing with it that makes a difference. If he was discussing iTunes, had some forums there, a community (like ipodlounge.com), there'd be no problem. But that isn't what he's doing.
See the difference?
There's not much meat in your comment, either.
Sometimes, articles aren't news, and aren't meant to be in-depth technical discussions. Sometimes (especially in a fluff rag like Business Week) they're just articles featuring someone or something.
If you aren't part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem.
http://www.despair.com/consulting.html
My whole family is left-handed. Immediate family, that is...four people (2 parents, 2 kids). I'll have to find out if my sister's son is left-handed or not...that would be interesting if he is.
As much as this topic interests me, and even though his publisher is mine, I just can't take him seriously if he's actually using the title "Reverend" after filling out a form on a website.
It hasn't happened yet, simply because I always say "no" to the question "Would you like to receive news, updates, and special offers?".
So, any mail I get to one of those aliases is typically intiated by action on my part, like ordering a book or CD.
I'm willing to pass on any job opportunity that mentions the words Vioxx, Rolex, Cialis, pen1s and MILF in its ad.
E-mail aliases that are "OK".
A common spammer technique is to simply put random characters as the recipient. This causes problems when you have your mail set up with a wildcard. That is, *@some-domain.com all goes to one mailbox. That way, you don't have to check many mailboxes.
For example, you could have name@domain.com, bank@domain.com, amazon@domain.com, etc. all going to your main Inbox with a wildcard. But that wildcard also allows zzzzz@domain.com, qwdghqi@domain.com and clkjc@domain.com.
So how do you prevent the garbage allowed by a wildcard while still letting multiple addresses go to one Inbox without forwarding? Goldlists.
Thus, whenever I register at a site, I use site@mydomain.com as the address (e.g. amazon@domain.com for my Amazon account). Then I add that to my goldlist. Now, not only have I prevented garbage from exploiting my wildcard and told my filters that it is OK for Amazon to send me mail using that address, I've also set up a tracker for that address...if I start getting spam on that address, I'll know Amazon (or whatever site it is) sold my e-mail address. Then I can complain and filter it without destroying the convenience of the wilcard, and I never have to have multiple Inboxes, one for each address.
Well said.