To further add, true "trademark dilution" would, for example, be people who say that one is "Photoshopping" an image to any sort of image manipulation regardless of whether it was truly done in Photoshop. By using the trademarked name in this way, there is an attempt to try to disassociate the trademark with the singular product. There is no such thing in the case of a news story using a picture of the NYSE trade floor.
The NYSE is perfectly justified in using the legal system to stop libel and trademark dilution.
Then if they think they are being libeled they should *fanfare* file a defamation suit. Secondly, how is it trademark dilution? Was the company using the picture attempting to pass itself off as the NYSEin some way? If not, there is no trademark dilution. Trademark law, despite what you and the idiots at the NYSE think, does not work that way. You don't get to claim trademark to squelch stories that you don't like. Basically you're about as wrong as can be on both the 1st Amendment and trademark law as one can possibly be.
Even still, if the vast majority of code is GPLv2 recommending a license that is incompatible with that license is stupid since even most projects at GPLv2 or later are not just going to up and change the license for something as stupid as excepting changes using the APL.
The C&D was referring to an article that could harm NYSE's reputation, so why should the organization just sit idly by and be tarnished?
Boohoo? Unless the article is found by a court to be libelous, why should they be able to stamp out people reporting facts that the NYSE doesn't like to be publicized? What next? The President, members of Congress, etc get to C&D stories that show their misdeed to the public?
If an expert gives you advice based on the best of their knowledge, they are not liable.
And is this statement actually based on statutory or case law or just your opinion on the subject? Because there are numerous cases in numerous countries to show the opposite.
Or we could skip all of your crappy options and picked the one that a proper scientist would say in a case where they don't know for sure either way: "we don't know" but told people to be alert in case something did happen.
How is that analogous though? In this situation there is record of members of the committee specifically saying that the citizens were "in no danger". Your situation doesn't even fit at all.
And neither did the bridge inspector who told you that an unsafe bridge is safe to drive on, but they should still be held accountable for misleading people when the bridge collapses and kills people. Whether or not they should have gotten this particular charge against them I would be open to debate on but they should definitely be held accountable in some way for making a statement to the public that was not true.
Yes but members of the committee specifically said that the people were "in no danger". That's a rather bold statement to make and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's no different from a drug company telling people a drug is safe that isn't or a bridge inspector telling people a bridge is safe and it collapses days later.
Except if you actually found out what really happened:
Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger.
Providing such a strong affirmative statement that they were in no danger, despite the fact that it was probably a sincere statement, was not a correct thing to say and they should have realized that if something did happen it was going to open them up to issues. It's like the inspector for a bridge telling people that they are in no danger driving over it yet it collapses days later. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their statements turning out to be untrue?
Hahahahaha. Good joke. Wyden supports something similar to what this bill does just in a more limited scope. If you thought he did this because he was against the whole idea you are sadly mistaken.
Not sure what it is true? There are vast amounts of code that are GPLv2 beyond the Linux kernel.
Most of the GPLv2 code I've seen is actually "GPLv2 or any later version", so it can be upgraded to GPLv3.
Yes, it could be but if it isn't Apache 2.0 isn't going to be compatible. And I doubt seriously that most projects are going to upgrade to GPLv3 for an asinine reason like accepting someone's contribution using the APL as opposed to just having the contributor use the GPLv2 which makes things far easier. Secondly, my statement had nothing to do with saying stuff is GPLv2 only.
Yes, and the FSF recommends the Apache 2.0 because of a desire to push people to move to GPLv3 since Apache 2.0 is incompatible with the GPLv2. Most people don't find picking a license that is incompatible with vast amounts of code under the GPLv2 to be a good recommendation.
This guy is an intermediary, sure, but a good portion of Amazon's product is now handled through 3rd parties too, so it's really not a big deal.
Sorry, but no. Those other "3rd parties" you mention almost always have Amazon stock, fulfill and ship the order so it is nothing like buying through some random dude.
I'm not a futurist, and there are certainly threats to BitCoin from other established internet exchangers, but I think it's got potential, especially for anyone who'd like to see the internet really achieve its true potential as a free medium.
Sure if you want to deal with a current that will have limited amounts of people accepting it and has a miniscule supply.
What anonymous shopping? You can be traced with enough effort using cash, let alone the ease of tracking the vast majority of people using credit cards, debit cards or checks for purchases. What a fucking stupid headline and summary.
Dear Lover of 1984-Style Government (aka, a liberal):
You mean except for the fact that most of the pro-government rulings on commerce clause cases have had majority conservative justices? Yeah, let's ignore that completely.
Slashdot Mirror
No. If they have a supposed trademark, whether registered or not, and they don't defend it then you lose it.
To further add, true "trademark dilution" would, for example, be people who say that one is "Photoshopping" an image to any sort of image manipulation regardless of whether it was truly done in Photoshop. By using the trademarked name in this way, there is an attempt to try to disassociate the trademark with the singular product. There is no such thing in the case of a news story using a picture of the NYSE trade floor.
The NYSE is perfectly justified in using the legal system to stop libel and trademark dilution.
Then if they think they are being libeled they should *fanfare* file a defamation suit. Secondly, how is it trademark dilution? Was the company using the picture attempting to pass itself off as the NYSEin some way? If not, there is no trademark dilution. Trademark law, despite what you and the idiots at the NYSE think, does not work that way. You don't get to claim trademark to squelch stories that you don't like. Basically you're about as wrong as can be on both the 1st Amendment and trademark law as one can possibly be.
Even still, if the vast majority of code is GPLv2 recommending a license that is incompatible with that license is stupid since even most projects at GPLv2 or later are not just going to up and change the license for something as stupid as excepting changes using the APL.
The C&D was referring to an article that could harm NYSE's reputation, so why should the organization just sit idly by and be tarnished?
Boohoo? Unless the article is found by a court to be libelous, why should they be able to stamp out people reporting facts that the NYSE doesn't like to be publicized? What next? The President, members of Congress, etc get to C&D stories that show their misdeed to the public?
If an expert gives you advice based on the best of their knowledge, they are not liable.
And is this statement actually based on statutory or case law or just your opinion on the subject? Because there are numerous cases in numerous countries to show the opposite.
Or we could skip all of your crappy options and picked the one that a proper scientist would say in a case where they don't know for sure either way: "we don't know" but told people to be alert in case something did happen.
How is that analogous though? In this situation there is record of members of the committee specifically saying that the citizens were "in no danger". Your situation doesn't even fit at all.
And neither did the bridge inspector who told you that an unsafe bridge is safe to drive on, but they should still be held accountable for misleading people when the bridge collapses and kills people. Whether or not they should have gotten this particular charge against them I would be open to debate on but they should definitely be held accountable in some way for making a statement to the public that was not true.
Yes but members of the committee specifically said that the people were "in no danger". That's a rather bold statement to make and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's no different from a drug company telling people a drug is safe that isn't or a bridge inspector telling people a bridge is safe and it collapses days later.
Except if you actually found out what really happened:
Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger.
Providing such a strong affirmative statement that they were in no danger, despite the fact that it was probably a sincere statement, was not a correct thing to say and they should have realized that if something did happen it was going to open them up to issues. It's like the inspector for a bridge telling people that they are in no danger driving over it yet it collapses days later. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their statements turning out to be untrue?
A politician who acts based on common sense???
Hahahahaha. Good joke. Wyden supports something similar to what this bill does just in a more limited scope. If you thought he did this because he was against the whole idea you are sadly mistaken.
Except for Linux, I'm not sure that that's true.
Not sure what it is true? There are vast amounts of code that are GPLv2 beyond the Linux kernel.
Most of the GPLv2 code I've seen is actually "GPLv2 or any later version", so it can be upgraded to GPLv3.
Yes, it could be but if it isn't Apache 2.0 isn't going to be compatible. And I doubt seriously that most projects are going to upgrade to GPLv3 for an asinine reason like accepting someone's contribution using the APL as opposed to just having the contributor use the GPLv2 which makes things far easier. Secondly, my statement had nothing to do with saying stuff is GPLv2 only.
Yes, and the FSF recommends the Apache 2.0 because of a desire to push people to move to GPLv3 since Apache 2.0 is incompatible with the GPLv2. Most people don't find picking a license that is incompatible with vast amounts of code under the GPLv2 to be a good recommendation.
What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?
Compatibility with the GPLv2 which still makes up the vast majority of FOSS code especially things like the Linux kernel.
If you want BSD levels of freedom, the Apache license is better.
Except for it's incompatibility with GPLv2 which is still far more prevelant in use than GPLv3 especially with legacy code?
Yes, but if you happen to use a supermarket discount card they DO have what you bought and they do data mine that information
This guy is an intermediary, sure, but a good portion of Amazon's product is now handled through 3rd parties too, so it's really not a big deal.
Sorry, but no. Those other "3rd parties" you mention almost always have Amazon stock, fulfill and ship the order so it is nothing like buying through some random dude.
I'm not a futurist, and there are certainly threats to BitCoin from other established internet exchangers, but I think it's got potential, especially for anyone who'd like to see the internet really achieve its true potential as a free medium.
Sure if you want to deal with a current that will have limited amounts of people accepting it and has a miniscule supply.
No, not really. The major difference is that credit cards had the backing of financial institutions.
eHow will have an article on almost anything you Google search on because it's a site for click whoring.
Try using cash to buy an airline ticket, for example. See you when you get out.
What do you mean "try" using cash? Southwest Airlines lists it as one of their accepted forms of payment:
Cash: Southwest Airlines accepts cash for payment of purchase at all airport ticket counter locations.
Don't let pesky little things like facts get in the way of a stupid post, though.
Yeah if don't want to be able to purchase things from 99.9% of stores out there.
What anonymous shopping? You can be traced with enough effort using cash, let alone the ease of tracking the vast majority of people using credit cards, debit cards or checks for purchases. What a fucking stupid headline and summary.
Microsoft hasn't even bought it yet. Secondly, Skype has already had 2 major outages in the last 4 years.
Dear Lover of 1984-Style Government (aka, a liberal):
You mean except for the fact that most of the pro-government rulings on commerce clause cases have had majority conservative justices? Yeah, let's ignore that completely.