×

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!

Slashback: Disputes, Clones, Audio

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the freezing-with-no-heating-oil dept.

Slashback 343

Slashback this fine 23:59 GMT brings you a response to MS GPL FUD, an update on Lessig's challenge, a followup question regarding domain disputes, a reminder that clone claims aren't new, and more. Read on for the details.

Needed: One referee. Quixotic1 writes "A small company I work for has discovered that a domain name has been registered with their U.S.-trademarked (since 1980) name. Requests to the owner of the site (a U.S. citizen) have gone unanswered, so we're now moving on to filing an ICANN dispute. There was a query last week about inexpensive alternatives to the $1000+ UDRP arbiters. The discussion ended up revolving around whether the author had a valid claim or not, but I'd still like to know -- are there inexpensive alternatives?"

I bet there's money to be made if someone can come up with cheaper means of settling such disputes.

Store in the ammunition box. leonbrooks writes "Recently, images from a presentation by Microsoft Belgium were published on the web. The presentation made some startling (for Microsoft) concessions to Open Source, then set about FUDding the GPL into the ground. I whacked together a point-by-point answer to the anti-GPL FUD. Happy linking ..."

Tithe 10 percent. Luke Francl writes "Inspired by Lawrence Lessig's OSCON remarks, Lessig's Challenge is a way for people concerned by the attempts by the entertainment industry to close off the net to fight back. The challenge is to spend more on those who fight for the open network than you do on its enemies. Since it appeared on Slashdot last month, 10 people have joined me and we've raised over $2300 for good causes (organizations like the EFF, the ACLU, the FSF, along with free software/open source programmers and online artists). And that's just the ones I know about! Cory Doctorow wrote to tell me that many people were inspired by the challenge to join the EFF. ... Check out the list of suggested recipients."

Like obsidian, and coal, and dirt ... salimfadhley writes "Today BBC Radio 4 began serialising Phillip Pullman's popular "Dark Materials" trilogy. The beeb will be broadcasting one episode per week, with a RA stream of the latest episode that can be found on the promotional site. You can find "The Golden Compass" (called "Northern Lights" in Europe) on the website now. This stream will be replaced with episode 2 next Saturday.

The Dark Materials series was originally intended as children's fiction, however owing to excellent storytelling and a significantly darker theme than Harry Potter, has done rather well in U.S. and UK adult market.

The central premise of the series is that God is evil, a celestial impostor who pretends to have created the universe and who so intensely hates flesh and blood that he wants people to live a repressed, joyless existence. Unsurprisingly this theme has upset fundamentalist Christians."

Unfamiliar? Read the Slashdot review of the trilogy.

The clones I meet are mostly in pairs. PizzaFace writes "The Washington Post reports that the Raelian clone claim echoes a hoax of 25 years ago. And while we have better technology now for testing the claim quickly, there is still room for deception, and some people don't trust the science (and pseudoscience) reporter the Raelians appointed to test their claim."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

343 comments

FIRST POST (-1, Flamebait)

unterderbrucke (628741) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029251)

claimed for my homepage!

SECOND POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029264)

HAhaha, Karma burn, and you didn't get First Post.

Very Grass, young Good hopper.

joo all r teh sux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029266)

really

why are you reading slashdot?

Cloning is the future! (-1, Troll)

blitzoid (618964) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029269)

Soon cloning will become so commonplace, your children will really be clones of YOU! None of this messy mating stuff, just continuing the legacy of YOU! Let's hear it for cloning, and for #ow on efnet.

MOD PARENT DOWN -- TROLL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029291)

Note to moderators, please moderate the parent down. "blitzoid" is a known troll account.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -- TROLL (1, Funny)

blitzoid (618964) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029331)

It hurts me when you say that. It hurts me on the INSIDE.

Re:MOD PARENT UP -- FUNNY MOTHER FUCKING TROLL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029597)

Man you just made my day.

damn right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029396)

It's important that moderators remember to moderate the poster, not the post.

Regarding the domain name (5, Insightful)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029271)

The domain name is not a trademark registry. You have no moral claim to the domain name. Your only hope is throwing $1000 at ICANN, who will happily rule in your favor.

Re:Regarding the domain name (5, Insightful)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029338)

The domain name is not a trademark registry. You have no moral claim to the domain name.

Agreed. As long as they aren't using the domain name with specific intent to dilute your trademark, you're pretty much SOL (or should be) with regard to getting the domain name from them. They got it first, so it's theirs.

Re:Regarding the domain name (2)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029496)

I agree with your sentiment, but your conclusions are absurd. If anything, the domain holder is the one that is SOL. Time and again, this has been proven, even in courts of law.

Re:Regarding the domain name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029413)

I would agree, maybe your company should get a little more serious about informing themselves of current trends. I mean, if you have had the name "U.S.-trademarked (since 1980)", why did you not register it like at least by 99. Anyone who did not register their trademarks or company names by 99 really should have pulled their head out of the sand by the. If not, in my opinion, servers them right. I would say, give the guy a nice cash figure for your companies lameness, and maybe tell the IT execs to get more serious.

Cheaper solution (4, Funny)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029503)

I'll settle any such disputes for $500. Each party agrees to abide by the decision and hold me blameless.

Re:Cheaper solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029548)

I'll do it for 499.95. That almost a hundred dollars less!

Least costly solution regarding the domain name (3, Insightful)

happyhippy (526970) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029506)

Get another one. It would be cheaper to get a variation of the one you want and would save you the $$$$$ trying to steal the one already regged.

Its not as if you are going to lose custom over it as you said you are a small business.

Abortion is the solution... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029274)

You all should have been aborted with a rusty coat-hanger

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029279)

You are a clone of your children!

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029351)

Please explain.

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

pyrrho (167252) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029554)

no no no!

it's, in old sofiet russia, your children clone YOU!

aahh, much better.

The more the entertainment industry fights this... (3, Interesting)

intermodal (534361) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029282)

the more obvious it will become to the courts that the Internet is what it is...a large TCP/IP network. Hopefully, this will happen before they pass so many anti-networking laws that there's no point in trying to preserve the present Internet anymore.

Re:The more the entertainment industry fights this (5, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029561)

Actually, why not abandon the internet? I am working on a replacement after all... I would like to have been able to keep the internet for myself and those like me, but it was stolen from all of us years ago. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be living on an internet "reservation" (apologies to native americans) which just happens to be only those parts no corporations wanted.

Oh, and since I never made this obvious... I not only don't mind the idea of alternate Meta's, I think it would be good to have several distinct/seperate Meta's in existence. So if you think you have what it takes, build your own!

Arbitration solution. (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029284)


> "A small company I work for has discovered that a domain name has been registered with their U.S.-trademarked (since 1980) name. Requests to the owner of the site (a U.S. citizen) have gone unanswered, so we're now moving on to filing an ICANN dispute. There was a query last week about inexpensive alternatives to the $1000+ UDRP arbiters. The discussion ended up revolving around whether the author had a valid claim or not, but I'd still like to know -- are there inexpensive alternatives?"

Here's a cheap, effective solution: deal with it. The current owner has as much right to it as you do (or more, since ownership is 9/10 of the law).

Try .biz, or think of a new domain name for your company. And look for sympathy elsewhere, 'cause you ain't gonna get much here.

Re:Arbitration solution. (2, Insightful)

danlyke (149938) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029386)

Remember that since a trademark is specific to use, even if the complainer manages to steal this domain from the poor guy (assuming he's working in good faith) they haven't necessarily struck a blow for good. I mean, if you've had the trademark registered that long, why the hell didn't you register it first?

Re:Arbitration solution. (2, Insightful)

$$$$$exyGal (638164) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029422)

I wish people would finally understand that ".com" and US trademarks have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The internet is worldwide, right?

--me naked? [slashdot.org]

Re:Arbitration solution. (2)

EvanED (569694) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029472)

Which is why the poster made a special effort to point out the the owner of the domain is a US citizen.

Re:Arbitration solution. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029497)

.com is a short way of referring to .com.us , .com is expanded by DNS to .com.us . Read the history of the DNS. It was intended primarly COMmercial use, and because it was a US arpanet development, they didnt want to type.us all the time so they just shortened it to .com . simple.

Re:Arbitration solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029519)

If you want worldwide you should use .INT that is what it was set aside for. Use google, it may broaden youre knowledge for what you know crapola of.

--
Oops, did i just flame you :D

.INT is for treaty orgs. Use .ORG (3, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029582)

If you want worldwide you should use .INT that is what it was set aside for.

The top-level domain for international organizations is .ORG. The .INT TLD [iana.org] is designed for international treaty organizations such as ISO, WTO, WIPO, etc.

First post... (-1, Offtopic)

dcuny (613699) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029287)

Ooops, not me after all. It must have been my 25 year old clone.

So that's what happened to my Karma.

Funny? Which part was funny?

blizzard job (3, Interesting)

skydude_20 (307538) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029293)

something else I figure is worth posting in Slaskback. But anyways, holy crap, who else saw the banner ad on slashdot for the opening of unix sys. admin. at Blizzard? I wonder who in their HR department gets a bonus for thinking of posting here, nearly guaranteeing getting the best possible applicant.

Re:blizzard job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029405)

that's interesting. i missed that banner.

Re:blizzard job (2, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029420)

"I wonder who in their HR department gets a bonus for thinking of posting here, nearly guaranteeing getting the best possible applicant. "

I dunno about that. Lots of people round here have misplaced hatred for Blizzard.

As for your off-topic moderation, I'm a little annoyed by that. I mean seriously, where are you supposed to post about something you just saw? I wonder if the guy who posted "oh shit! A plane just hit the WTC!" got modded down because he was in the "See, we told you guys MS was evil" article.

Oh well, I'll get modded down too. Yay.

Re:blizzard job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029555)

you probebly won't get marked down, replys to posts very often get no mod points at all unless they are very good or very bad. Don't be such a homo and think before you type ya jew.

Re:blizzard job (3, Funny)

DeadMoose (518744) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029427)

something else I figure is worth posting in Slaskback. But anyways, holy crap, who else saw the banner ad on slashdot for the opening of unix sys. admin. at Blizzard? I wonder who in their HR department gets a bonus for thinking of posting here, nearly guaranteeing getting the best possible applicant.

As well as hundreds of thousands of the worst possible applicants?

"R0x0r!!! I installed Mandrake on my mom's old Dell! I'm perfect for the job!!!"

Re:blizzard job - OT (2, Interesting)

handsomepete (561396) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029435)

I saw that too. I doubt that the ad guarantees much out of this crowd because:
a.) Probably half of the visitors here use ad blockers (or... subscribe).
b.) A decent portion of the other half are probably underage or don't have the experience asked for by the job requirements (they really aren't requiring *that* much).
c.) Everyone that's left likes working on BNETD too much or thinks Blizzard 'jumped the shark' or something like that... OR realizes that times are tough and quitting your already not terrible job to go work for a videogame company may not be the best decision you make this year.

But I dunno. It might be worth it to see what kind of wacky race they decide to include in Warcraft 4.

Relevant link [blizzard.com]

Re:blizzard job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029502)

Wow, you're pretty self confident about the Slashdot community. Future Blizzard programs will contain references to Beowulf Clusters of Soviet Russa.

Re:blizzard job (2)

Samir Gupta (623651) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029571)

Blizzard still uses Solaris boxes for most of battle.net, not Linux (although they are slowly moving... but it's not exactly easy to just transition a live network instantly).

So /. may not be the best place after all.

Raelians (3, Funny)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029295)

If their mouthpiece spokeswoman ("doctor and CEO") is anything to go by, I'll pass on the claims of scientific breakthrough. She looks like a washed-out hooker from some eastern european country that got high on hashish one too many times.

That's the image they project, at least IMO. Never mind the crackpot spiel. They might as well sell tinfoil mind protectors.

Re:Raelians (1)

pyrrho (167252) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029577)

just curious... what's the exactly right number of times to get high on hashish? I thought you might know.

You know... (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029305)

...telling us exactly the post time means you had to wait until that exact time to post. Isn't that a little like encouraging First Posting?

Re:You know... (1)

scottj (7200) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029536)

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the editors can put a publish date on a story. With that feature of the system, they can have a post appear on the site whenever they wish. He probably wrote the story at least an hour before it posted.

Gnostic Heresey (4, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029322)

The premise of the Dark Materials triology sounds a LOT like the root of the Gnostic Heresey (where new age "gnosticism" comes from, actually.)

In the early days of Christianity, there were three major sects--the Christians, the Jews, and the Gnostics. The Jews were, well, jewish folk who lived as jews but thought that Jesus was the Messiah (sorta like "Jews for Jesus.") The Christians were the to-the-lions folks we all know and love, and the Gnostics--well, the gnostics are why the strong central church formed, and why the Inquisition was so harsh.

The Gnostic Heresy, as I understand it:

There was a God, and Jesus Christ was his living son--but God_the_Creator is not God-the-burning-bush-that-spoke-to-moses. Sometime after creation, a spirit called the Demiurge usurped control over creation, lied to the jews, and pretty much acted the way Christians might imagine "Satan" acting.

The Demiurge created flesh, and so flesh is flawed, and all of humanity is doomed to damnation, save for the accidental banishment from heaven of the goddess/archangel Sophia, who apparantly had no small part in Jesus Christ showing up and mascarading as a person for so many years.

The Gnosic Heresy, btw, was propagated by a series of "revelations" about the faith, sort of like the popular image of how a witch's coven is organized. It was stamped out rather freverently in the early days of Christianity, and hasn't been a going concern as a religion for a great many years.

Re:Gnostic Heresey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029414)

I've heard different stories from different sources but as I've heard parts of it in the beginning their was the mother and the father. The mother had a son, but hid it from the father. That son, or demiurge, was the God of the old testament.

The gnostic books are kind of interesting. Jesus seems like a very different person in some of those passages.

The great thing about gnosticism is that they said you don't get salvation through jesus. They said you must save yourself and their methods of doing it involved meditation and other techniques for evolving the individual.

"Viral" GPL FUD. (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029334)


[from the link:] > Known in the OSS community as a "viral" licence.

As the author points out, and as others of us have stated repeatedly: the GPL isn't viral, it's recursive. I've got lots of non-GPL software on my home system, and none of it has ever "caught" the GPL.

The simple rule is: if A is GPL'd and B is derived from A, then B is GPL'd. The rule is "recursive" or "transitive", but not "viral". The OSS community would do itself a favor to quit calling it "viral". (Though in fact the term seems to be more common among complainers than among GPLers, despite what the quoted MS document says.)

Hint to Microsoft: if you don't want to GPL your software, don't derive it from GPL'd software. It's as simple as that -- at least for people who aren't being obtuse willfully.

Re:"Viral" GPL FUD. (2, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029403)

Hint to Microsoft: if you don't want to GPL your software, don't derive it from GPL'd software. It's as simple as that -- at least for people who aren't being obtuse willfully.

Let's say that the FSF has an annurism, and releases a VB workalike, with common controls and librarys and whatnot, and releases the whole sheebang with the GPL.

Anyone using these common controls or libraries has to now use the GPL.

Now, lets move to something else. Lets say that the government takes Nvidia to court for monopolizing the temporal card market with the amazing 4D standard library, SLIDE, which everyone uses for 4D images. Now, let's say that the FSF weighs in on this case, and gets SLIDE GPL'd. All of a sudden, anyone wanting to use SLIDE has no choice but to use the GPL, or an effectively identical license.

The GPL's "viral" nature propagates through the only way "code flesh" is ever exchanged--through re-use of components. The FSF has set up a "free or nothing" proposition with the GPL--which understandibly makes MS rather unfriendly towards them.

Here's a thought for you: The Open Gaming License is based on the GPL, but it has one important difference: you need to keep the actual derivations open and licensed, but not the rest of the game that wasn't derived from the OGL'd game at all.

Re: "Viral" GPL FUD. (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029521)


> Let's say that the FSF has an annurism, and releases a VB workalike, with common controls and librarys and whatnot, and releases the whole sheebang with the GPL. Anyone using these common controls or libraries has to now use the GPL.

(a) No one has any inherent right to use the FSF's code. If they do that and you don't like the license, use something else.

(b) In practice the libraries would more likely be placed under the LGPL, so that you could use the widgets in your owns software without GPLing it.

[snip similarly bogus example]

> The GPL's "viral" nature propagates through the only way "code flesh" is ever exchanged--through re-use of components.

No, it propagates through the re-use of GPL'd components in a certain manner. There are lots of LGPL'd components out there that you can reuse without having to GPL your own code. And if you want to use something in a way that would require you to GPL your own work: deal with it.

"Don't like, don't use." You don't have any inherent rights to it; you have exactly the rights spelled out in the license.

> Here's a thought for you: The Open Gaming License is based on the GPL, but it has one important difference: you need to keep the actual derivations open and licensed, but not the rest of the game that wasn't derived from the OGL'd game at all.

Good for them. Except that happens to be completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. The GPL isn't going to "infect" anything, and it isn't going to "make" anyone GPL their product. "Don't like, don't use."

Microsoft is just scared shitless because in about 4 years the immense body of GPL'd code has gone from "under the radar" to "being adopted as a Microsoft replacement in high profile situations". They rightly conclude that they can't stand another four years of the same trend, so they latch on to the term that best misrepresents the nature of the GPL for their purposes.

But if you think the GPL is "viral", you need to read the GPL for comprehension.

Re:"Viral" GPL FUD. (1, Flamebait)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029590)

Let's say that the FSF has an annurism, and releases a VB workalike, with common controls and librarys and whatnot, and releases the whole sheebang with the GPL.

Anyone using these common controls or libraries has to now use the GPL.

This is the whole problem with the "calling a GPL library means you have to GPL the calling program's code" definition of derivative work. Any program that now calls these GPLed libraries must also be GPLed even if they were originally written to call the proprietary Microsoft originated VB libraries. I would most definitely call this "viral" licensing.

I don't think M$ (or a lot of other people with lots of $) will let this definition of derivative work stand for this reason. FSF and other fellow travelers would do better to invest their legal $ in something less obviously false.

Re:"Viral" GPL FUD. (4, Insightful)

Cryogenes (324121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029416)


The rule is "recursive" or "transitive", but not "viral".

Neither of your suggestions work. "Recursive" would mean that the GPL is explained in terms of the GPL. It is not. Transitivity is a property of relations as in: "if a is related to b and b is related to c then a is related to c". Since the GPL is not a relation it cannot be transitive.

If you want to use a scientific analogy I suggest "dominant": If a program combines GPL'd code with other code, then the entire program is GPL'd.

Re:"Viral" GPL FUD. (3, Interesting)

cperciva (102828) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029535)

If you want to use a scientific analogy I suggest "dominant": If a program combines GPL'd code with other code, then the entire program is GPL'd.

No; if I combine GPL code with (for example) Apache code, the result isn't GPL -- the result is undistributable.

I'd say that the most appropriate description of GPL is "deliberately incompatible".

Re:"Viral" GPL FUD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029428)

If you swap bodily fluids with someone who's got a virus you can get it from them. (or air, or whatever medium it spreads by)

If you swap code with a GPL project, your other stuff has to be GPL.

Hence it is a viral license. The solution, of course, is safe code sex.

Re:"Viral" GPL FUD. (1)

pyrrho (167252) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029599)

... fine, but then ALL licenses are viral, because that's how using licensed software is! The license goes with it!

Re:"Viral" GPL FUD. (2)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029629)

The rule is "recursive" or "transitive", but not "viral".

I think that "hereditary" is probably closer to what you mean. If your code is descended from GPLed code, it too must be GPLed. That is, IMO, much closer to the actual situation. Of course that doesn't sound as bad, so if you're Microsoft (or a BSD license woofer, for that matter) you'll use viral to make it sound unpleasant.

Cloning again (2, Informative)

friendofafriend (602350) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029363)

The guy they asked to do the independant tests wasn't allowed access to the clone, so he has stated it is quite possibly a hoax. More can be found at google news [google.com]

Re:Cloning again (1)

friendofafriend (602350) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029383)

Doh!
independent Not governed, self-governing
independant Not a word, perhaps not a dependant, not a child of...??

Dark Materials (2)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029366)

That is interesting. I had declined to get Pullman's books for my ten-year-old daughter because I had mistaken them for the same kind of thinly-veiled Christian allegory one finds in C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle. (Both of whom are excellent writers, but I'm too old to be suckered into their self-destructive superstitions.) I will have to stop at the bookstore on the way home and pick them up for her.

Re:Dark Materials (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029390)

So if the story advocates that there might be a God, thats bad.
If a story advocates that there is a powerfull being that is destroying peoples lives, thats good?

Here is an idea, treat them like fiction, and raise your daughter to think for herself.

Re:Dark Materials (1, Troll)

intermodal (534361) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029454)

If you're not ready to let your 10 year old read whatever they like provided it's not prohibited by law (i.e. giving the child hardcore pornography), you've got serious issues. If your child wishes to read the Chronicles of Narnia, let them. If they wish to read a biography about Charles Manson, then let them. Even if you're opposed to the views of a book or an author, forbidding it will only make them want it more. Therefore, if you're so anti-Christian, then I advise you to buy your child the Bible and see what happens.

Re:Dark Materials (2)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029491)

I had declined to get Pullman's books for my ten-year-old daughter because I had mistaken them for the same kind of thinly-veiled Christian allegory one finds in C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle.

So, Christian allegory is bad, Christian heresy is good?

(Both of whom are excellent writers, but I'm too old to be suckered into their self-destructive superstitions.)

This part is what has me confused, I think: if Lewis and L'Engle are superstitious, how is Pullman's heresy non-superstitious? It all seems very illogical to me.

L'Engle's allegory is veiled enough that I had never really associated her books with Christianity. I've bought three of her books for my kids recently. I'll have to go back and see if they look Christian to me now that I'm looking for it.

Re:Dark Materials (2, Funny)

dcuny (613699) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029578)

I can relate. Just last afternoon, I was watching The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, when I noticed all these references to Allah.

I'll admit Ray Harryhausen is a legend in the animation business, and Tom Baker (the best Doctor Who of all time) playing the villian was a huge bonus. And I don't so much mind these references to Black Magic, demons, incantation and the like. Not to mention belly dancing [fortunecity.com]...

But this Allah stuff? It wouldn't be prudent for them to grow up without a rabid xenophobic view of everyone else's beliefs.

With the resurgance of nationalism, I should be able to find something that shows Arabs as Godless heathen terrorists. Any American "action film" should do, unless they've been digitally editing stuff out, like in Back to the Future.

It's satire, for crying out loud!

Media a semi-willing participant in clone fraud (5, Interesting)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029384)

I'm not sure what frustrates me more: the fact that the media has been hyping the Raelians' claim of a human clone without any evidence whatsoever, or the fact that the media even seems to realize that they're being silly reporting this BUT DO IT ANYHOW! If the media had any self-respect, they would have learned from the previous hoax and not be covering this new Raelian claim so much. However, they seem perfectly content to give this UFO cult a world stage to prance around on. It's almost as though the media is a semi-willing participant in this (what I assume will be a) clone fraud. Oh sure, they claim they're just reporting "important news". But let's face it: it's really just a bunch of UFO nuts who have made an incredible claim without any evidence whatsoever. This is news? I think the media is just happy to cover this because they know they can milk this for awhile regardless of whether the story is true or not. So sad that our media is willing to whore themselves like this just to entertain the masses.

GMD

Re:Media a semi-willing participant in clone fraud (4, Funny)

porky_pig_jr (129948) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029421)

Oh my God! 'Our media is willing to whore themselves like this just to entertain the masses' Is the world coming to its end or what?

Re:Media a semi-willing participant in clone fraud (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029425)

the media is reporting it, because cloning is within are grasp.
Education has little to do with whether or not you get sucked into a cult. so if the right people where involved and spent the money, this could happen. I doubt it, but it is possible. Beside, how fun will it be when it's disproven and they get to run the following story:
"Poor media conclomorate suckered by greedy lying cult to report false story" ;)

They never will admit it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029488)

They will either report it when few people are watching/paying attention, run their usuall correction on page 123 next to the obituaries in size -1 font, or never mention it at all.

Re:They never will admit it. (2)

EvanED (569694) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029508)

For what it's worth, CNN.com's next-to-top story is about Michael Guillen's statements that it may be a hoax and that his team cannot get access to the baby to test. So it's not just sitting there.

Another thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029446)

I find it absurd that the media gives them this much attention with little proof, yet at just about every opertunity they have to refer to them as a cult and tell us how there is no proof.

Re:Media a semi-willing participant in clone fraud (5, Insightful)

fizban (58094) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029483)

When will people learn that the mainstream media is not interested at all in the truth value of news? They are solely focused on one thing and one thing only: entertainment value... which leads to more viewers, which leads to more advertising dollars, which leads to more profit.

If you want truth, facts and knowledge, you go to non-profit organizations, public broadcasting and "alternative" media. Don't watch Crossfire. Don't watch Connie Chung. Don't watch NBC, CBS or ABC. And for God's sake, don't even think about watching Fox News. Those are entertainment news programs.

I will say one thing, though. Print media still does a good job in my opinion, because they actually spend time researching their stories. Sitting down and reading through a whole newspaper, whether it's the New York Times, USA Today or the Wall Street Journal, can be a pretty good experience.

Re:Media a semi-willing participant in clone fraud (2)

EvanED (569694) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029529)

Listen to the parent... he know's what he's talking about.

(Well, reading a newspaper (indeed, following the news at all any more) is about as good of an experience as having open-heart surgery without anesthetic while being forced to read all -1 posts here on /. as well as the associated linked pages IMHO)

It just goes to show... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029393)

That any moron these days can get media attention with no proof. Want to get attention for your religion/belif/cause/etc and drum up more membership? Just make up something that will get the media and the public paying attention, while never providing as well avoiding proof, and enjoy all the attention/enrollment/donations you and your group could ever want. Just make sure to string them as long as you can.

I can belive that the media has gotten this bad, they don't know what the hell they are reporting on, make stuff up, don't varify their facts, are not responsable for their actions, abuse their power, etc and now they will take anyone's claims with out any proof.

Tragic news ... Stephen King troll dead at 32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029395)

I just heard some news over Police radio - a Slashdot reader was found dead in his Chicago home this morning.
The young man of 32 was found bloodied and bruised by an apparent assault with a number of Stephen King hardback novels.
He was rushed to hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. Police have begun to compile a list of suspects. It is thought that Stephen King himself may have been responsible for the assault.

I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work,
there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Tragic news ... Stephen King troll dead at 32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029580)

Why in the blue hell is this posted every once in a while, why?

I am going to get slammed, BUT... (3, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029423)

Ok folks I have my asbestos suit on, and here I go....

The GPL has some serious issues. While Linux has been progressing nicely and people have been making money, who is paying the developer?

At the beginning of 2002 I had a BOF at a conference and the topic was Open Source. It was well attended about 40 people, considering it was late at night. But we discussed the issue for a couple of hours. And the conclusion we came on is that Open Source is good for everybody, but the developer.

Open Source is good for the consultant, good for the book author of "professional" books, good for hardware manufacturers, etc. But licenses like the GPL are not good for the developers who actually write the code. Those people cannot get paid what they are due. This is what closed source did.

And we concluded that Open Source can continue so long as as investment is made into the Open Source. But when people cut corners they so easily say, "Ah let the other person take care of that". Basically Open Source promotes takers and not givers. The original Open Source die hards are givers. But the Open Sourcers today are takers. Look at Mandrake, for an example of the problems...

While I hate to admit it, an Open Source tax should be introduced. Without a base investment long term OSS will have issues.....

Ok I am optmistic and think it will work out....

Re:I am going to get slammed, BUT... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029457)

tax ? and who is going to distribute the tax to the developers ?
i say forget it -- eventually more and more developers will end up developing commercial software or leave IT permanently. then the whole commercial cycle will begin again with only commercial apps (or crappy GPLed command line apps) around.

Re:I am going to get slammed, BUT... (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029466)

because companies will stop paying engineers to develop drivers?
Banks will stop paying developers to make there changes?
yeah, if you want to make money writing the Linux kernel, your going to have a hard time.

You say look at mandrake, I say look at red hat. perhaps mandrake has other problems besides using OSS?

Re:I am going to get slammed, BUT... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029469)

Fortunately, the developer is who gets to choose the license for their work. (or, if they don't hold the copyright, whoever paid them for it)

So the developer may get screwed, but it's consentual.

Re:I am going to get slammed, BUT... (2)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029479)

Open Source is good for the consultant,

Doesn't Open Source *mean* that the developer is the consultant? I have no problems with Open Source. If someone wants a software solution, they buy a package, do it themselves, or pay someone else to do it. Paying someone else to do it is, by virtue, good for that someone else.

-Brent

Well..... (1)

Steveftoth (78419) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029523)

if you are programming for free, then yes, you can and will be taken advantage of.

Coding, is like any of those other things you jsut described, a service. Coding itself produces something that can be reused easily. Unlike seting up a server, which is subject to many different factors that cause more service to be incurred, once a program is written, it probably won't have to be rewritten as long as the operating enviroment is the same.

I think that most people who are coding for free realize that they will most likely not get paid for their work. Rather, they expect that they will be paid in kudos from other coders.

Not just OSS but all computers will die without users and programmers. Users to tell programmers what they want and programmers to write it. Some programmers are avid users and drive requirements themselves, some only work when the carrot of a paycheck is dangled in front of them.

People were trading source to programs before the GPL. Notice that the internet was the reason that the GPL exploded. All OSS needs to survive is low cost communication. As long as there are programmers, people will trade source and programs made. The best will come from large, orginized shops (most likley), but some gems will come from the masses.

Re:I am going to get slammed, BUT... (3, Insightful)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029616)

... who is paying the developer?

Which developer would that be?

The ones working for Redhat? The businesses which buy their support services.

The ones working for IBM? The businesses which buy linux-related hardware and services from IBM.

The developers working for all the other businesses which sell hardware or services which rely on linux? Again, the customers.

The ones who are working on some libre project just for fun? No-one pays them for that. Why should they be paid for having fun? Indeed, that might take the fun out of it.

Some people work on libre/open source because their employer (for his own selfish reasons) has made it their job to do so, some do it for their own selfish reasons (which might include altruism). There are roughly 5 billion people in the world. Finding a few thousand who have a compelling, personal or business reason to work on some libre software project shouldn't be impossible.

The only problem I see here is that someone who wants to be the next Bill Gates needs to choose some other license than the BSD or GPL.
No problem.

Domain Dispute Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029434)

Easy, just post each dispute as a slashdot poll and the /.ers can vote on it.

Now to figure out how I can make money on this....

Register all trademarks in Turkmenistan (5, Funny)

tlambert (566799) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029452)

Register all trademarks in Turkmenistan... that way, they'll end in ".tm"; you'll be happy that your trademark has been "exported to cyberspace", and we'll be happy that we can ignore you.

-- Terry

Re:Register all trademarks in Turkmenistan (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029586)

not funny. stop trying to get modded up for fun you fat ugly hog head homo rag head

The question we are all thinking (1)

bconway (63464) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029455)

The central premise of the series is that God is evil, a celestial impostor who pretends to have created the universe and who so intensely hates flesh and blood that he wants people to live a repressed, joyless existence.

"What does God need with a starship?"

Give me $500 (1)

muertos (570792) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029458)

And the name of the domain, and I'll tell you who has the better claim to it. How's that?

The Fine Print:(Please squint really hard for effect)
Paymentforservicesinnowayguaranteesevenin theevento ffavorablerulingthatanythingatallwillhappentoprocu reforyouthedomainnameinquestionbutthanksforyourcas hsucker

Interesting "news" (4, Interesting)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029470)

I find it said that increasingly stories labelled as "news" are obviously editorialized descriptions of recent events. Take for a few quotes from the article about the Dark Materials triology:

With the sponsorship of the Bush administration, it has laid siege not only to American medicine, politics and academe - making Adam and Eve scientific fact in Kansas - it has also declared holy war on literature, targeting books written for young people.

and

Its messages militate against every branding iron that America's Christian right would forge on its anvil.

How can this kind of stuff even pretend to be "news"? Is it just because the story is talking about Christians that it gets away with this kind of writing around here?

A little Alanis please... (5, Insightful)

nsample (261457) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029478)

I bet there's money to be made if someone can come up with cheaper means of settling such disputes.

How damnably ironic can Timothy be (without trying to be)? The whole point of the $1000 fee is that there's money to be made. You know how much money? Right about $1000, minus expenses. *sigh*

The reality is, the $1000 fee goes towards two main purposes, neither of which is profit. The first is to cover a relatively expensive process (yes, flame on, I know that you would arbitrate and manage claims for free). The second reason is to provide a barrier to entry. "Barrier to entry" sounds evil to most knee-jerk thinkers, but this one is a good barrier. Trust me, I would file claims against every company I didn't like in the world if the fee was only $1. I would have fun with the system. So would everyone else. The $1000 price tag makes me think a bit more before I challenge for a domain name that is "rightfully" mine.

free music (2)

Mantorp (142371) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029493)

Once one of the free music bands out there makes a serious hit song I can guarantee they'll get themselves a nice RIAA approved record contract before their next release.

The MUD of FUD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029500)

Moicro$oft is at an unfair advantage in the muddy arena of FUD. Everyone who attempts to counter their FUD feels that it is necessary to tell the truth, hoping that truth and moral integrity will prevail over lies, dishonesty, back-stabbing, stealing, and general all aroung a$$holeness for which M$ is famous. I do not believe this is the way to do it. Their outrageous lies should be countered with lies twice as outrageous. Their dishonesty should be fought with every dishonest means at our disposition. In other words, they should be kept on the defensive, busy defending themselves against attacks as unjustified as the attacks they proffer to the clueless. I personally have no moral rules whatsoever in fighting M$. The objective is to neutralize the beast, not with whimpers, but with every unjustified, dishonest, mythomanic, immoral means possible. Only then, will we be in an equal battlezone.

it's spelled "Microsoft", fucktard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029626)

Inexpensive alternative (5, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029513)

but I'd still like to know -- are there inexpensive alternatives?
Of course there is!

All you have to do is: don't be hung up on your domain name being identical to your trademark name. Almost nobody's is.

If your trademark is non-descriptive (e.g. nothing about the name "Levi" indicates they sell jeans) then it might really collide with someone else somewhere else in this big world. At best, it might be ambiguous and vague. Maybe combine your trademark with something descriptive, and you could even end up with a better domain name than your vague trademark. (e.g. Which is a better domain name: levi.com or levijeans.com?)

Or if it absolutely must be the same, then use a different TLD. You probably don't have a TLD in your 20-year-old trademark (e.g. that company in Redmond is not named "Microsoft Dot Com") so you had little hope of getting an exact match on the whole string anyway. The original purposes for many of the TLDs are long forgotten and unenforced, so just pick any of 'em, whatever looks pretty. Whatever. You might be surprised at how many websites are not actually hosted in Tuvala.

If there's no dispute, then there's no expense. You can't get more inexpensive than that.

I wasn't too sure about the MS-GPL feud.. (1, Troll)

CashCarSTAR (548853) | more than 11 years ago | (#5029547)

But now I think I know what it is.. MS is pissed because they are not allowed to steal code. It is only a matter of time until MS is going to have to play the code cards, and we will see how much is taken. It's slightly more than that however, it's the "danger of a good example". MS does not want people to decide on anything else than marketing and market control. Maybe some people will decide by software quality, maybe some other people will decide because they can only trust code they can get their hands on. In the end however, what OS and the GPL are is a slow juggernaut, forever marching ahead that cannot be stopped. Improvements are always coming, the quality is constantly improving. Eventually it will overwhelm companies who do not have a positive image such as Microsoft. On a side note, that is why Apple's charging for iTools is important. Apple should realize in this day and age the only currency you have is the respect and value you have among computer users..and Apple is spending it quickly. Microsoft does not have any at all.

just what the world needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029600)

The central premise of the (Dark Materials) series is that God is evil, a celestial impostor who pretends to have created the universe and who so intensely hates flesh and blood that he wants people to live a repressed, joyless existence. Unsurprisingly this theme has upset fundamentalist Christians.

This sounds like scientology.

Great so not only do we have a bunch of idiot Christians screwing with the world but now we are going to get a bunch of anti-god satan worshipers indoctrinated by childrens books...what next geeks and hippies spouting off about the benifits of the bankrupt ethical beliefs of paganism... ...oh wait...

crap!

hook

Domain disputes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029603)

[I bet there's money to be made if someone can come up with cheaper means of settling such disputes.]

Hmmm... Rock, Paper Sissors?

In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5029632)

Clones copy YOU!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...