Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Utah Trying To Restrict Keyword Advertising ... Again

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the aren't-they-all-porn-junkies-in-utah dept.

The Courts 257

Eric Goldman writes "The Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but does help trademark owners suppress their online competition."

cancel ×

257 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

aaa (1, Redundant)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078375)

The Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but doesThe Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but does

remove the Mormons tag (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27078391)

Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (3, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078523)

+1. It's like having a story about water melons and adding a "black people" tag.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (4, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078623)

It would have dropped off on its own - now you all have made sure anyone who comes along the thread later will know it was there. Sometimes it is worth just chilling out and seeing where things go.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (2, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078961)

It would have dropped off on its own - now you all have made sure anyone who comes along the thread later will know it was there. Sometimes it is worth just chilling out and seeing where things go.

Maybe. But most times it's worth taking a stand and pointing out bigotry and hypocrisy in the editorial slant of holier-than-thou hipster tech blogs right when you find it.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (2, Funny)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079311)

Yeah, that would be a full time job around here. With a few assistants. Working 28 hour days.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (3, Informative)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079363)

Those tags are user generated. Do you think it is also worthwhile to reply to every comment troll?

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27080135)

Is it always bigotry if someone is intolerant of a religion? What if there's an article about suicide cults, and I tag it 'heavensgate'? Bigotry? What if there's an article about female circumcision, and I tag it 'islam'? I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn. Personally, I think religion has unfairly worked itself into a position where to criticize it is seen as bigotry tantamount to racism, which is absurd.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (3, Informative)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080271)

What is bigoted about adding a "mormon" tag when over 80% of the Utah state legislature are members of the LDS church?

Re:remove the Mormons tag (5, Funny)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078703)

You have experienced the horror of keyword advertising!

Re:remove the Mormons tag (2, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079823)

There needs to be a "+1 Priceless" tag for comments like this.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27079569)

Not really. Now maybe if being black was a choice, it would be like having a story about Harlem and adding a "black people" tag.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (4, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079595)

+1. It's like having a story about water melons and adding a "black people" tag.

Actually, it's like having a story about laws regarding information technology and someones persecution complex [wikipedia.org] turns the thread about their religion, the places where it is practiced, and the vrious shades it comes in.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27080095)

Seagulls and magic underwear deserve a persecution complex

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078665)

San Francisco has liberal EX-Mormons

Fixed that for you. Or rather, made a cheap joke out of that for you since you are probably right.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (4, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078897)

Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.

Oh, c'mon, Dude!! What's wrong with you? Geez... Christian-bashing is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry left to Americans, and now you want to take that away, too?

Re:remove the Mormons tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27078967)

I am
a) an active Mormon
b) determined to never live in Utah, or any other red state for that matter
c) a libertarian. Extremely socially liberal.
d) Opposed to the legislation mentioned in this story

The state of Utah is not an accurate representation of the Church as a whole. Please believe me.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (2, Insightful)

ZoobieWa (513069) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079315)

Actually I think the link can be made. Utah is the Mormon core. The culture starts here (I live here) and radiates outward. Almost every lawmaker is Mormon. They are informed in their economic policies by the church. This law is, in effect, largely Mormon. Church and state are not so separated here. If you lived here, you wouldn't be considered to be a very good Mormon.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27079593)

oh. I forgot to add:

e) afraid to reveal my identity, even though I am proud of what I believe

Re:remove the Mormons tag (3, Interesting)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080309)

...even though I am proud of what I believe

Ah, but you're not supposed to be proud in your belief, but humble in it. After all, did not St. James Buffett describe the seven deadly sins thusly:

  1. Pride...Thou shalt not have pride in thy neighbor.
  2. Coveting...Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
  3. Lust...Thou shalt not lust after his neighbor's wife.[sic]
  4. Anger...Do not be angry with your neighbor's wife.
  5. Gluttony...Do not eat thy neighbor's wife's...popcorn.
  6. Envy...Do not envy your neighbor's wife.
  7. Sloth...Do not be a slob.
  8. And the eighth deadly sin is...PIZZA!

For what it's worth, I know two Mormon couples. They're very nice people, they don't have multiple wives, and are very active in the community. They don't proselytize on the evils of keyword advertising. And that proves this isn't "a Mormon thing" because, as we all know, the plural of "anecdote" is "data".

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27079013)

Well, thats fine and everything, but no one considers Mormons to be Christians except themselves.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (2, Interesting)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079301)

That just isn't true. Some don't, some do. If you ask me, the smart ones do consider Mormons to be Christians (you know, since they believe in Christ, and all).

Re:remove the Mormons tag (2, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079625)

Actually, my take is that most people consider Mormons to be Christians, although kind of an odd sect. But, many Christians refuse to acknowledge Mormons to be Christian. Actually I've talked to more than one Protestant that even consider Catholics to be non-Christian. It all seems a bit silly to me - If you consider Jesus holy, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not. Some Christians just have very very different beliefs and practices than other Christians.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (3, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079775)

If you consider Jesus holy

By that standard, Jews and Muslims are Christians too!

Re:remove the Mormons tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27080037)

If you consider Jesus to be the son of God, you're a Christian.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080049)

Jews, Muslims, and others consider Jesus to be historically important, but not necessarily divinely inspired or in the direct lineage of God. Maybe we're using different interpretations of the word "holy".

IANA religious scholar.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080117)

I think he meant "if you consider Jeebus the son of God" ;) It's an easy mistake to make.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27080145)

Err, no. (How did this get an insightful tag?).

The primary difference between the big 3 is the concept of the Messiah. The Christians claim Jesus was the Messiah, the Muslims claim Mohammad, and the Jews say the Messiah hasn't arrived yet.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (5, Funny)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080377)

I think the difference boils down like this:

  • Jews and Muslims consider Christ to be a prophet.
  • Christians consider Christ to be The Prophet.
  • Televangelists consider Christ to be The Profit.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079927)

There are always going to be people of a relgious slant who believe they are the holy guardians and safekeepers of the one true message. These people will always consider those who present the message in a different manner to be heritics and thus just as unholy as those who reject the message straight out.

Regardless, those who don't see themselves in that light (over that particular message) will often group everyone with similar messages into the same label. Be it Christian, Muslim, Liberal, Conservative, or etc.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080111)

Actually I've talked to more than one Protestant that even consider Catholics to be non-Christian. It all seems a bit silly to me - If you consider Jesus holy, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not.

The matter is somewhat more seriously defined than that. In general The Nicene Creed [spurgeon.org] is regarded as the main Christianity test, in order to distinguish it from doctrines like Arianism, or other religions entirely like Judaism or Islam. Reading over it, it seems pretty clear that just about every modern day Christian sect accepts that creed in whole or in large part, even those that say they don't.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

djp928 (516044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080203)

The thing with Mormons is that they don't actually believe in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus being both "God" and the "Son of God" is a central tenent of Christianity. Mormons believe Jesus was a man who became divine--mainstream Protestant Christianity completely rejects that idea. To them Jesus was fully divine and fully human during his time on Earth (yeah, I know, it's a bunch of crazy mutually exclusive crap, but I'm just telling you what Christians actually believe or at least are "supposed" to believe). And Mormons see Jesus as kind of a super-angel now, not the Son of God or God incarnate like mainstream Christians.

So yeah, to a lot of Christians, Mormons can't be Christians, because they don't believe in several of the core tenents of the faith.

Similarly, Catholics have this weird Mary fetish. They pray to Mary to intercede with Jesus on their behalf. This is also against what mainstream Protestantism preaches, which is that Mary was just a woman, who happened to be chosen by God to bear His child. Her significance beyond that is minimal. Catholics, however, believe she was born without original sin and was "clean" her whole life, therefore being worthy of some kind of holy reverence. In fact, the term "Immaculate Conception", which most people think refers to the conception of Jesus by a virgin, actually is Catholic dogma concerning the conception of *Mary*. She was born without original sin, and was therefore "clean" and a proper vessel for the conception of Jesus.

Protestants reject all this--the Bible states in many places that nobody but God is without sin, so they reject the idea that Mary was born without the taint of original sin. They also tend to argue that even if she somehow *was* born without original sin, it is impossible for any human (who doesn't also happen to be God incarnate, anyway!) to live a life totally free from sin, so even if she had been born "clean", she didn't die that way, and so isn't really worthy of the special importance Catholics think she has.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080507)

Christian: a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.
Christian: a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Mormon: Those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a sacred text that adherents believe to be "another testament of Jesus Christ" and testifies of the Bible as part of the religion's canon.
Mormon: A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

The foundation of Mormonism is that Joseph Smith, Jr. was visited by God the Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. These divine beings instructed him that he was to join no organized religion and that he was to prepare himself for a greater work that would follow. Joseph Smith later brought forth (The Book of Mormon) that was written by ancient Christian Prophets who lived in the American Continent, and he also restored what he called the true religion as founded by Jesus Christ himself, with all rites, rituals, and doctrines as they were in primitive Christianity.

Let the definitions over to an encyclopedia or a dictionary. Don't know whether you can put Mormons under Christians because they do not believe in the Jesus from the Bible (I think, never investigated) but rather believe in 'another' Jesus from the Book of Mormon. Could have been a Mexican named 'Jesus' since their prophets lived in the American Continent and lived from 600 before our calendar started counting while the 'Christian' Jesus lived in the Palestine area somewhere from 2 to 34 on our calendar.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27079195)

Maybe you haven't been paying attention but most of the "Christians" have no problem bashing and suppressing the rights of gays.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079277)

Christian-bashing is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry left to Americans, and now you want to take that away, too?

Non-Mormon Christians generally don't consider Mormons to be Christians, so to most Christians, this is not Christian-bashing anymore than Islam-bashing or Jew-bashing is Christian-bashing. Oh but wait, now that's three religions that get bashed, so I guess your "last acceptable bigotry" whine is out the window, too.

in what sense are those socially acceptable? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079429)

You must live in a weird location if Jew-bashing, for example, is socially acceptable. In some countries, it's not even legal!

I don't think you can even bash all of them! (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079403)

Or at least I was told that it's no longer appropriate to refer to Catholics as Papists. :(

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27078985)

Yeah really. The correct tag would have been "lds", not "mormons".

Re:remove the Mormons tag (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079807)

Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way.

But most Mormons do. They are a fairly conservative bunch on the whole. The story is about a conservative, Republican, Mormon dominated legislature trying to get the internet to play by corporate rules. The "mormon" tag is just as appropriate as a "republican" or "conservative" or "corporations" tag on the story.

People can legitimately object to stereotypes and prejudices. But sometimes those stereotypes are things that are legitimately true and that need to be said, even if they do offend. Not allowing this leads to situations in which we now find ourselves [canada.com] . According to the UN, we can now no longer "defame" religions or their followers, no matter how much we disagree with their beliefs or practices.

Forget the rough stuff. Mormons, by dogma, can't drink coffee and tea. I personally think this is a stupid prohibition. Muslims, again by dogma, can't draw pictures of Mohammad. I personally think this a really stupid prohibition. Catholics( especially in third world countries), again by dogma, can't use condoms. I personally think this is an appallingly stupid prohibition which costs lives every single day. I think the people who follow these prohibitions are being unreasonable, inconsiderate and irresponsible.

My opinions here could land me in jail in many countries for being "bigoted" or for "stereotyping" or for "hate speech". Some people will say that I'm tarnishing the image of whole groups of people, or that not all people in those groups support these prohibitions. Tell that to the people living in Utah, or Saudi Arabia, or Italy, who have to put up with prohibitions imposed on them in the name of the silent religious majority.

In conclusion, it is not automatically "Wrong(TM)" to stereotype a religious community. In fact, when that communities religious practices start to infringe on others liberties, it is right to stereotype, lampoon and indeed "defame" those practices, and to force that community to reflect upon itself. Religion should never be except from criticism, and especially satire.

I agree on most of that, but this seems a stretch (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080251)

I'm no fan of Mormonism, or Catholicism or Islam for that matter, all of which are backwards, right-wing religions, so I agree with most of your post.

But I don't really see what this particular dispute over trademarks has to do with Mormonism. Whether non-owners of a trademark paying for search results under those terms as keywords is, or ought to be, a violation of trademark law has been argued over [ssrn.com] in a number of states, and I don't see particularly clear religious faultlines in that debate. If supporting that position is somehow related to Mormonism, does that mean that eBay is run by Mormons [cnet.com] ?

Re:remove the Mormons tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27080205)

Dear Brother Coward, Since you have successfully removed the "mormon" sign from this, we would like you to formally go on a mission as Elder Coward to explain to everyone how the church officially teaches that homosexuality can be cured.

Re:remove the Mormons tag (1)

YenTheFirst (1056960) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080373)

[citation needed]
"....church officially teaches...."

please cite at least one, current, first party source that states the belief that "homosexuality can be cured"

Process should be fair. (2, Interesting)

gravos (912628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078401)

Well, it's one thing if a car dealership who is not Toyota starts buying "Toyota" as a keyword. Arguably this is similar to buying Toyota.com and could be misleading to customers. It's quite another thing if you run a small grocery store called "Toyota" that delivers online in your neighborhood and you start buying Toyota keywords and they try to block you for trademark infringement.

Businesses should be able to protect their trademarks but the process should be fair. Little guys who don't compete in the same market should not get squashed.

Re:Process should be fair. (4, Insightful)

the darn (624240) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078931)

Nonsense; more than one advertiser can buy "Toyota" as a keyword, while there is only one Toyota.com. There's nothing wrong with presenting alternatives when someone is looking for something; search is not an exact science anyhow, and many results end up being something other than what you're looking for. A Chevy dealer could buy the keyword and run an ad promoting the Malibu as an alternative to the Camry or such.

Re:Process should be fair. (1)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079209)

Well, it's one thing if a car dealership who is not Toyota starts buying "Toyota" as a keyword.

Would you say it would be fair if some called Toyota decided to buy that word for their business?

I'm curious about the general opinion here, as they don't let me buy "Torrent" (NOT bittorrent, just Torrent) as someone (google didn't disclose who) claims to have that trademark. Torrent is my wife's last name.

Re:Process should be fair. (1)

krystar (608153) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079237)

what if that little small grocery store just happens to be run and owned by a Mr. Toyota? Toyota is a common family name.
Should Ford be able to block any local mom and pop store whose store name is "Ford's General Store" ?
Should Apple be able to block an orchard that advertises "You pick apples on sale!" ?

Re:Process should be fair. (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079803)

Well, Mike Rowe [wikipedia.org] eventually gave in to MS and relinquished control over his software promoting website... Maybe Mr. Toyota and Mr. Ford should just change their names if they want to start businesses - Those names are already taken. Thank the gods my last name isn't Disney.

Re:Process should be fair. (2, Interesting)

dcollins (135727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079257)

Well, it's one thing if a car dealership who is not Toyota starts buying "Toyota" as a keyword. Arguably this is similar to buying Toyota.com and could be misleading to customers.

Totally disagree. If someone gets a consumer reports article that says "Better than a Toyota!", they should be able to promote that information with a keyword ad (among a host of other examples). As long as you're not tricking buyers into thinking some product is a Toyota when it's not, it should be fair game and free speech.

Re:Process should be fair. (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079899)

In your example, should any general used cars dealership be prevented from buying the keywords Toyota, Mazda, Mercedes etc. just because they're not an official affiliate of said companies?

Re:Process should be fair. (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080471)

Businesses should be able to protect their trademarks but the process should be fair. Little guys who don't compete in the same market should not get squashed.

Rather than Toyota, the best example to illustrate this principle should be Nissan [nissan.com] . The little guy is still holding on, but it's a tough fight.

So, Google will have a disclaimer... (4, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078437)

In tiny print, at the bottom of each page: "Please do not use this site where prohibited."

Re:So, Google will have a disclaimer... (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078959)

Or they will use their experience in China to comply with the law wherever it is used.

Restricting Use of Language (1)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078501)

Restricting the use of language doesn't work.

Re:Restricting Use of Language (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078857)

Yer fucking god-damned ass-invading shit-eating cunt-faced right!

Actually it does... (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079059)

Restricting the use of language doesn't work.

Actually it has and it historically does. That's why people do it. But this debate isn't really about restricting language, it's, deciding, who gets to own the definitions of words, the government, or the private sector.

Re:Actually it does... (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079573)

Mod parent up.

The crappy thing is that only the dogmatic try to do something a third time and expect different results. Something about Einstein and insanity.

Orthodoxy in the face of real truths is an appalling sight.

Seems a sensible restriction (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27078555)

It seems Utah merely wants to prevent advertisers from getting married to too many keywords.

The smell of lobbyists (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27078561)

We have a lobbyist problem at the local level not unlike at the national level. The amount of gifts that get handed out is stunning and much of it goes unreported. My thoughts are that this happenned in Utah is because whoever is pushing this knows that they have a better chance of getting away with it here than someplace like California.

Men kissing? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078597)

Does it have something to do with one of their favorite search terms, referenced here

http://xkcd.com/522/ [xkcd.com]

They want to see men kissing, but they don't want to see ads targeted to people who search for men kissing?

Re:Men kissing? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078745)

From TFA:

HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads.

I don't get it. Does someone in Utah own the trademark "Men Kissing"?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27078629)

The problem is that lets say you are HP and Dell buys many HP keywords. This is A-OK if Dell either makes true statements about HP in their advert or offers something like Dell is better than HP, and then the advert leads you to some consumer test/report that they have.

Where is shouldn't be ok... say eBay buys keywords like Slash Dot T Shirt and their ads says something like "Slash Dot T Shirt? eBay has it all, come get Slash Dot T Shirt from eBay". Not only are they using some one else's name, perhaps even trademarked name, but what if they don't even have any? It's unfair competition and should be illegal.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079061)

If they don't have any products they advertised they do have, then they could be liable for bait and switch. ( which is against the law in some parts). Plus, it doesn't help them. Target is the biggest violator of this principle I've seen. I'd like to see them taken down, but there are enough consumer protection laws on the book already to deal with it. Adding another one that can't be enforced any better won't help anything.

I don't get it... (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078691)

1-800 Contacts will never get any of my business ever.

I suggest anyone who can use them stops as well.

That's the only vote we have any more it seems.

I'm not in Utah, could not care less about Utah, but this is flat out scummy and should be punished by hitting a company like this in the only place it hurts, their bottom line.

Not as clear cut as you might think. (3, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078805)

First off, I note that the "mormon" tag on the article. If there were a quote from a black leader, I wonder, would you tag the article as "black"?

I would not be so quick to bury this guy in your haste to have weaker trademarks. There is an interesting question, buried in this article. It is, what does a trademark actually buy? A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government. A search word is as also a definition of a word, administered by a private corporation and sold to the highest bidder.

When Linux trademarks "Linux", it is to say that he has the rights to the definition of this word in some way as it pertains to his product. But, if I buy Linux on Google, then, I get the right to define the word by having my definition be placed in a preferred position.

Thus, you almost have to view trademark as a contest between the federal first come first serve word ownership mechanism, and, a private enterprise word as an auction mechanism advanced by the likes of Google.

There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.

I would be willing to bet that leftists who casually seek to undermine business by eliminating trademarks might be well advised to rethink that position, as they should so many others. I can't imagine that they of all people would really want a world where the definitions of words are decided by the highest bidder. It runs the risk of undermining everything that they stand for, and for that reason I'd have to conclude that people rushing to digitally behead "the mormon" might well consider that the "the mormon" is doing them a favor.

Re:Not as clear cut as you might think. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27080003)

First off, I note that the "mormon" tag on the article. If there were a quote from a black leader, I wonder, would you tag the article as "black"?

Probably not. But if there was a quote from a black leader demanding slavery reparations and a federal bail-out for dead-beat dads, you very well might see a "nigger" tag on there. Seriously.

But this does seems to be more of a business-legal policy rather than a Mormon-social-conservative policy, so the Mormon tag does seem inappropriate.

AC for obvious reasons.

Re:Not as clear cut as you might think. (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080343)

It's nothing about eliminating trademarks. A trademark is simply for differentiation. It does NOT give you complete control over a word. It just means that if you have a trademark for "Coca-Cola", no one else can make a soft drink called "Coca-Cola" without infringing your trademark.

You have to consider fair use. I just used "Coca-Cola" in my post. Is that infringement of their trademark? You would say no, and you would be right. Buying an ad-word triggering on Coca-Cola would ALSO fall under fair use. If you searched for Coca-Cola and I made Pepsi, is there anything inherently confusing about seeing a competing product on the results page? Are you going to think that Ford started making Camry's if you searched for "Toyota" and saw an ad for a Ford dealer? The ONLY purpose for trademark is to prevent customer confusion over who is creating a product. If there's no confusion, there's no trademark issue.

Oh, and tagging it as Mormon is entirely appropriate because I'm pretty sure the entire state legislature is made of mormons. Religion is very much related to the laws that are passed in Utah, no matter how much you don't want it to be so. If the quote were from a black leader, I could quite easily see it being tagged "NAACP" or something along those lines.

The unfortunate reality of government (3, Insightful)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078895)

The way these items get passed is with continually trying the bill again. I have seen unpopular laws passed at the local level that were thrown out repeatedly until eventually the right opposers were either not present or just plain old tired of fighting it. I believe the term is patient gradualism. Just keep trying to get a law passed, until eventually new lawmakers are present or the opposition is not present at the time.

Re:The unfortunate reality of government (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078953)

However, you could make a law expliciting saying outlawing adwords is illegal.

Re:The unfortunate reality of government (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079163)

We need penalties for representatives who pass unconstitutional laws. It should probably be a criminal act. Does it make sense that the highest law of our land can be violated with no penalties? And by those who swear an oath to uphold it?

Google adwords already blocks trademarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27078901)

If you try to create a google adword advert that uses a trademarked word then google already puts you into a special process for approval. If they decide that it's not a valid use of the trademark then your ad is rejected.

Try creating an advert using the word iPhone and see where that gets you.

Utah? (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078903)

This is a state where 58% of its inhabitants claim membership in a single religion, and the overwhelming majority of the legislature comes from this demographic. They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology. Might I suggest we kindly totally and completely ignore this state? They're clearly out of touch with not just reality, but the rest of the country as well. At worst, Utah-nians just won't be able to go online, and golly gee what a shame that would be. -_- Now go ahead and mod me to hell for stating the obvious. Or can we at least re-classify this under "It's funny, laugh." ?

Re:Utah? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27078989)

No, do not ignore it becasue it has ties into every major state government as well as the federal government.

It's is a blight on freedom, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Re:Utah? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079043)

Wow, we should both totally AND completely ignore them? That's a pretty extreme position. I would have just said completely ignored them.

Re:Utah? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079181)

Wow, we should both totally AND completely ignore them? That's a pretty extreme position. I would have just said completely ignored them.

I was hedging my bets. Someone might be able to provide an argument against totally, if only because of it's ties to surfer culture in the 90s, and completely on its own could have one of its alternate meanings applied, which is to "make perfect". Clearly the situation has not been made perfect, so by combining both totally and completely, I would posit that the sentence is much less ambiguous than before. ^_^ In other news, it's not yet noon, so cut me some friggin' mutter, mutter slack... brraaaaiinnss.... caffeine needed.

Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? (2, Informative)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079119)

They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology

You mean, like, when the mormons invented WordPerfect, one of the first great Word Processors, or pioneered networking with Novell, the first great networking company?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ashton_(executive) [wikipedia.org]

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Ray_Noorda [mormonwiki.com]

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? (2, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079303)

You mean, like, when the mormons invented WordPerfect, one of the first great Word Processors, or pioneered networking with Novell, the first great networking company?

Whoah. Hey, did you, like, know Robert Oppenheimer worked on the Manhattan Project and studied Hinduism? So, like, the entire religion of Hinduism can claim it invented the nuke! That's, like, totally and completely awesome! Dude!!!!!! -_- /Sarcasm.

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079345)

Actually, if someone lives and is born of a particular culture, and produces something extraordinary, it does validate that culture, yes. And similarly, if that culture doesn't produce people that do anything useful, then, it really says something about that culture too. If you can't see that, you're kinda dense.

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079469)

Actually, if someone lives and is born of a particular culture, and produces something extraordinary, it does validate that culture, yes. And similarly, if that culture doesn't produce people that do anything useful, then, it really says something about that culture too. If you can't see that, you're kinda dense.

I guess I'd better flee the country then, because hell if I want american culture validated by anything I do. O_o

Of course, it could be that remarkable people just happen to be in the right place, at the right time, and have the right blend of talent and dedication to pull off something extraordinary, a set of circumstances that operates completely and totally independent of "culture" and has more to do with the local environment they were raised in, which might say a lot more about the town they grew up in than the country. But of course, people have been using coincidence to validate their crackpot theories (religious significance in particular) since the dawn of time. Who am I to try to convince you otherwise? I'll just go die over here in a corner now that my nefarious scheme to make a funny has been revealed by your obviously superior intelligence.

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? (2, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080019)

I guess I'd better flee the country then, because hell if I want american culture validated by anything I do. O_

It doesn't matter if you flee, because you are a product of American culture.

a set of circumstances that operates completely and totally independent of "culture" and has more to do with the local environment they were raised in

Well, uh, the local environment is usually what culture is really all about... culture is the rules that are permissible behind closed doors as much as open ones.

But of course, people have been using coincidence to validate their crackpot theories (religious significance in particular) since the dawn of time

But the thing is, historically speaking, being a religious fanatic and having a conservative appreciation of culture matters. You can bash tradition and culture as much as you want, but they work. And, in fact, even though you might be anti-culture, even most anti-religious people and leaders of the far left will concede that theirs is not a project to rid the world of christian culture as it is to replace it with a culture of their own. Culture is just something that you can't escape. Even if you are in the "I'm not in any culture", crowd, you are still in the "I'm not in any culture culture".

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (2, Funny)

irenaeous (898337) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079329)

You forgot to mention SCO! The people from which Unix was pirated to form Linux! Where would tech be today without great Utahnian innovators like Darl McBride and Blake Stowell?

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079417)

At least they aren't muslims!

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079659)

At least they aren't muslims!

Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time. Thank Allah they didn't continue that tradition.

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079893)

Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time

Ok, so now you are bashing mormons by sticking up for the muslims. My oh my. But let's do some basic math.. you can celebrate a bunch of muslims that have been dead for, let's see, um, 2009 - 610 = 1399 years, whose best claim to fame is stealing a bunch of math from India. Or, you can celebrate some fairly clever people that invented modern networking and word processing.

Face it, you just don't like Christians, and the thing is, you can't even admit to yourself that Christians have done some pretty smart stuff, IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD.

Sorry, but scientifically speaking, having a god does not preclude you from making advancements in technology. In fact, it might even motivate them.

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080337)

Hello? It was a compliment . Seriously... Can't even compliment muslims anymore without some christian screaming "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" Please take your irrational key-stabbing somewhere else.

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (1)

scotsghost (1125495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079991)

At least they aren't muslims!

Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time.

Very true. How far would computing have gotten with 1's but no 0's?

Thank Allah they didn't continue that tradition.

Also true. Too bad the idiot Christian world had to pick up where they went off.

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080393)

Also true. Too bad the idiot Christian world had to pick up where they went off.

Credit where credit is due: there was a long period of taking people's heads off and burning them at the stake before they picked up on the use of empirical observation and reason. Even today, empirical observation and reason is met with healthy skepticism -- I mean, compared to Jesus, what has empiricism ever done for YOU? /sarcasm

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080349)

emphasizes the use of empirical observation

About Jews and Christians:
"Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks." Sura 4:89

Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079359)

Or the television, or the odometer...

Utah leads the country in egovernment (1)

thefinite (563510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079825)

Utah is one of the best run states in the country, from an egovernment and general management perspective.

At least, that's according to the Pew Center on the States [pewcenteronthestates.org] . Compare states' report cards with that linked page.

But yeah, the keyword legislation is stupid.

Re:Utah? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27079997)

Hi. I'm from Utah.

It seems your stereotype-writer needs some calibration.

The University of Utah was one of the original 4 nodes on the ArpaNet. A Utah'n invented the TV. Utah is home to Novell. The Mormon church has an army of Java programmers. The Utah Education Network got IP connectivity to more of its schools, faster than any other state west of the Mississippi.

Would you like to tell me how I am out of touch with reality? I'm not Mormon, but maybe you think Mormons just don't get out much so they don't know what's going on. Except Mormons go on their "missions", creating the most well-travelled and bi-lingual state population in the nation.

They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology.

The same might be said of girls...but that would be just plain ignorant, right?

Re:Utah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27080475)

Not all of us in Utah meant to wind up here, or are part of that 58%. Regardless, the tide is turning against them, and they are becoming less of a majority all the time. Right now, state is poised to vote on a new bill that would make Utah's liquor laws in regards to bars more like the rest of the company, because research showed it was hindering the image of the state to attracting outside business.

Stupid stuff will still slip past, but the rest of us out here are working to change that.

Beyond State Power (1)

the darn (624240) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079083)

I'm usually quite the defender of the idea that the 50 states are the incubator of ideas for governing, each an experimental sandbox, the synthesis of which over time leads to good policy on a national level. However, I find it hilarious and stupid that we must endure presumptuous state governments attempting to regulate the internet, something that transcends borders. I look forward to a day when Congress of the Supreme Court sees fit to bar these petty potentates from imposing their will on the whole of the web-using world.

Re:Beyond State Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27079929)

I look forward to a day when Congress of the Supreme Court sees fit to bar these petty potentates from imposing their will on the whole of the web-using world.

The Supreme Court has their own Congress now? See, I told you Obama was going to destroy the constitution!!!!

Trademark (3, Informative)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079089)

A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government.

Not exactly. The term "Windows" is trademarked, should Microsoft be the only entity to be able to purchase "windows?" of course not.

There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.

Neither of these arguments are correct.

Trademarks are names and logos under which businesses trade. The reason why they are protected is to protect the reputation of the institution that holds them. Believe it or not, there is "fair use" of trade marks. It is perfectly legal to use someone else's trademark if you using only enough of it to identify the business.

For instance. A car dealership named "Planet Subaru" has the trademark "Planet Subaru." As a dissatisfied customer, I can create a website named "www.planetsubarusucks.com." I can even use the trademarked name "Planet Subaru" on this site as long as there is no confusion that I am associated with them, only as much of the trademark as necessary to identify the business, and that I do not intend to trade on their mark.

It is perfectly legitimate for a ford dealer to buy "toyota" to get business from a competitor. Trademarks are not for censorship.

Re:Trademark (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080059)

That's because Microsoft was wrongly given the trademark. You are not allowed to trademark common words. See Lindows lawsuit, and why Microsoft gave Lindows shitloads of money to go away after Microsoft sued Lindows.

All documented here, your local slashdot archive.

Is there anything... (1)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079113)

...that leftist nanny state liberals and right-wing fundamentalist bible-thumpers won't try and ban?

Re:Is there anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27079943)

We all hope they ban posters who use the subject line to start a sentence. 30 Lashes!

Interfering (1)

staryc (852301) | more than 5 years ago | (#27079267)

Anytime you're dealing with intellectual property laws there is also a bit of gray area that can ultimately turn into a slippery-slope. Where does the regulation stop?

This is more on par with what should be happening:

As I have explained elsewhere, policy-makers should be helping consumers get relevant content, not enacting laws to take it away from them.

Big Love (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27079785)

OT but this bill is boring me to tears. Anyone got any theories on what's going to happen to Roman Grant? I think he's going back to jail after last week's escapade. Margie is having her epiphany that being a blond whore is no good, but she's hot as a brunette or blond either way, and Nicolette is doing the exact opposite, she will become a big whore.

Finnish drug law (1)

kilraid (645166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27080067)

That is funny, in Finnish medical drug law there's pretty much an opposite clause: When a patient is buying a prescribed drug, brand A, the drug store must offer a cheaper substitute drug, brand B, if such exists.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>