I am quite confident that he will lose in court, since bitcoin is already being used by a large group of people to describe the very thing he is attempting to trademark it on. There is of course a possibility that he is filing for this trademark for the purpose of preventing some other business from using the term to apply to anything other than the existing bitcoin. If it is the latter, it might make some sense. However, it does not look like that is the case. We will have to wait until we have more information.
Moral of the story: if you want to embezzle, be affiliated with people in power.
Just be sure that you don't embezzle from people who are affiliated with more powerful people than those you are affiliated with...or that your embezzlement raises a significant risk of reducing the power of the people you are affiliated with.
If one looks at the wording of the U.S. Constitution and some of the writings of the time on patents, the purpose of patents in U.S. law is to encourage people to make their inventions known (rather than keeping them as trade secrets). Looked at in this way puts a somewhat different interpretation on "obviousness". If you make something and it is obvious how you did it, it fails the obviousness test. There is no advantage to society from giving you a patent, someone else can duplicate what you have done even if you never tell anyone how you did it.
There has been at least one study that showed that people were less likely to remember information that was presented using PowerPoint. I remember seeing that study and wondering whether or not the findings were a result of people making bad use of PowerPoint rather than just a result of using PowerPoint. However at this point, the evidence suggests that using PowerPoint (except possibly in certain very special cases) is a mistake.
At least part of the hostility is due to the fact that the term "cloud" is a buzzword that obfuscates the meaning of a phrase rather than making it clearer. If a company or organization is going to outsource its IT (or some part thereof), that is fine and in many cases may be a good idea. However, "outsource" has become a "bad word", so many organizations try to find some other word to use that does not raise such negative emotions.
Techies tend to be people who like clear, concise communication, even if they are often not good at it because they overlook the emotional content of what they are saying.
Socialism and fascism are only a small distance apart on any realistic political scale. Both advocate strong government controls over economic activity. Both advocate central planning by government bureaucrats of one sort or another.
A Hispanic person in Arizona must show ID to prove s/he is a citizen, otherwise they're assumed to be illegal.
First, they only have to produce evidence that they are legally in the U.S. and second, only if the police are interacting with them because of some other illegal action on thier part. Finally, it is not only Hispanics who are subject to this law (I fully expect that if someone from Norway was stopped for a traffic violation and spoke very poor english, the police would demand evidence of legal residence).
That being said, this Protect IP would be a bad law and should not be passed. I, also, agree that the forfeiture laws are bad laws that should be repealed/overturned.
Or is it only a bad thing if the Democrats do something but when the Republicans engage in a conspiracy to rob the Democratic office in some hotel or commit fraudulent libel, that's OK because the Democrats deserve it?
I'm confused how you get "that's OK" from your example, considering that the President involved (a Republican) faced impeachment and resigned in order to avoid being the second President in the history of this country to be impeached. Whereas, when President Clinton (a Democrat) was impeached for lying under oath while President of the U.S., the response was, "Who cares if he broke his word?". And when President Obama broke the law by attacking Libya for over 90 days without Congressional authorization, the response has so far been, "Who cares?" BTW, this is the same Obama who said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Microsoft did not get in trouble specifically for doing something similar. Microsoft recognized that there was money in selling development tools to web developers (which was where Netscape made the bulk of their profit). By giving away their browser to everyone who bought their OS, Microsoft was able to force web developers to support their browser. The easiest way for a web developer to do that was to use Microsoft's development tools. In addition, MS made their browser work in such a way that Netscape's development tools did not produce a webpage that rendered properly in IE.
So, if one of these players (Amazon, Apple, Google) were to buy a music industry company, it would only be equivalent to the Microsoft case if another music industry company offered a cloud storage service.
New Jersey had them for years. They have been getting rid of them in the last 10 or so years. I haven't been paying attention to the reasons, but all of the areas that I am familiar with that used to have traffic circles and don't anymore used to be low traffic areas and now are high traffic areas.
Considering that close to 36% of abortions are conducted on blacks, yet they only make up approximately 13% of the population, it sure looks like they are being true to her ideals.
Look at the numbers. I did not make it up. According to the CDC, in 2005 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year. Also, according to the CDC, the jurisdictions which reported abortions by race (which does not include Florida, California, and New York State outside of NYC among others), reported that 203,991 abortions were conducted on the pregnancies of black women that year. According to other sources, approximately 36% of abortions are conducted on black women, who make up approximately 13% of the population.
Yes, they are ardent supporters of the Democratic Party and they are actively working to encourage blacks to have abortions at a greater rate than they are encouraging whites to do so. Look at the results of their behavior.
Really? You're telling me that the fact that Planned Parenthood has more clinics in black neighborhoods is just economics? You know, the Planned Parenthood that was founded by Margaret Sanger, who advocated abortions on "socially undesirables" (including African Americans).
Eugenics is a real practice. It's just that its believers don't call it that anymore. Just look at the abortion statistics for minorities in the U.S. vs the rest of the population.
Does the RIAA own the copyright for the works that they have sued for on behalf of Sony, EMI, etc.?
You actually capture the difference in your question. The RIAA sues on behalf of Sony, EMI, etc.. Righthaven sued on behalf of Righthaven, while the newspapers still owned the copyright.
Righthaven was a corporation formed by one or more newspaper companies in order to sue for copyright infringement without directly tying their names to the lawsuits. This strategy failed because the newspaper companies id not actually transfer the copyrights to Righthaven. This was some newspaper owners trying to be copyright trolls without getting the bad publicity that goes with tat.
You seem to have missed the part where it says, "...to the extent which we think it necessary for the Service." I think they would have trouble convincing a judge that allowing someone you did not designate access to your copyrighted material without your explicit permission for Dropbox's profit was something they legitimately thought was "necessary for the Service."
What makes you think the airlines would hire less qualified people? When the TSA took over security screening from the airlines, they merely hired the people who were doing it for the airlines. This was supposed to somehow make those people more qualified. I didn't understand the logic then, I don't understand the logic now.
Yeah because if the same security rules and procedures existed today as existed on 9/11, then the TSA would not exist either. So your comment is merely reiterating what I said.
Why shouldn't we revert to the system we had before? The only reason that the 9/11 hijackers were successful was because the passengers on three of the four planes assumed that they would be flown to some destination such as Cuba, negotiations would be conducted, the hijackers would release the passengers for some consideration and the passengers would be flown to the destination of their choice. The only harm being the loss of several hours to several days.
Now people know that that outcome is not likely to be the case and they will attempt to overwhelm the hijackers.
However, my recommendation would be to revert to the basic system we had on 9/11, except that the TSA gets reorganized as security inspectors. The job of the TSA would be to inspect the security procedures of various airlines (including passenger screening) and fine those airlines that failed certain objective standards (such as allowing a gun onto the plane--something the TSA has on several occassions failed to prevent).
You do realize that if exactly the same security rules and procedures existed today as existed on 9/11, it would be impossible for hijackers to recreate 9/11 (even discounting the fact that the World Trade Towers are gone) or anything similar, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
I am quite confident that he will lose in court, since bitcoin is already being used by a large group of people to describe the very thing he is attempting to trademark it on. There is of course a possibility that he is filing for this trademark for the purpose of preventing some other business from using the term to apply to anything other than the existing bitcoin. If it is the latter, it might make some sense. However, it does not look like that is the case. We will have to wait until we have more information.
Moral of the story: if you want to embezzle, be affiliated with people in power.
Just be sure that you don't embezzle from people who are affiliated with more powerful people than those you are affiliated with...or that your embezzlement raises a significant risk of reducing the power of the people you are affiliated with.
If one looks at the wording of the U.S. Constitution and some of the writings of the time on patents, the purpose of patents in U.S. law is to encourage people to make their inventions known (rather than keeping them as trade secrets). Looked at in this way puts a somewhat different interpretation on "obviousness". If you make something and it is obvious how you did it, it fails the obviousness test. There is no advantage to society from giving you a patent, someone else can duplicate what you have done even if you never tell anyone how you did it.
There has been at least one study that showed that people were less likely to remember information that was presented using PowerPoint. I remember seeing that study and wondering whether or not the findings were a result of people making bad use of PowerPoint rather than just a result of using PowerPoint. However at this point, the evidence suggests that using PowerPoint (except possibly in certain very special cases) is a mistake.
At least part of the hostility is due to the fact that the term "cloud" is a buzzword that obfuscates the meaning of a phrase rather than making it clearer. If a company or organization is going to outsource its IT (or some part thereof), that is fine and in many cases may be a good idea. However, "outsource" has become a "bad word", so many organizations try to find some other word to use that does not raise such negative emotions.
Techies tend to be people who like clear, concise communication, even if they are often not good at it because they overlook the emotional content of what they are saying.
Isn't moving to the cloud for security a bit like moving to heroin to deal with your nicotine addiction?
It is much more like moving to heroin to deal with your morphine addiction.
I always thought 'private cloud' meant 'file server', but new-hotness buzzword-compliant. ;-)
Close, it actually means "file servers". Without the plural you can't call it "cloud".
Socialism and fascism are only a small distance apart on any realistic political scale. Both advocate strong government controls over economic activity. Both advocate central planning by government bureaucrats of one sort or another.
A Hispanic person in Arizona must show ID to prove s/he is a citizen, otherwise they're assumed to be illegal.
First, they only have to produce evidence that they are legally in the U.S. and second, only if the police are interacting with them because of some other illegal action on thier part. Finally, it is not only Hispanics who are subject to this law (I fully expect that if someone from Norway was stopped for a traffic violation and spoke very poor english, the police would demand evidence of legal residence).
That being said, this Protect IP would be a bad law and should not be passed. I, also, agree that the forfeiture laws are bad laws that should be repealed/overturned.
Or is it only a bad thing if the Democrats do something but when the Republicans engage in a conspiracy to rob the Democratic office in some hotel or commit fraudulent libel, that's OK because the Democrats deserve it?
I'm confused how you get "that's OK" from your example, considering that the President involved (a Republican) faced impeachment and resigned in order to avoid being the second President in the history of this country to be impeached. Whereas, when President Clinton (a Democrat) was impeached for lying under oath while President of the U.S., the response was, "Who cares if he broke his word?". And when President Obama broke the law by attacking Libya for over 90 days without Congressional authorization, the response has so far been, "Who cares?" BTW, this is the same Obama who said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Microsoft did not get in trouble specifically for doing something similar. Microsoft recognized that there was money in selling development tools to web developers (which was where Netscape made the bulk of their profit). By giving away their browser to everyone who bought their OS, Microsoft was able to force web developers to support their browser. The easiest way for a web developer to do that was to use Microsoft's development tools. In addition, MS made their browser work in such a way that Netscape's development tools did not produce a webpage that rendered properly in IE.
So, if one of these players (Amazon, Apple, Google) were to buy a music industry company, it would only be equivalent to the Microsoft case if another music industry company offered a cloud storage service.
New Jersey had them for years. They have been getting rid of them in the last 10 or so years. I haven't been paying attention to the reasons, but all of the areas that I am familiar with that used to have traffic circles and don't anymore used to be low traffic areas and now are high traffic areas.
Considering that close to 36% of abortions are conducted on blacks, yet they only make up approximately 13% of the population, it sure looks like they are being true to her ideals.
Look at the numbers. I did not make it up. According to the CDC, in 2005 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year. Also, according to the CDC, the jurisdictions which reported abortions by race (which does not include Florida, California, and New York State outside of NYC among others), reported that 203,991 abortions were conducted on the pregnancies of black women that year. According to other sources, approximately 36% of abortions are conducted on black women, who make up approximately 13% of the population.
Yes, they are ardent supporters of the Democratic Party and they are actively working to encourage blacks to have abortions at a greater rate than they are encouraging whites to do so. Look at the results of their behavior.
Really? You're telling me that the fact that Planned Parenthood has more clinics in black neighborhoods is just economics? You know, the Planned Parenthood that was founded by Margaret Sanger, who advocated abortions on "socially undesirables" (including African Americans).
Eugenics is a real practice. It's just that its believers don't call it that anymore. Just look at the abortion statistics for minorities in the U.S. vs the rest of the population.
Does the RIAA own the copyright for the works that they have sued for on behalf of Sony, EMI, etc.?
You actually capture the difference in your question. The RIAA sues on behalf of Sony, EMI, etc.. Righthaven sued on behalf of Righthaven, while the newspapers still owned the copyright.
Righthaven was a corporation formed by one or more newspaper companies in order to sue for copyright infringement without directly tying their names to the lawsuits. This strategy failed because the newspaper companies id not actually transfer the copyrights to Righthaven. This was some newspaper owners trying to be copyright trolls without getting the bad publicity that goes with tat.
You seem to have missed the part where it says, "...to the extent which we think it necessary for the Service." I think they would have trouble convincing a judge that allowing someone you did not designate access to your copyrighted material without your explicit permission for Dropbox's profit was something they legitimately thought was "necessary for the Service."
What makes you think the airlines would hire less qualified people? When the TSA took over security screening from the airlines, they merely hired the people who were doing it for the airlines. This was supposed to somehow make those people more qualified. I didn't understand the logic then, I don't understand the logic now.
Yeah because if the same security rules and procedures existed today as existed on 9/11, then the TSA would not exist either. So your comment is merely reiterating what I said.
Isn't that essentially what I said? "...if exactly the same security rules and procedures existed today as existed on 9/11,..."
Why shouldn't we revert to the system we had before? The only reason that the 9/11 hijackers were successful was because the passengers on three of the four planes assumed that they would be flown to some destination such as Cuba, negotiations would be conducted, the hijackers would release the passengers for some consideration and the passengers would be flown to the destination of their choice. The only harm being the loss of several hours to several days.
Now people know that that outcome is not likely to be the case and they will attempt to overwhelm the hijackers.
However, my recommendation would be to revert to the basic system we had on 9/11, except that the TSA gets reorganized as security inspectors. The job of the TSA would be to inspect the security procedures of various airlines (including passenger screening) and fine those airlines that failed certain objective standards (such as allowing a gun onto the plane--something the TSA has on several occassions failed to prevent).
You do realize that if exactly the same security rules and procedures existed today as existed on 9/11, it would be impossible for hijackers to recreate 9/11 (even discounting the fact that the World Trade Towers are gone) or anything similar, don't you?