I like your Ford analogy better. The legal term is "tarnish", and you're right about it: If you put a McDonalds picture in an article about fast food's detrimental effects on health, you could get in trouble for it. You could avoid the trouble by using a loophole for newsworthy content, by simply adding a caption about how "McDonalds serves over 9000 burgers every day, making over 9000 people fatter." It certainly wouldn't make McDonalds executives happy to talk to your reporters, but you could probably avoid legal problems.
How about a simple concept called tarnishment? Also, just because this is the first C&D you've heard about, does not mean it's the first that's been sent. Similarly, if a newspaper asks to use the image, the NYSE might be very liberal in what they'll give permission for. The widespread use of an image does not mean it's lost its distinction, and even if NYSE had failed to protect its trademark completely, that's just one of many criteria for considering whether the trademark is still valid.
Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner.
So there's this news article about the FBI and investment companies, and TPM threw NYSE's trademark on there because... um... why, exactly? Well, maybe because it's a generic "stock trading" image that people will recognize, but it's not generic. It's a trademark. Putting the NYSE image on an unrelated article reinforces the idea that the NYSE is generic, and that certainly would "lessen its uniqueness".
Looks like dilution to me. Reading the actual C&D letter, the NYSE is not at all requesting censorship of the article. They just want the picture removed so they aren't directly associated with an insider trading investigation.
And yet, it's the most recognizable image of the NYSE. Personally, I can't recognize the building on sight, or their logo, but I can immediately tell the NYSE trading floor from others. It makes perfect sense for them to make a bit of a fuss about the use of the image, just so later they can complain louder when somebody uses an image of the trading floor in a way that's actually a problem.
NYSE is an exchange company. They are not investors, they do not tell banks to accept bad loans, and don't really do much of anything that caused the recession. Blaming NYSE is like blaming Ford for a bank robbery, because the robbers drove a Ford getaway car.
The news story wasn't directly about that company, though. It was about an overzealous FBI agent revealing an FBI investigation into an insider trading scheme. By throwing the trading floor picture onto the article, the publisher implies that NYSE itself is a part of the insider trading.
The NYSE is perfectly justified in using the legal system to stop libel and trademark dilution. That's probably what their perspective is, and I doubt very much this will ever even reach a court. They sent a letter. There's no indication of a lawsuit yet, but they've made enough fuss to show they're protecting their trademark.
The NYSE has a reputation to uphold, like any other organization. The trading floor is as recognizable at the Coca-Cola ribbon, so why shouldn't it be a trademark? 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? Perhaps more to the point, why should they let a trademark be diluted, facing potential problems later?
Corel PhotoTRACE was out in 1993, and produced results comparable to the Live Trace examples in the PDF. Such results are far inferior to this algorithm in most of the provided examples.
Very simply, now: I'm implying that the dolphin picture looks like it's an original. That's because the program works. I'm really very impressed by it.
Since I can't read the PDF, I'm forced to infer from the dolphin picture that the "research" consisted of digging through Nintendo's archives and finding original sketches. I'm not very impressed by that.
I'd argue that the most important (and often-missed) concept for an introductory programming course is understanding program flow. If I ever were to teach an introductory course, this would be my first example:
PRINT "Cats"
PRINT "run"
END
PRINT "quickly"
Yep, that's good ol' QBASIC. C++ or any such "better" language is not as good a choice, because of the extra braces, includes, and other potential for cargo-cult programming. Every character in this example can be explained easily to someone with no knowledge of programming.
The example illustrates very plainly that the program starts from the top, and goes down. Certain actions (like ending the program) alter the flow, so further statements don't take effect. Eventually, when branching and loops are introduced, this example would be revisited.
To explain functions, you simply point out that that name, which you've defined elsewhere, tells the processor to jump elsewhere to follow the next instructions, and later "return" with some result. After that, you point out the similarity to algebra's f(x) notation, and mention the ability for code reuse.
I don't want a line, and I'm certainly not going to pick some arbitrary place to put it. Why must there be any particular set of arcane knowledge required to access a given technology? Shouldn't one of the goals of interface design be to make features accessible to the widest array of users possible?
Apparently, somebody involved in the Fedora project didn't like the necessity of the iptables commands, and preferred making a nice GUI. That's a great benefit to someone like me, who changes their firewall once every six months or so. On the other hand, I detest the "Windows way" where every configuration setting is a GUI option, and the command-line tools are barely sufficient to get a GUI working after a failure.
I want the best of both. I want a powerful command line, and an easy-to-learn GUI. I don't want to spend three hours reading a manual just to run a basic function. I don't want to trim functionality down to what the dumbest user can handle. I want options, and I want them to be available to everybody. No, you won't get the same exclusivity and elitism from having more UI options, but it'll help make Linux a viable option for more people. Why draw a line to cut out anybody?
If you and other people maintain this silly attitude that users should learn everything before using a basic tools, there is no end in sight. Next you will be telling us you should have to memorize a thousand-page manual and take a certification exam to operate a text editor.
There's a few problems with your post. First, the story is about a management application, which shouldn't know anything about how recently-useful a rule was. Also, self-expiring rules would be a maintenance nightmare for any resource that's accessed only occasionally.
"It's broken, okay?" is not a persuasive argument. Please do continue trolling. I find it entertaining. Next time, though, please be a bit more subtle.
I don't need to know how to disassemble and rebuild the engine in order to drive. I don't need to know how the transmission works, or the brakes, or the windshield wipers' intermittent timer. I just need to know that they will work as needed, when needed. When they don't work, I can get somebody else to fix them.
This applies to computers, as well. I don't really need to know how the ALU works, I don't need to know the Ethernet protocols, and I don't need to know the commands to directly manipulate a firewall. Does that somehow make me ineligible to use a computer?
Not by much, in this case. The researchers collected a very small collection of similar anecdotes. They have 22 subjects, apparently going through a single experimental cycle (control and test each, I think). There is no indication of what kind of games were played, or what long-term effects might be. The results apply only to a single session of gaming, and not to habitual gamers. The headline is crap as usual, and the study doesn't really involve correlation vs. causation at all.
Sure it does. A malevolent company could release something older as OSS to promote something newer. Victims come for the free stuff, then get pressured towards the Latest Greatest Thing to get a few missing (vital) features. The license for Latest Greatest Thing forbids use of the open version across the entire organization, so everybody's now locked into using the new (and expensive) product. "Open Source" effectively becomes a marketing gimmick for a trial version of a product.
I can. It's an animal toy. The patent does not cover sticks in general, unless they are used as animal toys. More importantly, the patent covers manufactured sticks, made from pressed cellulose or treated wood, infused with flavorings or scents. If challenged, the plain-stick part probably wouldn't hold up. The idea of a flavored, scented stick as an animal toy, made from what could be recycled sawdust, is actually pretty interesting to me.
That category can include things that you can answer about if asked, but wouldn't think to mention them if asked to tell about everything. An example would be to consider the clocks within sight of you right now. If you wanted to know the time you'd know the easiest clock to look at, but you likely wouldn't think of every clock if asked to list them off.
The TV series MacGyver was built on the concept of everything being an asset. That same concept can be applied to many situations, especially when adding more of something is expensive. As an example in a corporate setting, knowing the CPU utilization of every server is often an "unknown known". Such information is easily retrieved, but managers will often just purchase a new server instead, driving up costs.
For a government fact site, I cannot imagine what the category might hold, but it's not an oxymoron in itself.
It's a legitimate concern. Raising taxes does more than just divert money toward government. There's a significant psychological aspect to consider. If I (as a hypothetical executive) know that my company will have to pay more for taxes, I'll try harder to make sure I can avoid as much of that bill as possible. More money can be pushed to foreign divisions, and more convenient deductible expenses will be purchased (and perhaps sold off later as a "failed project"). Maybe I'll find enough loopholes that I'd end up saving more than the new taxes cost!
Any tax increase would need to be studied carefully. Questioning any particular statement does not make one "stupid as a rock". Rather, I'd say it makes one "cautious".
How exactly does NAFTA make you exempt from US's policies, when dealing with a US company on US soil? My understanding is that NAFTA provides an easy process to work in any of the three countries, and removes tariffs on traded goods. I don't recall (nor can I find) any provision requiring citizenship-based exemptions from laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I like your Ford analogy better. The legal term is "tarnish", and you're right about it: If you put a McDonalds picture in an article about fast food's detrimental effects on health, you could get in trouble for it. You could avoid the trouble by using a loophole for newsworthy content, by simply adding a caption about how "McDonalds serves over 9000 burgers every day, making over 9000 people fatter." It certainly wouldn't make McDonalds executives happy to talk to your reporters, but you could probably avoid legal problems.
How about a simple concept called tarnishment? Also, just because this is the first C&D you've heard about, does not mean it's the first that's been sent. Similarly, if a newspaper asks to use the image, the NYSE might be very liberal in what they'll give permission for. The widespread use of an image does not mean it's lost its distinction, and even if NYSE had failed to protect its trademark completely, that's just one of many criteria for considering whether the trademark is still valid.
Yep. I watch the news a few times a week. I know well enough what the NYSE looks like.
Gee, maybe I'm wrong. Let's go look it up real quick...
Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner.
So there's this news article about the FBI and investment companies, and TPM threw NYSE's trademark on there because... um... why, exactly? Well, maybe because it's a generic "stock trading" image that people will recognize, but it's not generic. It's a trademark. Putting the NYSE image on an unrelated article reinforces the idea that the NYSE is generic, and that certainly would "lessen its uniqueness".
Looks like dilution to me. Reading the actual C&D letter, the NYSE is not at all requesting censorship of the article. They just want the picture removed so they aren't directly associated with an insider trading investigation.
And yet, it's the most recognizable image of the NYSE. Personally, I can't recognize the building on sight, or their logo, but I can immediately tell the NYSE trading floor from others. It makes perfect sense for them to make a bit of a fuss about the use of the image, just so later they can complain louder when somebody uses an image of the trading floor in a way that's actually a problem.
The article in question isn't about the NYSE, though. It's about an FBI investigation. Attaching a NYSE trademark implies that NYSE is involved.
NYSE is an exchange company. They are not investors, they do not tell banks to accept bad loans, and don't really do much of anything that caused the recession. Blaming NYSE is like blaming Ford for a bank robbery, because the robbers drove a Ford getaway car.
The news story wasn't directly about that company, though. It was about an overzealous FBI agent revealing an FBI investigation into an insider trading scheme. By throwing the trading floor picture onto the article, the publisher implies that NYSE itself is a part of the insider trading.
The NYSE is perfectly justified in using the legal system to stop libel and trademark dilution. That's probably what their perspective is, and I doubt very much this will ever even reach a court. They sent a letter. There's no indication of a lawsuit yet, but they've made enough fuss to show they're protecting their trademark.
The NYSE has a reputation to uphold, like any other organization. The trading floor is as recognizable at the Coca-Cola ribbon, so why shouldn't it be a trademark? 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? Perhaps more to the point, why should they let a trademark be diluted, facing potential problems later?
I see nothing to be outraged about here.
Corel PhotoTRACE was out in 1993, and produced results comparable to the Live Trace examples in the PDF. Such results are far inferior to this algorithm in most of the provided examples.
Very simply, now: I'm implying that the dolphin picture looks like it's an original. That's because the program works. I'm really very impressed by it.
Since I can't read the PDF, I'm forced to infer from the dolphin picture that the "research" consisted of digging through Nintendo's archives and finding original sketches. I'm not very impressed by that.
There's more to it than that, even.
I'd argue that the most important (and often-missed) concept for an introductory programming course is understanding program flow. If I ever were to teach an introductory course, this would be my first example:
PRINT "Cats"
PRINT "run"
END
PRINT "quickly"
Yep, that's good ol' QBASIC. C++ or any such "better" language is not as good a choice, because of the extra braces, includes, and other potential for cargo-cult programming. Every character in this example can be explained easily to someone with no knowledge of programming.
The example illustrates very plainly that the program starts from the top, and goes down. Certain actions (like ending the program) alter the flow, so further statements don't take effect. Eventually, when branching and loops are introduced, this example would be revisited.
To explain functions, you simply point out that that name, which you've defined elsewhere, tells the processor to jump elsewhere to follow the next instructions, and later "return" with some result. After that, you point out the similarity to algebra's f(x) notation, and mention the ability for code reuse.
I don't want a line, and I'm certainly not going to pick some arbitrary place to put it. Why must there be any particular set of arcane knowledge required to access a given technology? Shouldn't one of the goals of interface design be to make features accessible to the widest array of users possible?
Apparently, somebody involved in the Fedora project didn't like the necessity of the iptables commands, and preferred making a nice GUI. That's a great benefit to someone like me, who changes their firewall once every six months or so. On the other hand, I detest the "Windows way" where every configuration setting is a GUI option, and the command-line tools are barely sufficient to get a GUI working after a failure.
I want the best of both. I want a powerful command line, and an easy-to-learn GUI. I don't want to spend three hours reading a manual just to run a basic function. I don't want to trim functionality down to what the dumbest user can handle. I want options, and I want them to be available to everybody. No, you won't get the same exclusivity and elitism from having more UI options, but it'll help make Linux a viable option for more people. Why draw a line to cut out anybody?
If you and other people maintain this silly attitude that users should learn everything before using a basic tools, there is no end in sight. Next you will be telling us you should have to memorize a thousand-page manual and take a certification exam to operate a text editor.
Oh look, it's a troll!
There's a few problems with your post. First, the story is about a management application, which shouldn't know anything about how recently-useful a rule was. Also, self-expiring rules would be a maintenance nightmare for any resource that's accessed only occasionally.
"It's broken, okay?" is not a persuasive argument. Please do continue trolling. I find it entertaining. Next time, though, please be a bit more subtle.
I don't need to know how to disassemble and rebuild the engine in order to drive. I don't need to know how the transmission works, or the brakes, or the windshield wipers' intermittent timer. I just need to know that they will work as needed, when needed. When they don't work, I can get somebody else to fix them.
This applies to computers, as well. I don't really need to know how the ALU works, I don't need to know the Ethernet protocols, and I don't need to know the commands to directly manipulate a firewall. Does that somehow make me ineligible to use a computer?
Not by much, in this case. The researchers collected a very small collection of similar anecdotes. They have 22 subjects, apparently going through a single experimental cycle (control and test each, I think). There is no indication of what kind of games were played, or what long-term effects might be. The results apply only to a single session of gaming, and not to habitual gamers. The headline is crap as usual, and the study doesn't really involve correlation vs. causation at all.
Sure it does. A malevolent company could release something older as OSS to promote something newer. Victims come for the free stuff, then get pressured towards the Latest Greatest Thing to get a few missing (vital) features. The license for Latest Greatest Thing forbids use of the open version across the entire organization, so everybody's now locked into using the new (and expensive) product. "Open Source" effectively becomes a marketing gimmick for a trial version of a product.
I can. It's an animal toy. The patent does not cover sticks in general, unless they are used as animal toys. More importantly, the patent covers manufactured sticks, made from pressed cellulose or treated wood, infused with flavorings or scents. If challenged, the plain-stick part probably wouldn't hold up. The idea of a flavored, scented stick as an animal toy, made from what could be recycled sawdust, is actually pretty interesting to me.
That category can include things that you can answer about if asked, but wouldn't think to mention them if asked to tell about everything. An example would be to consider the clocks within sight of you right now. If you wanted to know the time you'd know the easiest clock to look at, but you likely wouldn't think of every clock if asked to list them off.
The TV series MacGyver was built on the concept of everything being an asset. That same concept can be applied to many situations, especially when adding more of something is expensive. As an example in a corporate setting, knowing the CPU utilization of every server is often an "unknown known". Such information is easily retrieved, but managers will often just purchase a new server instead, driving up costs.
For a government fact site, I cannot imagine what the category might hold, but it's not an oxymoron in itself.
It's a legitimate concern. Raising taxes does more than just divert money toward government. There's a significant psychological aspect to consider. If I (as a hypothetical executive) know that my company will have to pay more for taxes, I'll try harder to make sure I can avoid as much of that bill as possible. More money can be pushed to foreign divisions, and more convenient deductible expenses will be purchased (and perhaps sold off later as a "failed project"). Maybe I'll find enough loopholes that I'd end up saving more than the new taxes cost!
Any tax increase would need to be studied carefully. Questioning any particular statement does not make one "stupid as a rock". Rather, I'd say it makes one "cautious".
Why do you think people in corporations or government are any different than you or me?
Do you really think any CEO wakes up every morning and says "Today, I'm going to screw over the little guy!"?
How exactly does NAFTA make you exempt from US's policies, when dealing with a US company on US soil? My understanding is that NAFTA provides an easy process to work in any of the three countries, and removes tariffs on traded goods. I don't recall (nor can I find) any provision requiring citizenship-based exemptions from laws.
How, exactly? What treaty says that the US laws can't apply to Canadians when they do business in the US?
...so you're saying that Enterprise Grammar Solutions is as functional as any other "enterprise" solution?