Comment Re:What is a personal domain? (Score 1) 286
If it's a truly personal domain, not intended for a commercial purpose, then a
Comment Re:example.com does exist (Score 1) 286
I'm always trying (with limited success) to get people at work to use RFC-compliant dummy addresses when testing inputs to Web forms where an e-mail address must be supplied. Some "marketing types" absolutely insist on using "test@test.com" all the time, even though that's not one of the compliant dummy addresses. Personally, I always use addresses in the
Comment Re:MyDomain.com (Score 1) 286
Or maybe it'll even have a PR0N site in it...
Comment Gamer's Edge (Score 1) 2
I worked for Softdisk back when they were publishing a diskmagazine in the early 1990s named Gamer's Edge, featuring games authored by co-workers of mine who went on to be pretty notable (including John Carmack and John Romero). I seem to recall somebody was threatening to sue the company over the name by claiming ownership of the word "Edge", which seemed rather crackpotted. It must have been the same guy as in this case. It reminds me of Leo Stoller, who claimed to own various words including "Stealth" until bankruptcy caused him to be stripped of whatever alleged rights he might have had.
Submission + - Trademark History in the Age of Wikipedia? (toucharcade.com) 2
The_Pey writes: "Recently, an application was pulled from the Apple App Store because of its name. The game in question, Edge, reportedly infringes on the the trademark rights of Tim Langdell to the name Edge. The unfortunate aspect to this whole affair is that Tim is broadly enforcing rights to the name, whether or not he has actually created a game entitled Edge. Much of the history of the trademark ownership is being reported in Tim's wikipedia entry by a user "cheridavis" who bears a lot of similarity namewise to Tim's wife, Cheri Davis Langdell.
Interestingly, Tim was also the source of the reason the game Soul Edge changed its name to what we now know as Soul Caliber.
Can a person really own the trademark for the name of a game, using a four letter word broadly applied across several industries without the owner actually having published a title in the industry?"
Interestingly, Tim was also the source of the reason the game Soul Edge changed its name to what we now know as Soul Caliber.
Can a person really own the trademark for the name of a game, using a four letter word broadly applied across several industries without the owner actually having published a title in the industry?"
Comment Re:sure it is (Score 1) 1079
The kid in War Games started with altering grades... and proceeded to Global Thermonuclear War!
In Massachusetts in 2009, can calling somebody "gay" really be considered defamatory, given that it's a state that allows gay marriage?
Comment Re:sure it is (Score 1) 1079
These days, lots of cell phones, iPod-like devices, and so on are capable of sending and receiving e-mail, so it's not such a big stretch after all. It's still a really stupid search/seizure, anyway.
Submission + - Both Wikipedia and Citizendium under CC-by-sa? (citizendium.org)
Raindance writes: "Citizendium, after more than a year of license ambiguity, has announced its content will be freely available under CC-by-sa. This comes a few weeks after Wikipedia announced the fairly likely possibility of relicensing all homegrown GFDL content under CC-by-sa (as made possible by the new Creative Commons compatibility framework). Good things are happening in the realm of free content."
Submission + - Wikipedia COO was Convicted Felon
Arthur Dent '99 writes: According to this AP story, Carolyn Bothwell Doran was COO for the Wikimedia Foundation for six months before it was discovered that she was a convicted felon with charges of theft, drunk driving, and shooting her boyfriend in the chest. Of interest to me is her apparent connection to the CIA; her father was a CIA official, and her late husband was a former CIA officer who drowned on their honeymoon in 1999 (providing plenty of good fodder for conspiracy theorists). The Wikimedia Foundation is now performing background checks on its officers.
Submission + - Wikipedia "private" Checkuser usage
wikinerdiest writes: "Wikipedians are again struggling with back channel invasions of Users' privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.22Private.22_Checkuser_use . This time it is the frequent(admitted) use by many administrators of backchannel (IRC,email) methods to request and obtain Checkuser information without the User checked being made aware of it. This process completely circumvents their official process at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER which seems to be little more than a facade for public consumption. While the official process makes note of the right of Users to complain of privacy breaches, the "private checkuser request" process makes that right mute since the User may not be even made aware Checkuser was used."
Submission + - Indian businessman charged for joke on his network
myvirtualid writes: "Indian businessman Anil Ambani has apparently been charged under Indian laws against insulting a religion or faith because a joke has been circulating on his (66% stake) mobile network, Reliance Communications.
According to the BBC article, a "local Sikh leader had filed a complaint against Mr Ambani after his mobile telephone network allegedly circulated a joke about Sikhs".
There is no indication that Ambani played any role in creating, editing, reading, writing, forwarding, emailing, texting, smsing, or otherwise contributing to the spread of the alleged joke."
According to the BBC article, a "local Sikh leader had filed a complaint against Mr Ambani after his mobile telephone network allegedly circulated a joke about Sikhs".
There is no indication that Ambani played any role in creating, editing, reading, writing, forwarding, emailing, texting, smsing, or otherwise contributing to the spread of the alleged joke."
Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia 531
privatemusings writes "Wikipedians are up in arms at the revelations that respected administrators have been discussing blocking and banning editors on a secret mailing list. The tensions have spilled over throughout the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit' and news agencies are sniffing around. The Register has this fantastic writeup — read it here first." The article says that some Wikipedians believe Jimbo Wales has lost face by supporting the in-crowd of administrators and rebuking the whistle blower who leaked the existence of the secret mailing list.
Submission + - Wiki-ructions
shojokid writes: Some Wikipedians will know there has been a minor tremor at their fave project. On 18 November Administrator Durova placed an indefinite ban on user !! (a highly regarded contributor) for no obvious reason stating: "Due to the nature of this investigation, our normal open discussion isn't really feasible. Please take to arbitration if you disagree with this decision." In the ensuing onwiki discussion, Durova's posting to a hitherto top-secret Wikia mailing list, explaining her reasoning and evidence for the ban, was published around 18:00 UTC on 22 November by user Giano. Occurrences of this message are being expunged from Wikipedia by a process called "oversight" with the sanction of the Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia's highest court of appeal. In latest developments, in fraught attempts to draw a line under the issues involved, Giano is being asked what should be done.
Meanwhile, over at Citizendium, Dr Sanger is taking longer than expected to make a decision on Citizendium's license. But he explains that it shouldn't be too long in coming.
Submission + - Collaboration suspended on Wikipedia article (wikipedia.org) 2
gkhan1 writes: A note on the talk page of the Wikipedia article Views of Lyndon LaRouche states that regular Wikipedia policies of collaboration and consensus has been suspended and the page is now protected. While page protection is common on Wikipedia, usually while articles are recieving heavy loads of vandalism, this case is unique in that the admin responsible of the protection has stated that it is supposed to last indefinitely and that all future editing on the article should go through an administrator first.
Is this acknowledgement that the collaborative and open Wikipedia-method does not work, and that a closed editorial-system is needed for some subjects? What implications does this have for the future of Wikipedia?
Is this acknowledgement that the collaborative and open Wikipedia-method does not work, and that a closed editorial-system is needed for some subjects? What implications does this have for the future of Wikipedia?
Submission + - Govt. attacks paper; demands 4 years of reader IPs (phoenixnewtimes.com) 1
iroll writes: The founders of the Phoenix New Times have been arrested for exposing a "secret" grand jury subpoena targetting their newspaper. From the New Times article:
The subpoena demands: "Any and all documents containing a compilation of aggregate information about the Phoenix New Times Web site created or prepared from January 1, 2004 to the present, including but not limited to :
A) which pages visitors access or visit on the Phoenix New Times website;
B) the total number of visitors to the Phoenix New Times website;
C) information obtained from 'cookies,' including, but not limited to, authentication, tracking, and maintaining specific information about users (site preferences, contents of electronic shopping carts, etc.);
D) the Internet Protocol address of anyone that accesses the Phoenix New Times website from January 1, 2004 to the present;
E) the domain name of anyone that has accessed the Phoenix New Times website from January 1, 2004 to the present;
F) the website a user visited prior to coming to the Phoenix New Times website;
G) the date and time of a visit by a user to the Phoenix New Times website;
H) the type of browser used by each visitor (Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Netscape Navigator, Firefox, etc.) to the Phoenix New Times website; and I) the type of operating system used by each visitor to the Phoenix New Times website."
This story has been picked up by other media outlets around the country, including the NY Times
The subpoena demands: "Any and all documents containing a compilation of aggregate information about the Phoenix New Times Web site created or prepared from January 1, 2004 to the present, including but not limited to
A) which pages visitors access or visit on the Phoenix New Times website;
B) the total number of visitors to the Phoenix New Times website;
C) information obtained from 'cookies,' including, but not limited to, authentication, tracking, and maintaining specific information about users (site preferences, contents of electronic shopping carts, etc.);
D) the Internet Protocol address of anyone that accesses the Phoenix New Times website from January 1, 2004 to the present;
E) the domain name of anyone that has accessed the Phoenix New Times website from January 1, 2004 to the present;
F) the website a user visited prior to coming to the Phoenix New Times website;
G) the date and time of a visit by a user to the Phoenix New Times website;
H) the type of browser used by each visitor (Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Netscape Navigator, Firefox, etc.) to the Phoenix New Times website; and I) the type of operating system used by each visitor to the Phoenix New Times website."
This story has been picked up by other media outlets around the country, including the NY Times
