It's too late for the person in the article, but if your domain name is important and doesn't infringe any existing trade marks, trade mark it immediately.
Doesn't quite work this way, as the article submitter indicated that the domain name is meaningful only to the submitter. Might I suggest a more authoritative source, such as this link, instead of depending upon Slashdot for legal advice?
Perhaps you've heard of it. Happens all the time: Real estate speculators buy up property (perhaps the property *you* had your eye on), and watch to see what happens to it. If it's a dud...they dump it. If it appreciates, a smart investors hangs on.
House flippers do the same thing: They buy up houses (perhaps the house *you* had your eye on). They spend some money, hoping that their investment brings returns.
I'm sure you can think of your own example. The point? Domain name speculators (call them what you want) look for domains they can make money with. It's no different from any other speculator (real estate, stock, arbitrage, etc.). With speculation, there are always winners and losers, because it's a zero-sum game.
My suggestion: If your domain wasn't taken from you via nefarious means, then get over it, learn from your mistakes, and move on. This is the way life is. Bitching about it on Slashdot won't change things.
Those of you who will mod me down for this know, deep in your hearts, that I'm right, but just can't get over the fact that someone else thought of the idea before you did.
Let me ask a straighforward question to the submitter: Are these ~3500 books actually books you would read again? Or are you simply collecting books for the sake of collecting them (without ever having the intention of re-reading)?
I solve the problem of organizing my books very easily: Those books that I have read once and will probably never read again I put back into circulation (I either donate them or sell them to Half-Price Books, depending upon my frame of mind at the moment). I cull old IT/technology books and recycle them, as they really are no longer worth the paper they're printed on. The remaining few hundred "static" books I own (mostly references) fit just fine in a couple of oak bookshelves, organized first by subject, then alphabetically.
Problem solved. YMMV.
Re:vim syntaxt is quite arcane
on
Hacking VIM
·
· Score: 1
I know you can compile perl support into vim, but I've never come across a vim plugin written in anything other than vimscript...have any links to a good resource on this?
Re:vim syntaxt is quite arcane
on
Hacking VIM
·
· Score: 1
Already done! Your turn...
vim syntaxt is quite arcane
on
Hacking VIM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I was actually thinkink about this the other day: As a long-time vim user (have you donated yet?), the one beef I've always had about customizing vim is the rather arcane and inaccessible syntax style that's used throughout vim. This coming from a long-time perl hacker might come across as somewhat disingenuous, but it's the truth: I love to hack with vim, but hate to hack on it!
I plan on checking this out only to see if there is some light shed on the secrets behind writing a vim plugin.
That's an easy one. It's called a shrink wrap machine. All the big stores have one. They just take the product you returned, shrinkwrap it and put some official-looking stickers on the outside so it looks factory fresh...
One of my beefs with Fry's...they *love* to re-shrinkwrap their stuff. Normally, they are very good about putting a big white sticker on their restocked items. But occasionally, I've bought an item without the sticker that had obviously been opened and then repacked by someone.
I don't understand why stores do this. Most manufacturers permit "allowances" for defective merchandise, and if the item is cheap enough, manufacturers are usually content just to have some assurance that the defective items have been destroyed before issuing an allowance. Why does Fry's think that their customers want something that has been returned by a customer, with no idea of how the item was abused/misused before being returned?
Fry's doesn't save money with this policy for the reason stated above, so where's the advantage?
TMT will be the first ground-based astronomy telescope designed with adaptive optics as an integral system element that will sense atmospheric turbulence in real-time, correct the optical beam of the telescope to remove its effect, and enable true diffraction-limited imaging on the ground.
with the adaptive optics capability of the quite beautiful HET at McDonald Observatory? I suppose with any number of very specific qualifiers, one could claim to be "first".
What is the difference between the TMT and the HET with regards to "adaptive optics" and being able to negate the effects of atmospheric turbulence in real time (which the HET can do)?
BTW, if you ever have the chance, the McDonald Observatory in Ft. Davis, TX is well worth the trip!
You missed my quite subtle point...this entire project is doomed from the start because it is not readily accessible to the visually impaired (yes, that means feline pictures and inkblots). Read up on the subject...you might find that the visually disabled are, in fact, a part of the Internet community.
Of course, subtlety around here is like cutting a diamond with a stick of butter sometimes, so silly me for just not cutting right to the chase...
Added bonus: You can actually remember a six-word passphrase. Throw in an extra random character for additional entropy, and you can *still* remember it. Tell me what your ten random-letter password is a year from now.
If that's the case, then the clause is not compatible with the additional conditions specified by the Affero license. Unless the word "convey" has now been redefined. In which case, the GPLv3 now defines "convey" differently than the Affero license. Legal hilarity ensues...
You write ReallyCoolWebTool and license it under the AGPL. SmallNonprofitOrganization wants to use and change it. Now they have the choice between releasing their source code, or not using it at all. That was different with the GPL
Post-mortem:
SmallNonprofitOrganization discovers bandwidth costs have soared due to extra bandwidth required to support downloading of modified code. SmallNonprofitOrganization decides it's not worth the hassle, ditches ReallyCoolWebTool for a more "user-friendly" closed source license. F/OSS loses yet another potential convert.
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force."
is compatible with the new Affero license? Oh, that clause is not part of the Affero license? Then how can it be classified as "essentially the GPLv3"?
I find this license rather onerous, as it basically categorizes the end-user as a distributor, even though no such distribution has occurred, and forces the user, solely on the basis of using the software, into the precarious position of also serving as a distributor for said software. I believe this violates the spirit of F/OSS in that using the software is no longer "free" (as in freedom), as there are now strings attached: Use this software, and you are now obligated to support a distribution channel as well.
What I predict will happen is that unsuspecting users, who are familiar with the traditional definition of F/OSS (or perhaps have just been turned on to F/OSS), will grab a piece of software licensed under the Affero license, believing it to be "free" when, in fact, it's not really "free". Said user, who might have been a vociferous advocate for F/OSS, will become disenchanted with the entire process as simply a "bait and switch" scheme and move on to some proprietary solution. Score for F/OSS: 0 Score for closed source: 1
I know there are those who will say "tough shit, should have read the license first." Those people will have lost the ticket to the clue train, because anyone who feels like they've been duped into this scenario (regardless of whether they have read the license or not) will become the worst type of enemy for F/OSS.
Actually, I'm exaggerating, but seriously: I only use my gmail account for "backup" purposes for when my main mail server is down, or as an address when registering on forums, corresponding with unknown individuals, etc. How could Google claim that their model is an accurate reflection of my "social network" without first validating how my gmail account is used?
There are a lot of assumptions that are put into play when Google and Yahoo! begin to datamine their e-mail troves , making connections that might be tenuous or temporal at best.
Please don't insult the thousands of honest security consultants by calling this guy a "security consultant." The title of "con artist" would be far more accurate.
Or you can use the SM mark if it's a service oriented business. Either way, to even register a trademark, one must show it has *already* been used in legitimate commerce by providing proof of commerce.
The University of Iowa supported research, later dubbed "The Monster Study," that involved teaching young orphans how to stutter in an attempt to prove that stuttering is a learned behavior. While none of the children picked up stuttering, many began to exhibit the same mannerisms as stutterers (low self-esteem, hesitations, etc.)
The study's main researcher, Wendell Johnson, has a campus building named after him (the Wendell Johnson Speech & Hearing Center). Apparently the Univ. of Iowa still doesn't see anything wrong with conducting research on non-consenting children...
...is that there exist far more wikis than the three that are indexed on Wikindex(MediaWiki, TikiWiki, and DekiWiki [whatever the hell that one is!]). How can you possibly derive "major trends" from such a small sample space?
BTW, if I'm mistaken about this, then the interface isn't really that intuitive, because all I see are three links, each associated with what appears to be a count, which also happens to correspond to the number of total wikis being paged.
Several universities host ongoing paranormal research, including Princeton University, the University of Arizona, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Amsterdam, the University of Hertfordshire in England, and the University of Virginia. Obviously, there's enough evidence out there that needs to be confirmed or debunked (depending on your point of view) that centers for paranormal research are justified.
Zonk, why don't you leave the editorializing to those things you know something about, unless you're willing to share *your* paranormal research credentials with us...at which point I'll shut up and go away.
That's just insanity in the guise of an authoritative-sounding quote. How did the "state" give Microsoft its monopoly power to force PC vendors not to carry competitors' OS products?
It's not what the "state" gave Microsoft, but rather what the "state" allowed (and still allows) Microsoft to do with regard to monopolistic practices.
Corruption by omission (or lack of oversight) is the problem here. Which is just as bad as corruption via direct intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
It's too late for the person in the article, but if your domain name is important and doesn't infringe any existing trade marks, trade mark it immediately.
Doesn't quite work this way, as the article submitter indicated that the domain name is meaningful only to the submitter. Might I suggest a more authoritative source, such as this link, instead of depending upon Slashdot for legal advice?
Perhaps you've heard of it. Happens all the time: Real estate speculators buy up property (perhaps the property *you* had your eye on), and watch to see what happens to it. If it's a dud...they dump it. If it appreciates, a smart investors hangs on.
House flippers do the same thing: They buy up houses (perhaps the house *you* had your eye on). They spend some money, hoping that their investment brings returns.
I'm sure you can think of your own example. The point? Domain name speculators (call them what you want) look for domains they can make money with. It's no different from any other speculator (real estate, stock, arbitrage, etc.). With speculation, there are always winners and losers, because it's a zero-sum game.
My suggestion: If your domain wasn't taken from you via nefarious means, then get over it, learn from your mistakes, and move on. This is the way life is. Bitching about it on Slashdot won't change things.
Those of you who will mod me down for this know, deep in your hearts, that I'm right, but just can't get over the fact that someone else thought of the idea before you did.
...still lament that they are forced to read Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Let me ask a straighforward question to the submitter: Are these ~3500 books actually books you would read again? Or are you simply collecting books for the sake of collecting them (without ever having the intention of re-reading)?
I solve the problem of organizing my books very easily: Those books that I have read once and will probably never read again I put back into circulation (I either donate them or sell them to Half-Price Books, depending upon my frame of mind at the moment). I cull old IT/technology books and recycle them, as they really are no longer worth the paper they're printed on. The remaining few hundred "static" books I own (mostly references) fit just fine in a couple of oak bookshelves, organized first by subject, then alphabetically.
Problem solved. YMMV.
I know you can compile perl support into vim, but I've never come across a vim plugin written in anything other than vimscript...have any links to a good resource on this?
Already done! Your turn...
I was actually thinkink about this the other day: As a long-time vim user (have you donated yet?), the one beef I've always had about customizing vim is the rather arcane and inaccessible syntax style that's used throughout vim. This coming from a long-time perl hacker might come across as somewhat disingenuous, but it's the truth: I love to hack with vim, but hate to hack on it!
I plan on checking this out only to see if there is some light shed on the secrets behind writing a vim plugin.
That's an easy one. It's called a shrink wrap machine. All the big stores have one. They just take the product you returned, shrinkwrap it and put some official-looking stickers on the outside so it looks factory fresh ...
One of my beefs with Fry's...they *love* to re-shrinkwrap their stuff. Normally, they are very good about putting a big white sticker on their restocked items. But occasionally, I've bought an item without the sticker that had obviously been opened and then repacked by someone.
I don't understand why stores do this. Most manufacturers permit "allowances" for defective merchandise, and if the item is cheap enough, manufacturers are usually content just to have some assurance that the defective items have been destroyed before issuing an allowance. Why does Fry's think that their customers want something that has been returned by a customer, with no idea of how the item was abused/misused before being returned?
Fry's doesn't save money with this policy for the reason stated above, so where's the advantage?
Can someone in the know reconcile this statement:
TMT will be the first ground-based astronomy telescope designed with adaptive optics as an integral system element that will sense atmospheric turbulence in real-time, correct the optical beam of the telescope to remove its effect, and enable true diffraction-limited imaging on the ground.
with the adaptive optics capability of the quite beautiful HET at McDonald Observatory? I suppose with any number of very specific qualifiers, one could claim to be "first".
What is the difference between the TMT and the HET with regards to "adaptive optics" and being able to negate the effects of atmospheric turbulence in real time (which the HET can do)?
BTW, if you ever have the chance, the McDonald Observatory in Ft. Davis, TX is well worth the trip!
You missed my quite subtle point...this entire project is doomed from the start because it is not readily accessible to the visually impaired (yes, that means feline pictures and inkblots). Read up on the subject...you might find that the visually disabled are, in fact, a part of the Internet community.
Of course, subtlety around here is like cutting a diamond with a stick of butter sometimes, so silly me for just not cutting right to the chase...
A six-word passphrase selected from a list of random tokens (words) such as offered by diceware trumps even these paltry numbers in parent:
7776^6
221073919720733357899776
26^10
141167095653376
95^5
7737809375
Added bonus: You can actually remember a six-word passphrase. Throw in an extra random character for additional entropy, and you can *still* remember it. Tell me what your ten random-letter password is a year from now.
Unless, of course, you're visually disabled. Then I guess you are SOL. So much for accessibility from our friends at Microsoft.
FWIW, IRSeeK seems to have had a change of heart, or at least is being receptive to privacy concerns:
http://www.irseek.com/blog/
Sounds like a genuine response of concern to me...
If that's the case, then the clause is not compatible with the additional conditions specified by the Affero license. Unless the word "convey" has now been redefined. In which case, the GPLv3 now defines "convey" differently than the Affero license. Legal hilarity ensues...
You write ReallyCoolWebTool and license it under the AGPL. SmallNonprofitOrganization wants to use and change it. Now they have the choice between releasing their source code, or not using it at all. That was different with the GPL
Post-mortem:
SmallNonprofitOrganization discovers bandwidth costs have soared due to extra bandwidth required to support downloading of modified code. SmallNonprofitOrganization decides it's not worth the hassle, ditches ReallyCoolWebTool for a more "user-friendly" closed source license. F/OSS loses yet another potential convert.
"This license is essentially the GPLv3..."
Really? Then explain how this GPLv3 clause:
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force."
is compatible with the new Affero license? Oh, that clause is not part of the Affero license? Then how can it be classified as "essentially the GPLv3"?
Very misleading. This is a sad day for F/OSS.
I find this license rather onerous, as it basically categorizes the end-user as a distributor, even though no such distribution has occurred, and forces the user, solely on the basis of using the software, into the precarious position of also serving as a distributor for said software. I believe this violates the spirit of F/OSS in that using the software is no longer "free" (as in freedom), as there are now strings attached: Use this software, and you are now obligated to support a distribution channel as well.
What I predict will happen is that unsuspecting users, who are familiar with the traditional definition of F/OSS (or perhaps have just been turned on to F/OSS), will grab a piece of software licensed under the Affero license, believing it to be "free" when, in fact, it's not really "free". Said user, who might have been a vociferous advocate for F/OSS, will become disenchanted with the entire process as simply a "bait and switch" scheme and move on to some proprietary solution. Score for F/OSS: 0 Score for closed source: 1
I know there are those who will say "tough shit, should have read the license first." Those people will have lost the ticket to the clue train, because anyone who feels like they've been duped into this scenario (regardless of whether they have read the license or not) will become the worst type of enemy for F/OSS.
Say what you will, but this license is bad news.
Actually, I'm exaggerating, but seriously: I only use my gmail account for "backup" purposes for when my main mail server is down, or as an address when registering on forums, corresponding with unknown individuals, etc. How could Google claim that their model is an accurate reflection of my "social network" without first validating how my gmail account is used?
There are a lot of assumptions that are put into play when Google and Yahoo! begin to datamine their e-mail troves , making connections that might be tenuous or temporal at best.
Please don't insult the thousands of honest security consultants by calling this guy a "security consultant." The title of "con artist" would be far more accurate.
Or you can use the SM mark if it's a service oriented business. Either way, to even register a trademark, one must show it has *already* been used in legitimate commerce by providing proof of commerce.
The University of Iowa supported research, later dubbed "The Monster Study," that involved teaching young orphans how to stutter in an attempt to prove that stuttering is a learned behavior. While none of the children picked up stuttering, many began to exhibit the same mannerisms as stutterers (low self-esteem, hesitations, etc.)
The study's main researcher, Wendell Johnson, has a campus building named after him (the Wendell Johnson Speech & Hearing Center). Apparently the Univ. of Iowa still doesn't see anything wrong with conducting research on non-consenting children...
Or floored him...
...is that there exist far more wikis than the three that are indexed on Wikindex(MediaWiki, TikiWiki, and DekiWiki [whatever the hell that one is!]). How can you possibly derive "major trends" from such a small sample space?
BTW, if I'm mistaken about this, then the interface isn't really that intuitive, because all I see are three links, each associated with what appears to be a count, which also happens to correspond to the number of total wikis being paged.
Several universities host ongoing paranormal research, including Princeton University, the University of Arizona, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Amsterdam, the University of Hertfordshire in England, and the University of Virginia. Obviously, there's enough evidence out there that needs to be confirmed or debunked (depending on your point of view) that centers for paranormal research are justified.
Zonk, why don't you leave the editorializing to those things you know something about, unless you're willing to share *your* paranormal research credentials with us...at which point I'll shut up and go away.
That's just insanity in the guise of an authoritative-sounding quote. How did the "state" give Microsoft its monopoly power to force PC vendors not to carry competitors' OS products?
It's not what the "state" gave Microsoft, but rather what the "state" allowed (and still allows) Microsoft to do with regard to monopolistic practices.
Corruption by omission (or lack of oversight) is the problem here. Which is just as bad as corruption via direct intervention.