Re:It's just like etoy, they don't have the mark
on
Fandom vs. Fandom.com
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it's not much like the etoys/etoy case. In that case, etoys was claiming that etoy was willfully misleading visitors who accidentally went to the etoy site, by putting pictures of toys on their front page and that whole fake stock offering thing. In this, etoys was responding to actual complaints from parents whose children had gone to the etoy site and found pictures they felt were unsitable for children.
The fandom.com stuff is just about domain names. The etoys stuff was about trademarks.
Skip college? Are they crazy? College is the best opportunity most geeks will ever have to get laid. Putting a job before that is clearly a demonstration of mixed up priorities. Oh these modern times...
If you recall, the etoy(s) lawsuit was not about one company taking another's domain name. Rather, etoys claimed that etoy was taking advantage of customer confusion and thereby infringing on their trademark. Supposedly the etoy site had pictures of toys on their front page and information about a (fake) stock offering, both aimed at customers who mistyped the URL or confused the names. A better example of a lawsuit over nothing more than the domain name itself would be one of the suits filed against cybersquatters.
Probably no one will give a satisfactory explanation of what Corel is accused of, or ask for their side of the story. Instead, Slashdot editors will make off-hand comments about it which will be accepted as truth by most readers without any further information. This is fairly typical.
I do appreciate getting opinions from the editors, and I know they aren't striving for objectivity in any way, but it would be nice to have links to the old stories that explained these topics so that readers can decide for themselves if Corel is truly evil or not.
That shouldn't make you warm and fuzzy at all. eToys is the largest e-commerce retailer running their site on Linux, Apache, and other open source softwarem as well as a major support of VA and therefore Slashdot. When you assume that one mistake by one lawyer means they are evil and shouldn't succeed you are vastly oversimplifying things and being totally unfair to the vast majority of employees and stakeholders in the company. And in case you didn't notice, they dropped that case and paid the other site's legal fees.
The world is not as simple as some Slashdot articles make it sound.
I've noticed that Slashdot often encourages readers to think of everyone at a company as a single unit that shares one ideology. For example, in cases of legal disputes like the ones involving Mattel or eToys, Slashdot's articles have painted these organizations as single-mindedly evil. It is entirely possible for a few people in a comany's legal department to make a mistake and take actions that most employees would not agree with. This is not indicative of a general attitude within the company or a shared agenda. Try to keep in mind that companies are not people, and one ignorant lawyer doesn't make all the employees at a company evil.
Javascript? Cookies? What are you talking about? This thread is about the back button, and the feature that lets you hold it down to get a pulldown list of previous URLs. This feature is in Navigator 4.
We're working on some PDA formats, but there are only so many hours in the day, and we don't have devices that can do most of the formats users email me asking for
Wouldn't it be nice if some big company with a bunch of venture capital bought Slashdot and gave them some money so they could afford to buy the PDAs they need to support and hire some people to help with the coding? Oh, wait a minute...
In a way, I think Slashdot is getting what it deserves. This is the site where the general consensus among posters has been that it's okay to DDoS a site if you don't like something they did. (Remember all the scripts people posted to attack eToys?) Maybe some troll got tired of being moderated down and took the other posters' advice. Or maybe RTMark decided Slashdot is immoral and staged a "sit-in". "Do unto others..."
Anyone with a packet sniffer can see your cookies. They are not normally encrypted. Web developers should not be putting sensitive information in cookies or using cookies as the only verification needed for secure tasks, like on-line purchases. Sites like Yahoo are very careful to require a password before letting you edit sensitive data, even if you have a cookie.
With a policy like that, it really doesn't matter if the entire world looks at your cookies.
A stripped-down Apache serving images with keep-alive can easily fill huge amounts of bandwidth. You might be able to reduce the number of servers by a machine or two if you used a server like thttpd, but that hardly compensates for the added effort of dealing with different kinds of config files, log files, etc. Apache's amazing configurability is more valuable than you might think when running a large site.
A waste of time and money? What are you imagining is so different about these other servers? It's just some context switching overhead. No matter what you do the images are cached in memory if you have enough.
Ticketmaster allows their partner sites to link to anything within their site. People who have made a business contract with Ticketmaster would probably not appreciate having their users forced to log in to Ticketmaster or sit and look at a splash page.
If you allow some people to link to pages other than your front page (they do, for their partnerships) this won't work. And you want a user to be able to bookmark a concert and come back to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not much like the etoys/etoy case. In that case, etoys was claiming that etoy was willfully misleading visitors who accidentally went to the etoy site, by putting pictures of toys on their front page and that whole fake stock offering thing. In this, etoys was responding to actual complaints from parents whose children had gone to the etoy site and found pictures they felt were unsitable for children.
The fandom.com stuff is just about domain names. The etoys stuff was about trademarks.
You know, there is a format which is fairly easy to render on different displays like this, and easy to write as well. It's called HTML 2.
I mean, can a human being tell it apart from another game of Life?
The Turing Test Page
Hold on a minute, there are some cuties in sales and marketing!
Maybe you should explain what System 12, since I don't know and neither does Google.
Skip college? Are they crazy? College is the best opportunity most geeks will ever have to get laid. Putting a job before that is clearly a demonstration of mixed up priorities. Oh these modern times...
If you recall, the etoy(s) lawsuit was not about one company taking another's domain name. Rather, etoys claimed that etoy was taking advantage of customer confusion and thereby infringing on their trademark. Supposedly the etoy site had pictures of toys on their front page and information about a (fake) stock offering, both aimed at customers who mistyped the URL or confused the names. A better example of a lawsuit over nothing more than the domain name itself would be one of the suits filed against cybersquatters.
Probably no one will give a satisfactory explanation of what Corel is accused of, or ask for their side of the story. Instead, Slashdot editors will make off-hand comments about it which will be accepted as truth by most readers without any further information. This is fairly typical.
I do appreciate getting opinions from the editors, and I know they aren't striving for objectivity in any way, but it would be nice to have links to the old stories that explained these topics so that readers can decide for themselves if Corel is truly evil or not.
Yes, their web server is built on Apache.
That shouldn't make you warm and fuzzy at all. eToys is the largest e-commerce retailer running their site on Linux, Apache, and other open source softwarem as well as a major support of VA and therefore Slashdot. When you assume that one mistake by one lawyer means they are evil and shouldn't succeed you are vastly oversimplifying things and being totally unfair to the vast majority of employees and stakeholders in the company. And in case you didn't notice, they dropped that case and paid the other site's legal fees.
The world is not as simple as some Slashdot articles make it sound.
Can anyone explain why NFS performs better on Linux with a Linux client and better on FreeBSD with a FreeBSD client?
I've noticed that Slashdot often encourages readers to think of everyone at a company as a single unit that shares one ideology. For example, in cases of legal disputes like the ones involving Mattel or eToys, Slashdot's articles have painted these organizations as single-mindedly evil. It is entirely possible for a few people in a comany's legal department to make a mistake and take actions that most employees would not agree with. This is not indicative of a general attitude within the company or a shared agenda. Try to keep in mind that companies are not people, and one ignorant lawyer doesn't make all the employees at a company evil.
Thank god for the MPAA! Otherwise I'd never know where to look for good mp3 warez. This site is great! Downloading now...
Javascript? Cookies? What are you talking about? This thread is about the back button, and the feature that lets you hold it down to get a pulldown list of previous URLs. This feature is in Navigator 4.
Mozilla didn't add this. It's been in the standard Netscape Navigator for years.
We're working on some PDA formats, but there are only so many hours in the day, and we don't have devices that can do most of the formats users email me asking for
Wouldn't it be nice if some big company with a bunch of venture capital bought Slashdot and gave them some money so they could afford to buy the PDAs they need to support and hire some people to help with the coding? Oh, wait a minute...
I like the ones done by TechMetrix. They include an open source test.
This has to be the first time anyone used the word "intelligent" to describe Offspring.
In a way, I think Slashdot is getting what it deserves. This is the site where the general consensus among posters has been that it's okay to DDoS a site if you don't like something they did. (Remember all the scripts people posted to attack eToys?) Maybe some troll got tired of being moderated down and took the other posters' advice. Or maybe RTMark decided Slashdot is immoral and staged a "sit-in". "Do unto others..."
Anyone with a packet sniffer can see your cookies. They are not normally encrypted. Web developers should not be putting sensitive information in cookies or using cookies as the only verification needed for secure tasks, like on-line purchases. Sites like Yahoo are very careful to require a password before letting you edit sensitive data, even if you have a cookie.
With a policy like that, it really doesn't matter if the entire world looks at your cookies.
A stripped-down Apache serving images with keep-alive can easily fill huge amounts of bandwidth. You might be able to reduce the number of servers by a machine or two if you used a server like thttpd, but that hardly compensates for the added effort of dealing with different kinds of config files, log files, etc. Apache's amazing configurability is more valuable than you might think when running a large site.
A waste of time and money? What are you imagining is so different about these other servers? It's just some context switching overhead. No matter what you do the images are cached in memory if you have enough.
Solved in 1/2 month? I remember that site being up for years. And Digital finally bought them out for a ton of money.
Ticketmaster allows their partner sites to link to anything within their site. People who have made a business contract with Ticketmaster would probably not appreciate having their users forced to log in to Ticketmaster or sit and look at a splash page.
If you allow some people to link to pages other than your front page (they do, for their partnerships) this won't work. And you want a user to be able to bookmark a concert and come back to it.