Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Nope... (Score 1) 239 239

I can tell you are no lefty even though you might think you are. One of the key debating points of a lefty is how they derail the conversation from the critical points and into BS like you height and weight in order to avoid the process of actually having to think and put a position out filled with reason and logic instead of emotion. You fell for it and here you are being part of it. Maybe the fact that you admit to owning a gun and not being afraid to publicly acknowledge you will use it is a sign of your mental disorder or something.

Oh, and no, I'm not saying he isn't a lefty, we have had many conversations in which I know for a fact that he at least thinks he is a lefty. He just doesn't fit the stereotype and fell for one of their own tricks and spent too much energy on every unrelated ancillary detail while his point suffers.

Comment Re:Interesting argument (Score 1) 112 112

FCC Classifies DSL as Information Service []

That doesn't say what you seem to think it says. All that shows is the formalizing of the ways they already had been treating cable internet. This was largely due to lawsuits and their response to them. There was absolutely no switch in policy which is why there was absolutely no need to release the newly adopted paper- there was no change in policy or procedure- just a formalizing of it.

Stop looking only far enough back in time that you think you found something. Go back further with the computers and computers II paper and the interim report to congress in 98. You will see this clearly was no policy change.

In what respect do you believe is cable service different from DSL in this context? And while I do disagree with you in this assertion, I have a somewhat awkward assurance of your error that Kevin Martin also disagrees with you as can be seen in the link I supplied above.

This is like asking in what respect is a car different from a road when all you are thinking about is traveling. I'm not sure if I posses the patience or articulation to explain these difference clearly enough that you would grasp it. First, cable service is difference from DSL service because one delivers cable TV channels while the other is a technology primarily for delivering data or internet access over a system for communications. The question you need to ask is in what way is cable service different from POTS service. The answer to this gives the answer you seem to be missing. You see, telephone service is regulated differently than cable service and always has been. Telephone service even has it's delivery system regulated where cable service hasn't. With cable service, the regulations have largely been limited to content restrictions and timing of content, equal access for conflicting views, emergency signals, and rates to some degree. This difference is because cable service has never been considered a telecommunications service where POTS has always been considered one and the law requires different regulations for them.

Yes, that entire common carriage thing was such a nuisance what with those regulated utilities having to open up their networks to allow for competition. And we can all see exactly how well this decision has worked our given that most of us here in the US pay more for crappy service than most of the rest of the developed world. And while we're resting on our laurels, let's not forget Comcast, who has achieved the distinction of being recognized as having the worst customer service out of any corporation in our country.

Maybe you should grab a tissue and wait a minute before reading this. We both see there is a problem, I'm saying that we do not need to cut the baby in half in order to figure out the answer and you are saying the baby should never have been born so lets kill it already. I think you approach is wrong and historically has never worked. Breaking up the bells largely got us into this situation you just cried about and we need to not only be smarter about it this time, but we need actual laws passed instead of unconstitutional edicts by unelected persons who likely will lose in court when the issue is pushed because of the entire history of the FCC countering their current position.

Yes, seriously, read the evidence and citation lists in their court filing, it's pretty extensive and relies on the FCC itself quite a bit in their claim that they cannot be classified as title II by law.

Given that the internet, as we think of it today, hasn't been around for 47 years, what are you talking about? In fact, it was the common carriage rules which made it possible for all of those independent ISPs to exists.

lol.. Do you think the FCC started only caring about data crossing over communications lines when the internet as we know it today was realized? They have been discussing computer data and what to do or how to treat it since 1968 that I know of. Possibly even earlier. The computers (also known as computers I) working paper was released in that time frame but also included reference to other works done as far back as 68 in order to differentiate between computer data and telecommunications. Like I have been telling you all along, this goes back a lot further than 2002 or most likely even before you were born.

On another note, how is it that you can make all these assertions without knowing who Kevin Martin was, what his leadership over the FCC did and what effect it had over this entire process?

It's quite simple. His contributions to the process is not nearly as significant as you think it is. He did absolutely nothing that wasn't already policy in place- just formalized it. It's like you think Thaddeus Stevens crafted the suspension of habeas corpus in the civil war instead of Lincoln and his generals. You found a name, found an action, and somehow seem to be contempt to stop there instead of knowing the entire story. Nothing had changed after Kevin Martin that was already in place before in regards to this.

You will not find any FCC policy, ruling, decision, or otherwise that shows it was different before Martin. In fact, I already pointed you to 3 different sources, the computers I, computers II working papers, and the interim report to congress on universal access in 98 that specifically show the FCC treating the internet as other than telecommunications. In fact, those three papers specifically show the progression of it being originally distinguished as enhanced services, to information services, and one even talks about the congress using the previous papers as specific reference in compiling law specifically to exclude the internet from telecommunications regulation.

You should try looking at the cites and evidence provided in the filings for the lawsuit. It will fill you in on a lot that you seem to be missing. In fact, I found stuff that previously escaped me. There is a very strong case against the FCC here and it is compiled largely from official FCC documents and actions.

Comment Re:Nope... (Score 1) 239 239

True. I am not all that large nor all that small. I dare say I am about average for my height and build, a little heavier than some. I suppose you have no real point and just wanted to discuss our physiques? We can have this discussion if you want but, really, I do not see how it is relevant.

Comment Re:What's the deal? (Score 1) 239 239

Fear vs. privacy... Can't be anything else...

No, some of us not afraid, we're just ornery. I realize you think you have a right to use my property and I will happily cede that right to you but for one thing... You must ask permission. I have acres and acres of land - all open to the public with custom printed signs that encourage folks to make use of it (and to call). However, this chunk is mine. I will still let you use it but you must ask. There is not one legitimate reason for a RC toy to be hovering and returning to film me on my property. I will shoot it and take it to court. I will win and you know it. I *can* afford it. I will set precedent if need be.

Hell, earlier tonight I posted directions to a landmark from my house, follow it in reverse - look for the signs and find the longest driveway on the left, lots of vehicles with a blue BMW sitting outside most of the time - and you are able to come test this theory out if you want. It may take some tries because, honestly, I am far more likely to not even notice it but - on the off chance that I do AND I am able to retrieve a firearm in time, I am going to shoot it. Obviously we can not set this up as a test case. It would be implied permission. So do not tell me if you decide to do this. I'd love to take this to trial. (Actually I'd just pay the fine. You know I am not going to get in any real trouble for it, right? It is not as if I live in the middle of a town.)

Comment Re:Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 147 147

If the copyright on "Steamboat Willie" expired, anyone could copy the work or create derivative works from it featuring a similar character, but they could not call the character in derivative works Mickey Mouse, nor use Mickey Mouse's image in such works.

No, when the Steamboat Willy copyright expires, there is no longer a copyright which prohibits people from making or distributing additional copies of the work, from publicly performing or displaying the work, or from preparing new derivative works based on it (such as a new Mickey Mouse short in which he commands a homemade submarine powered by barnyard animals or something). Of course, attributes of the Mickey Mouse character which originated in later, still copyrighted material would not be available; thus you're using the original 1928 black and white Mickey, or forking a new version of the character off from there. Can't give him a dog named Pluto, nor even the distinctive Mickey Mouse voice, as those both appeared in later films.

They would, however, be able to still freely copy the original work even though it featured said character that is still under trademark because the copy of the work is not considered a new work, it is considered a *COPY*

I don't know why that would matter from a trademark perspective. Trademark is concerned with goods bearing a mark all originating from the same source, so as to protect consumer expectations regarding consistent levels of quality. Even the goods of two different sellers are indistinguishable, that alone doesn't mean that one is free to use the trademark of the other.

The trademark issue here is whether the MICKEY MOUSE trademark even survives, at least with regard to goods such as motion pictures. This is because the MICKEY MOUSE trademark is inescapably connected to the Mickey Mouse character, and now the character is free for all to use, meaning that his presence in a work no longer indicates that it comes from a single source. That -- the freedom to use the character, and the loss of the single source expectation of consumers -- is what kills the trademark. And we know that the copyright lapsing will control what happens to the trademark based on precedents like Dastar (where the Supreme Court said that trademark is not allowed to operate like a perpetual form of copyright), and SHREDDED WHEAT (where the Supreme Court said that where a patent expires, anyone is free to use the invention and to use the previously trademarked, descriptive name of the invention).

the work uses the trademark with permission

First, there would largely no longer be a trademark. Second, that would be clear naked licensing, which would likely invalidate the mark anyway.

Comment Re:Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot (Score 1) 239 239

It was a Remington in your last comment. Nobody would cheat on their Mossberg 500 with *any* Remington. Unless you have one choked and the other is your defense weapon. Given that they are in a safe... They are probably not for defense.

However, I still want to know (they said the same thing in the last thread) who are these people hunting with? If you shoot me and it does not hurt me then, no! I am not going to be okay with that. I may fire back and that is going to escalate quickly.

KGIII (Stupid post limit.)

Comment Re:Another kook (Score 1) 239 239

Using the 2nd Amendment, as written, I think we could make that argument logically. Obviously it is not logical to allow it BUT if we use the 2nd, as written and intended, we could actually argue that. Mind you that this has nothing to do with how it is interpreted and I am not, by any means, suggesting we use SAMs (or any weapon of mass destruction) but, in order to defend ourselves from invaders or from a tyranny we should be allowed to arm ourselves with weapons that are capable of doing so. So, yeah, we could actually get a good legal team on it but it is not going anywhere - ever - as no sane judges would even accept the case as it fails at face value. Well, someone would hear it but it would likely be in Texas and not actually make it past a circuit judge. The supremes would just refuse to hear it no matter how good the argument is. Quite frankly, this is one of the rare cases where I agree that we probably should err on the side of caution as opposed to the spirit of the law or the letter of the law.

Comment Re:Two words: global warming (Score 1) 141 141

well yeah, on a trajectory of 100-200 years. i'm talking about right now

i even said so in my comment you are replying to: "someday, in only a few decades maybe the way technology and world populations are going, then the scheme would realize a profit" over a shorter period

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 239 239

I agree entirely. I can make that shot easily. I have a slight advantage over most. "First and foremost a Rifleman."

Again, I would make this shot. It would not be gleeful, and I would likely buy the person a new drone (perhaps a nicer one) once the legal dust settled. However, I have no problems facing the courts and think it should be decided. I would take that responsibility in a heartbeat. Incarceration is not an option, really. We all know that. Not for the drone shooting at least - not in this type of situation - and certainly not where I live. Now, he was in a residential section where discharging a firearm is usually illegal. He should face a trial by his peers for such (or a bench trial if he wishes). I do *not* live in a residential area and regularly fire as many rounds as I damned well please.

More realistically? I probably would not even notice the drone. :-/

KGIII (Stupid post count limit... So, AC it is.)

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 3, Interesting) 141 141


china is currently picking on vietnam, philippines, japan, india, etc., thugging han imperialist efforts to steal land

meanwhile, all is quiet on the northern border with crazy, dying russia

at some point, china will notice that it's stealing speck islands and barren mountains from its neighbors according to hilarious historical made-up "justifications," when russia actually stole vast tracts of resource-rich land from china only 150 years ago:

then things will get interesting with the derelict work force you are talking about, who can easily be handed a gun and told to charge. perhaps china will have some social/ political upheaval, an ultranationalist demagogue will take charge, and, like after every revolution (french, russian, arab spring, etc.) things quickly turn imperial on its neighbors

russia is a failed cult of personality petrostate that everyone hates because it also is a neoimperial thug (only on weak neighbors of course, like any insecure bully). it will continue to decay and have old rusty weapons someday

but china is a rising power a huge economy and with 10x the population of russia will continue to militarize with sophisticated advanced weaponry

THAT is the story with china and siberia, not this silly bridge

the world powers have to talk about how to divide russia when it finally implodes, that's the end game of the trajectory the joke country is currently on

japan gets back sakhalin, kirils

kamchatka would have to be "occupied briefly" by japan and the usa so it is not completely overrun by china when the inevitable happens

i welcome the new countries of tuva, irkutsk, yakusia, etc. (quickly and easily run over by china, and now new north korean style puppet states: i hope not, hopefully more like mongolia)

russia gets pushed back to the urals

and let's not even get started on the revenge that will happen in the european side of things...

hey germany, want to revive konigsberg?

finalnd, you deserve karelia back

abkhazia, crimea...

it's a continuation of the rot and decay that started in 25 years ago with the collapse of the USSR. that's the long term trend that has never been reversed. a brief lull with some petroleum money that is now gone, and mafia goon putin putting a face of denial on that, it doesn't change that trajectory

if you think the kgb thug chest thumping by putin on small, weak georgia and ukraine is supposed to impress anyone other than propagandized neoserfs in a walled media garden inside russia. no: the thugging just isolates russia internationally and makes everyone despise them. so they have absolutely zero friends, and enemies all around when the longterm implosion deepens

and if you think russia's nukes would prevent this scenario: no, any use of nukes would only hasten it

russia: you lost a maritime conflict with a rising japan and then a civil war 100 years ago. get ready for a much more humiliating conflict with china, and much more internal decay

i give it 20-50 years. sooner if china gets internal strife soon and therefore the desperate need to redirect that energy to han ultranationalism on the border

i would actually prefer if it happens in putin's lifetime. let's see that asswipe humiliated. unfortunately, he'll probably die a "hero" and then all the heroic destruction he's done to russia politically and socially will result in the country's serious collapse after he dies

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long