IANAL, but the fact that the suit was filed in Florida tells me that its US law that has been infringed.
Question Two: these companies are registered in other countries - perhaps typosquatting is legal there?
Could be, and if said companies don't actually do business in the US, then Dell may be SOL; but if those companies have US assets, or even do business with US companies there could be consequences.
Question Three: How does one define typosquatting? dellstuff.com? delltrucking.com? dall.com?
Obviously which urls infringe and which do not will be up to the judge to decide. I suspect that intent plays a great part in this sort of case.
I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago.
You're joking right?
Stockwell Day was regularily burned in the media for his religious view. (which was odd when you consider his foot-in-mouth disease gave the media a near endless supply of stupid things they could have kept harping on)
In both of the last federal elections the media has made a big deal about Harper not campaigning on Sundays. Not to mention the numerous people who claimed that Harper was going to change the country into a church run state.
While its certainly true that religion is not as visible in our politics as in the US, don't pretend its not there.
And nothing I have ever read has indicated that "Earth probably has about another billion years of useful life left before the sun has its midlife crisis"; everything has always said 3 to 5 billion years.
No, you can't because all the technical reasons for why one is better or both are equal is a smoke screen. The real arguments can be boiled down to this:
I can hear a difference, and anyone who say otherwise is clearly deaf.
I can't hear a difference, and anyone who says they can clearly is imagining it.
Simply put, there is nothing that one side could say that would convince the other they are right because it has nothing to do with the tech and everything to do with the vinyl guys thinking the digitals are deaf, and the digitals thinking the vinyls are loons.
So.. Snopes readers... Who are generally somewhat cautious, skeptical or suspicious sorts, if only because they're most likely there to debunk some urban legend that's been going around... Are going to blindly install a shady virus scanner from a pop-up window ad.
I suspect that Snopes has two very distinct types of readers
The reasonably informed people who visit because its a well written site
The completely uninformed people who are there because the world is a scary place
The first group (which one presumes anyone here who visits Snopes falls into), are horrible people to make ad revenue off of. Our eyeballs are worth pratically nothing, so any marketing strategy they have might just as well not include us.
The second group however, is total gold. As TFA say, Snopes must be pulling down a fortune. Think of how many times someone who has some computer knowledge has refered a less knowledgable person there rather than explain why a certain email or story is complete crap on their own. It would not be surprising if a high percentage of the refered downloaded said spyware.
The article at the link suggests that a majority of NYU students would give up their right to vote for $1 million.
I don't know about NYU students, but my price would not be the same if it was just me losing the right vs millions of people losing their right; if it was some weird experiment involving just me, a million dollars sounds about right, but if it was an open offer to anyone and everyone who wanted it, I would turn it down (both because the vote I'd be keeping would be much more valuable, and because the hyper-inflation that would result from making most of the population millionaires would make being a millionaire worth a whole lot less)
It is named in honor of his father,
Julius Caesar Scaliger (note that this Julian Day is different from the
Julian calendar named for the Roman Emperor Julius Caesar!)
That was a very interesting post; I had not heard of that concept before. However, being intrigued by it I looked elsewhere for more information on it, and found that the information you posted was incorrect on one point
Note: although many references say that the Julian in "Julian day" refers to Scaliger's father, Julius Scaliger, in the introduction to Book V of his Opus de Emendatione Temporum ("Work on the Emendation of Time") he states, "Iulianum vocavimus: quia ad annum Iulianum dumtaxat accomodata est", which translates more or less as "We have called it Julian merely because it is accommodated to the Julian year." This Julian refers to Julius Caesar, who introduced the Julian calendar in 46 BC.
While it certainly wasn't nearly as bad as some of the abominations mentioned in the article, Compaq used to ship this incredibly annoying keyboard where the spacebar was divided into two keys, one of which was the spacebar and the other was a second backspace key. I can't begin to guess how many extra typos that stupid thing gave me.
The long answer - Bioware was founded by three doctors who wanted to develop medical software. Along the way their priorities got shifted and it became a gaming company; this move probably cause some strife as one of the original partners left back in 1997.
Anyways, for all the success they've had BioWare has always been a pretty small studio, and I can't help but wonder if the thought that they could be much bigger and even that much more successful is what led to them "joining forces" with a private equity fund in 2005.
In the end Bioware wasn't sold to EA by anyone who cares about video games; it was sold by VG Holding Corp, a branch of the investors Elevation Partners. They undoubtedly looked at the deal only in terms of the cash in hand vs potential earnings by holding on to the company.
Considering everything that EA gains from this, it was probably much more valuable to them than to the former owners, and as such EA's offer was likely very sweet from the perspective of the sellers.
Where'd you come up with that? That doesn't make sense. It's definitely harder and more expensive to produce good 'infotainment' than it would be to just simply report the news accurately.
I'll admit that I am just repeating what others have said before me (on slashdot, though not necessarily in this thread) without any actual numbers to back me up. But "doesn't make sense" ? I don't think you understand what I mean by infotainment. I don't mean real news made entertaining, I mean celebrity gossip and other such fluff.
Is is cheaper to have dozens of reporters spread out all over the country and the world, or have most of your news coming out of the LA area?
Is is cheaper to do hard hitting investigative reports about companys or sift through their press releases?
When something happens somewhere that you just can't get a reporter, is it cheaper to buy a full report from another network or give a fiftenn second summary while displaying a photo?
If you really think that infotainment is not the economical option, then how do you explain its propogation?
I know alot of people have slagged SIX-AXIS off, but I can't for the life of me think why.
Because from the moment Nintendo revealed the wiimote till the day Sony revealed the SIX-AXIS Sony's PR department ridiculed the idea of having motion sensors in a controller. All this was made much, much, worse by Sony fanbois who for months had some very crude things to say about a controller with motion sensors, only to change their minds over night.
My point is that many people hate the SIX-AXIS despite never having touched one, for reasons that have nothing to do with the technology itself and everything to do with the attitude of Sony and its fanbois.
Is the problem with TV News, the news itself or the audience which watches it?
Here's the problem with the theory that its the audience's fault. First, take that all potential audience members fall into one of these three groups:
people who would only watch a hard news show
people who would only watch an infotainment news show
people who would watch a news show regardless of whether it is hard news or infotainment
Then factor in that it is much, much, cheaper to air infotainment over hard news, and you will realize that group one would have to be significantly bigger than 2 and 3 combined for it to make economical sense to air real news.
You can argue that if a market existed for 1, someone would produce it. But such an argument is ignorant of the current cicumstances in tv. Just like in other media, tv execs are terrified of the risks that are associated with their business, and anytime they can reduce that risk they do. Infotainment has become the safe thing, and so for now, few would risk making their news show anything else.
The "Waiting in line for the big-box store to open for the day so I can maybe snag a Wii" seems to be a popular title this year. No supply shortages either.
That was pretty popular, but there was a cross platform game that was way more popular. It was called "Console Fanboi".
I don't think Ian Holm will be able to be cast as Bilbo...
While you are probably right, PJ seems to like doing things the hard way; I wouldn't be shocked if PJ cast Holmes then used a digital mask to de-age him. (I'm not predicting this, I just wouldn't be shocked by it)
Also, I agree with you that nobody knows or cares who played Gloin in FotR which makes it perfectly sensibly to cast John Rhys-Davies. (do the make-up a little different perhaps)
The guy did reasonably well at the box office, particularly with Timecop, and his career was taking off until... (can you guess?)... Rumble in the Bronx hit US shores.
I certainly can't disagree with your timeline; Timecop was in 1994, and Rumble in the Bronx was in 1995. But do you really think that is why he went away? Jackie Chan's movies are so very different than Van Damme's that I have trouble believing Chan killed off Van Damme's career. I would be more inclined to think that a series of box office bombs, starting with Street Fighter, are what killed his career.
I admit its been a very long time since I thought about this guy at all, but as I seem to remember his stardom came largely because the entertainment media had a real craving for there to be a new generation of action stars; Arnie and Sly had been front and centre for pretty much the entire 80s. Sure Van Damme made a couple of movies that made money, like Time Cop and Universal Soldier, but Time Cop was no T2, Universal Soldier was no Rambo, and Kickboxer was no Rocky.
So while he certainly was seen for a few years as the next Arnie/Sly, I don't think that title was ever really deserved, and don't think that any other star stole his thunder so much as he never really was that great, and the media got sick of promoting him as the next big thing when it never materialized.
So British AI researcher David Levy somehow got involved in the field of robotics without ever reading/viewing any of the hundreds of pieces of sci-fi on this exact topic (ie. he thinks this is an original idea of his)? Or perhaps he is aware of the sci-fi, but is egotistical enough to think that a researcher talking nebulously about the far future is somehow different than sci-fi.
Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes"
on
More Antarctic Dinosaurs
·
· Score: 3, Informative
By what mechanism?
The same mechanisms that are said to cause globabl warming today; CO2 levels for earth peaked in the triassic period at about 3000ppm (currently at 381ppm, under 300ppm pre-industrial revolution). The higher CO2 levels led to higher levels of water vapor, and the two together made earth a big greenhouse.
On a bit of a tangent, I saw an interesting documentary about four years ago where a group of scientists tried to deduce of all the things needed for life on earth, what would run out first. They came to the conclusion that CO2 levels would continue to fall, till Earth became incapable of supporting plant life, and as a result any higher life form.
I've wondered the same thing. The only danger I can see is if Pepsi gets wind of the break, and does a mega-blitz of its own right then.
If you accept the premise that everyone knows what Coke is, and will buy it or not buy it regardless of advertising, then a marketing blitz from Pepsi would be irrelevant.
Considering the Earth is a closed system with a fixed amount of resources
You might want to rethink that statement. Particularily with regard to energy, the Earth is far from a closed system. The sun is constantly adding outside energy to the Earth. The Earth meanwhile is constantly radiating and reflecting energy into space. None of these processes is consistant with the Earth being a closed system.
Now, consider India. Its people are wasting money on a space race and nuclear weapons.
I am certainly no expert on the situation in India, but I do not think it would be an understatement to say that India probably has a greater need for nuclear weapons than any other nation in the world save Israel. Since the moment the British pulled out of that region the different religious groups have been at each others' throats.
On one border India has Pakistan, a nation that was born out of the religious conflicts in the region, a nation where the destruction of India is high on the list of public wants, a nation that has nuclear weapons itself and most importantly, a nation that is in huge political turmoil. Its very conceivable that as early as next year nuclear weapons could be all that is keeping India from been bombed into nothing by Pakistan.
On another border India has China; although China is a much more stable nation than Pakistan, and would have much more to lose if it fired nukes at India, China is pratically a super power, has fought wars with India in the recent past, and continues to have disputes with India. Its conceivable that in the absence of nukes (in India) China might launch an invasion of India to assert its dominance in the region.
If I lived in India, I would not be at all upset at the military spending my government has done, because without it I would likely be dead.
it sounds like a rare instance of authorities caring more about safety than money
It could be, or it could be that the roads in question weren't built to handle the load truckers are putting on them and the authorities don't want to have to pay for the inevitable repairs. It also could be that this village is so small that it doesn't have a police force capable of the enforcement everyone else is suggesting.
Trying to guess where security will be in 10 years may be fun, but useless.
Just think back to 1997 and imgine how impossible it would have been to predict where things would be today. In 1997 state of the art was windows 95. In 1997 people were more worried about getting a virus from a floppy than over their network. In 1997 the word phishing didn't exist. In 1997, there had never been a virus that had been the top news story of the day. In 1997 most homes didn't have an internet connection, most businesses didn't have an internet connection, and the businesses that did rarely would have every desktop in the company able to go online. In 1997 many forms of active content that are now part of darn near every web page didn't exist. (I could go on, but you get the point)
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but the fact that the suit was filed in Florida tells me that its US law that has been infringed.
Question Two: these companies are registered in other countries - perhaps typosquatting is legal there?Could be, and if said companies don't actually do business in the US, then Dell may be SOL; but if those companies have US assets, or even do business with US companies there could be consequences.
Question Three: How does one define typosquatting? dellstuff.com? delltrucking.com? dall.com?Obviously which urls infringe and which do not will be up to the judge to decide. I suspect that intent plays a great part in this sort of case.
You're joking right?
Stockwell Day was regularily burned in the media for his religious view. (which was odd when you consider his foot-in-mouth disease gave the media a near endless supply of stupid things they could have kept harping on)
In both of the last federal elections the media has made a big deal about Harper not campaigning on Sundays. Not to mention the numerous people who claimed that Harper was going to change the country into a church run state.
While its certainly true that religion is not as visible in our politics as in the US, don't pretend its not there.
You might want to check your facts.
And nothing I have ever read has indicated that "Earth probably has about another billion years of useful life left before the sun has its midlife crisis"; everything has always said 3 to 5 billion years.
No, you can't because all the technical reasons for why one is better or both are equal is a smoke screen. The real arguments can be boiled down to this:
Simply put, there is nothing that one side could say that would convince the other they are right because it has nothing to do with the tech and everything to do with the vinyl guys thinking the digitals are deaf, and the digitals thinking the vinyls are loons.
I suspect that Snopes has two very distinct types of readers
The first group (which one presumes anyone here who visits Snopes falls into), are horrible people to make ad revenue off of. Our eyeballs are worth pratically nothing, so any marketing strategy they have might just as well not include us.
The second group however, is total gold. As TFA say, Snopes must be pulling down a fortune. Think of how many times someone who has some computer knowledge has refered a less knowledgable person there rather than explain why a certain email or story is complete crap on their own. It would not be surprising if a high percentage of the refered downloaded said spyware.
Make it horrible: "We will send hit men to your home and torture your family to death"
If the law firm protests about your "satire" let them show the real letter to prove the satire is unfair.
We are talking about a law firm here; they wouldn't show the real letter, they'd sue you for libel.
Watching Trek I've often wondered why the computer didn't think people were talking to it every time the word "computer" came up in conversation.
I don't know about NYU students, but my price would not be the same if it was just me losing the right vs millions of people losing their right; if it was some weird experiment involving just me, a million dollars sounds about right, but if it was an open offer to anyone and everyone who wanted it, I would turn it down (both because the vote I'd be keeping would be much more valuable, and because the hyper-inflation that would result from making most of the population millionaires would make being a millionaire worth a whole lot less)
That was a very interesting post; I had not heard of that concept before. However, being intrigued by it I looked elsewhere for more information on it, and found that the information you posted was incorrect on one point
Note: although many references say that the Julian in "Julian day" refers to Scaliger's father, Julius Scaliger, in the introduction to Book V of his Opus de Emendatione Temporum ("Work on the Emendation of Time") he states, "Iulianum vocavimus: quia ad annum Iulianum dumtaxat accomodata est", which translates more or less as "We have called it Julian merely because it is accommodated to the Julian year." This Julian refers to Julius Caesar, who introduced the Julian calendar in 46 BC.While it certainly wasn't nearly as bad as some of the abominations mentioned in the article, Compaq used to ship this incredibly annoying keyboard where the spacebar was divided into two keys, one of which was the spacebar and the other was a second backspace key. I can't begin to guess how many extra typos that stupid thing gave me.
The short answer - $
The long answer - Bioware was founded by three doctors who wanted to develop medical software. Along the way their priorities got shifted and it became a gaming company; this move probably cause some strife as one of the original partners left back in 1997.
Anyways, for all the success they've had BioWare has always been a pretty small studio, and I can't help but wonder if the thought that they could be much bigger and even that much more successful is what led to them "joining forces" with a private equity fund in 2005.
In the end Bioware wasn't sold to EA by anyone who cares about video games; it was sold by VG Holding Corp, a branch of the investors Elevation Partners. They undoubtedly looked at the deal only in terms of the cash in hand vs potential earnings by holding on to the company.
Considering everything that EA gains from this, it was probably much more valuable to them than to the former owners, and as such EA's offer was likely very sweet from the perspective of the sellers.
I'll admit that I am just repeating what others have said before me (on slashdot, though not necessarily in this thread) without any actual numbers to back me up. But "doesn't make sense" ? I don't think you understand what I mean by infotainment. I don't mean real news made entertaining, I mean celebrity gossip and other such fluff.
Is is cheaper to have dozens of reporters spread out all over the country and the world, or have most of your news coming out of the LA area?
Is is cheaper to do hard hitting investigative reports about companys or sift through their press releases?
When something happens somewhere that you just can't get a reporter, is it cheaper to buy a full report from another network or give a fiftenn second summary while displaying a photo?
If you really think that infotainment is not the economical option, then how do you explain its propogation?
Because from the moment Nintendo revealed the wiimote till the day Sony revealed the SIX-AXIS Sony's PR department ridiculed the idea of having motion sensors in a controller. All this was made much, much, worse by Sony fanbois who for months had some very crude things to say about a controller with motion sensors, only to change their minds over night.
My point is that many people hate the SIX-AXIS despite never having touched one, for reasons that have nothing to do with the technology itself and everything to do with the attitude of Sony and its fanbois.
Here's the problem with the theory that its the audience's fault. First, take that all potential audience members fall into one of these three groups:
Then factor in that it is much, much, cheaper to air infotainment over hard news, and you will realize that group one would have to be significantly bigger than 2 and 3 combined for it to make economical sense to air real news.
You can argue that if a market existed for 1, someone would produce it. But such an argument is ignorant of the current cicumstances in tv. Just like in other media, tv execs are terrified of the risks that are associated with their business, and anytime they can reduce that risk they do. Infotainment has become the safe thing, and so for now, few would risk making their news show anything else.
That was pretty popular, but there was a cross platform game that was way more popular. It was called "Console Fanboi".
While you are probably right, PJ seems to like doing things the hard way; I wouldn't be shocked if PJ cast Holmes then used a digital mask to de-age him. (I'm not predicting this, I just wouldn't be shocked by it)
Also, I agree with you that nobody knows or cares who played Gloin in FotR which makes it perfectly sensibly to cast John Rhys-Davies. (do the make-up a little different perhaps)
I certainly can't disagree with your timeline; Timecop was in 1994, and Rumble in the Bronx was in 1995. But do you really think that is why he went away? Jackie Chan's movies are so very different than Van Damme's that I have trouble believing Chan killed off Van Damme's career. I would be more inclined to think that a series of box office bombs, starting with Street Fighter, are what killed his career.
I admit its been a very long time since I thought about this guy at all, but as I seem to remember his stardom came largely because the entertainment media had a real craving for there to be a new generation of action stars; Arnie and Sly had been front and centre for pretty much the entire 80s. Sure Van Damme made a couple of movies that made money, like Time Cop and Universal Soldier, but Time Cop was no T2, Universal Soldier was no Rambo, and Kickboxer was no Rocky.
So while he certainly was seen for a few years as the next Arnie/Sly, I don't think that title was ever really deserved, and don't think that any other star stole his thunder so much as he never really was that great, and the media got sick of promoting him as the next big thing when it never materialized.
So British AI researcher David Levy somehow got involved in the field of robotics without ever reading/viewing any of the hundreds of pieces of sci-fi on this exact topic (ie. he thinks this is an original idea of his)? Or perhaps he is aware of the sci-fi, but is egotistical enough to think that a researcher talking nebulously about the far future is somehow different than sci-fi.
... or tubular.
The same mechanisms that are said to cause globabl warming today; CO2 levels for earth peaked in the triassic period at about 3000ppm (currently at 381ppm, under 300ppm pre-industrial revolution). The higher CO2 levels led to higher levels of water vapor, and the two together made earth a big greenhouse.
Reference
On a bit of a tangent, I saw an interesting documentary about four years ago where a group of scientists tried to deduce of all the things needed for life on earth, what would run out first. They came to the conclusion that CO2 levels would continue to fall, till Earth became incapable of supporting plant life, and as a result any higher life form.
If you accept the premise that everyone knows what Coke is, and will buy it or not buy it regardless of advertising, then a marketing blitz from Pepsi would be irrelevant.
You might want to rethink that statement. Particularily with regard to energy, the Earth is far from a closed system. The sun is constantly adding outside energy to the Earth. The Earth meanwhile is constantly radiating and reflecting energy into space. None of these processes is consistant with the Earth being a closed system.
I am certainly no expert on the situation in India, but I do not think it would be an understatement to say that India probably has a greater need for nuclear weapons than any other nation in the world save Israel. Since the moment the British pulled out of that region the different religious groups have been at each others' throats.
On one border India has Pakistan, a nation that was born out of the religious conflicts in the region, a nation where the destruction of India is high on the list of public wants, a nation that has nuclear weapons itself and most importantly, a nation that is in huge political turmoil. Its very conceivable that as early as next year nuclear weapons could be all that is keeping India from been bombed into nothing by Pakistan.
On another border India has China; although China is a much more stable nation than Pakistan, and would have much more to lose if it fired nukes at India, China is pratically a super power, has fought wars with India in the recent past, and continues to have disputes with India. Its conceivable that in the absence of nukes (in India) China might launch an invasion of India to assert its dominance in the region.
If I lived in India, I would not be at all upset at the military spending my government has done, because without it I would likely be dead.
It could be, or it could be that the roads in question weren't built to handle the load truckers are putting on them and the authorities don't want to have to pay for the inevitable repairs. It also could be that this village is so small that it doesn't have a police force capable of the enforcement everyone else is suggesting.
Trying to guess where security will be in 10 years may be fun, but useless.
Just think back to 1997 and imgine how impossible it would have been to predict where things would be today. In 1997 state of the art was windows 95. In 1997 people were more worried about getting a virus from a floppy than over their network. In 1997 the word phishing didn't exist. In 1997, there had never been a virus that had been the top news story of the day. In 1997 most homes didn't have an internet connection, most businesses didn't have an internet connection, and the businesses that did rarely would have every desktop in the company able to go online. In 1997 many forms of active content that are now part of darn near every web page didn't exist. (I could go on, but you get the point)