That was from a deal originally negotiated when Microsoft had the upper hand. The issue is really more about Apple's behavior now that it has reached a dominant position.
Unfortunately they can fight it, and have continued to fight even after the death of megaupload. Almost every filesharing service which was predominant two years ago has folded or has severely tightened its policies. Almost none of them now accept paypal; you have to pay with a credit card or wire transfer using some dodgy offshore middleman.
And once "me.ga" is deemed an outlaw business by the USA, then subscribing to the service, or advertising on the service, or linking to the service will be considered "terrorism" or "money laundering" or some other highly criminal activity. So, Kim Dotcom's new service might prosper, but it will not be something that American citizens will be able to share in. We'll still be held hostage by the MAFIAA, as usual.
They haven't gotten away with it. They've already paid tremendous fines to the EU.
The point is to prevent them doing it again.
Why not? Microsoft no longer has the power to leverage their monopoly into web traffic. Worldwide, mobile web traffic share continues to increase and in some markets is on the verge of eclipsing desktop traffic, a trend that is likely to continue no matter what Microsoft does. When will Apple and Google be forced to offer browser selection? At what point does the already wounded giant get to compete on a level playing field?
Be that as it may, the fine should in my opinion be commensurate with the severity of the wrong. Microsoft has a dwindling brower share of a dwindling platform. It's impossible for it to dominate the internet anymore - as of late, Apple and Google have both proven themselves more adept at doing so. You don't throw people in prison for jaywalking; a fine of billions of euros would seem more like spitefulness than a reasoned response to a minor violation.
Also, there are plenty of free Logo/turtle graphics programs available for android devices. You can set your kid up with a 7-inch tablet, which has all the power of the desktop computers we had back in the day along with the portability of our handheld calculators.
With 4.2 million files, given the probability of SHA-1 collisions plus the birthday paradox and there will be around 500 SHA-1 collisions which are not duplicates.
That's totally, completely wrong. The birthday problem isn't a breakthrough concept, and the probability of random SHA-1 collisions is therefore calculated with it in mind. The number is known to be 1/2^80. This is straightforwardly derived from the total number of SHA-1 values, 2^160, which is then immensely reduced by the birthday paradox to 2^80 expected hashes required for a collision. This means that a hard drive with 2^80 or 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 files would have on average ONE collision. Note that this is a different number than the number of hashes one has to generate for a targeted cryptographic SHA-1 attack, which with best current theory is on the order of 2^51 for the full 80-round SHA-1, although as Goaway has pointed out, no such collision has yet been found.
Frankly I'm at a loss as to how you arrived at 500 SHA-1 collisions out of 4.2 million files. That's ludicrous. Any crypto hashing function with such a high collision rate would be useless. Much worse than MD5, even.
My wife has hundreds of classics which she downloaded but has not read. I have downloaded some things on a "free for today" offer, read a page and then just discarded them. I wonder if these are included in the ebook sales. TFA doesn't not say.
TFA: The online retailer said that for every 100 print books bought through its UK site, it sold 112 Kindle books. Free Kindle books were excluded from the calculations and if included would have made the gap even wider, Amazon said.
TIme Warner Inc. (TWX), which owns HBO and many other premium properties, and Time Warner Cable (TWC), which owns the Time Warner cable network that cable users pay for monthly, are two separate companies, and have been so since 2009.
By definition, a scroll bar is a widget that can be used to scroll through a list or document. Apple's patent is for something which is purely an indicator. You can't move it around like you can with a scroll bar slider, although it will change vertical position based upon your finger scrolling thru your list.
The part that you highlighted, "approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person" is regarding third party endorsements. In other words, the statute is referring to when, for example, a celebrity is made to look like they endorse a particular product when in fact they do not. Which, as I explained earlier, is why sub(A) is not pertinent to this discussion. Here's a 9th circuit decision mentioning this matter. It says, in part:
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), prohibits the use of false designations of origin, false descriptions, and false representations in the advertising and sale of goods and services. Waits' claim under section 43(a) is premised on the theory that by using an imitation of his distinctive voice in an admitted parody of a Tom Waits song, the defendants misrepresented his association with and endorsement of SalsaRio Doritos.
At this point, if you still care about this matter, I can only suggest that you research the subject on your own or find an attorney who will be willing to look up further case law.
Oops, you're right on both counts. First, I meant to say 28% more pixels and 7% more pixels. Second, yes, the aspect ratio of my anus is definitely different than the iPad.
It seems to me that since you're now admitting that other solutions rather than litigation might be preferable, in other words, that it's not an "open and shut case" as you previously asserted, then we're done. But, regarding the statutory issue you raised, I'd suggest taking a look at this article, where it points out that the provision of the Lanham Act which you cited, S 43(a)(1)(B) contains the requirement
that the challenged description or representation be made “in commercial advertising or promotion.” That provision was added to address First Amendment concerns by excluding from the reach of Section 43(a)(1)(B) “political promotion” and “‘consumer or editorial content, parodies, satires, or other constitutionally protected material.’”...Perhaps for this reason, the courts—to the extent they consider the statutory language at all—frequently focus on whether a defendant is engaged in advertising or promotion, rather than on whether the challenged description or representation is commercial speech.
In other words, there's only a violation under sub(B) of this statute when "advertising or promotion" is taking place. MS Forefront Threat Management Gateway isn't for the purpose of advertising or promotion; it's arguably a type of editorial service. And sub(A) doesn't really apply here, it's more concerning a situation where say hypothetically Microsoft had started referring to itself as the "Fun Software Foundation" so they could start saying "Richard Stallman loves us. We're the FSF, after all."
As well, see here. I still contend that none of this stuff has anything to do with making a mistake in rating a website.
Laws don't "prove" anything. Winning a case in court proves something. If Lanham applied here, and if this was a slam-dunk, then FSF would be litigating right now, especially given Stallman's antipathy toward Microsoft. The fact that they aren't should tell you something. If at some point they change their minds, and take MS to court, and prevail, I'll happily eat crow.
You're calling it a "real let-down" before even glancing at it. The new iPad only has 28% greater pixel density on the short axis and 7% on the long one. In other words, the TF700 has 27% fewer pixels overall. The difference is probably noticeable for someone with sharp vision, but not huge. In fact, the TF700 has almost the same (slightly more) pixel density as the new "retina" MacBook Pro. So it could share the "retina" moniker were it not trademarked for Apple machines.
That theory fails to account for one thing: Cui bono?
How does Microsoft possibly stand to gain by effectively drawing more attention to FSF's campaign? Because that's the only conceiveable outcome to such a ham-fisted method of thwarting an opponent. Well that and destroying their clients' trust in their security suite. All to stop a minuscule percentage of the Internet (the small group consisting of the intersection of MS Forefront users and free-software enthusiasts) from looking at a homepage panel.
Or do people think that MS somehow thought they could squash the FSF's website with nobody in the tech world noticing it was off the Internet, and mua-ha-ha mission accomplished; now there's no one to stand in the way of Secure Boot!
Like most conspiracy theories, this requires the evil villain to have wickedly schemed 20 steps ahead of everyone else (step one, plant a birth announcement in a Seattle newspaper in 1955) yet somehow incapable of seeing the simple obvious flaws in the master plan.
I'm gonna make up a theory that Stallman sabotaged MS's security himself in order to cleverly mock the notion of Microsoft "secure"-ing anything, boot or otherwise. And to remind people that FSF still exists.
FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena. Microsoft isn't secretly mucking with dns or some other blatantly illegal action. Client corporations voluntarily elect to use Microsoft's security software to control their own traffic. MS makes no claims that it is 100% accurate. Additionally, MS has procedures in place to correct a misclassification. And even if they didn't, there's no standard by which third-party private web filters are actionable, other than say, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. But in that case, the proper plaintiff would be Microsoft's customer, not FSF.
Oh, FSF might lose some donations? How is that MS's problem? FSF's suing Microsoft is like advertisers suing the makers of NoScript and Adblock for depriving them of eyeballs.
Your parent is agreeing that it's a mistake. But probably a mistake due to a slightly overzealous filter as opposed to gross incompetence. Even highly competent individuals/organizations make mistakes.
In this context, an innocent would be normal taken to mean, e.g. a child or an uninvolved passerby, as opposed to say a dealer, supplier or someone else in the criminal chain who doesn't have clean hands with respect to the drug trade.
Any drug store where they sell this test would have condoms as well, so yes they are still an option. Obviously GP meant "may be the only TESTING option available for some people." And there's not one person on this thread suggesting (other than you) that getting a negative result on this test means it's okay to go have unprotected sex, or that somehow the fact that you have tested negative means you're required to go bareback. In fact, others have mentioned that HIV or no, unprotected sex is risky and shouldn't be practiced in the sort of situation that you'd find yourself in if you're using this test.
Furthermore, you're consistently making the assumption that 100% of the people who take a home test are idiots who can't read warnings that state that the test only has a 93% success rate. Certainly if a test like this were marketed, that fact would be required to be part of the advertising. 93% may seem low but as far as medical diagnoses go, it's fairly good. It would surprise me if even a good doctor had a 93% accuracy rate in terms of overall diagnostic skill. Should we stop using physicians as well?
The appeal of this test is that there is a population of people who would not otherwise get tested at all but would still engage in sexual activity. Those people are still going to want to have sex, except that now, out of the ones who are HIV infected, 93% of their partners will be able to make an informed decision. And yes, the remaining 7% won't. But they would not have made an informed decision anyway, because they would not have been tested anyway.
Example. John's father buys $100,000 worth of stock for him at birth. He continues to hold onto that stock his entire life. Due to the value of the stock increasing over the years, at John's death, his holdings are worth $10 million. At no point did John or anyone pay tax on the capital gains of $9,900,000.
Slashdot Mirror
That was from a deal originally negotiated when Microsoft had the upper hand. The issue is really more about Apple's behavior now that it has reached a dominant position.
Unfortunately they can fight it, and have continued to fight even after the death of megaupload. Almost every filesharing service which was predominant two years ago has folded or has severely tightened its policies. Almost none of them now accept paypal; you have to pay with a credit card or wire transfer using some dodgy offshore middleman.
And once "me.ga" is deemed an outlaw business by the USA, then subscribing to the service, or advertising on the service, or linking to the service will be considered "terrorism" or "money laundering" or some other highly criminal activity. So, Kim Dotcom's new service might prosper, but it will not be something that American citizens will be able to share in. We'll still be held hostage by the MAFIAA, as usual.
They haven't gotten away with it. They've already paid tremendous fines to the EU.
Why not? Microsoft no longer has the power to leverage their monopoly into web traffic. Worldwide, mobile web traffic share continues to increase and in some markets is on the verge of eclipsing desktop traffic, a trend that is likely to continue no matter what Microsoft does. When will Apple and Google be forced to offer browser selection? At what point does the already wounded giant get to compete on a level playing field?
Be that as it may, the fine should in my opinion be commensurate with the severity of the wrong. Microsoft has a dwindling brower share of a dwindling platform. It's impossible for it to dominate the internet anymore - as of late, Apple and Google have both proven themselves more adept at doing so. You don't throw people in prison for jaywalking; a fine of billions of euros would seem more like spitefulness than a reasoned response to a minor violation.
The planet is 6 million km from B, or roughly 10x closer than Mercury-sun.
A and B are roughly 3.5 billion km from each other, or roughly the Sun-Uranus distance.
So, no.
Also, there are plenty of free Logo/turtle graphics programs available for android devices. You can set your kid up with a 7-inch tablet, which has all the power of the desktop computers we had back in the day along with the portability of our handheld calculators.
That's totally, completely wrong. The birthday problem isn't a breakthrough concept, and the probability of random SHA-1 collisions is therefore calculated with it in mind. The number is known to be 1/2^80. This is straightforwardly derived from the total number of SHA-1 values, 2^160, which is then immensely reduced by the birthday paradox to 2^80 expected hashes required for a collision. This means that a hard drive with 2^80 or 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 files would have on average ONE collision. Note that this is a different number than the number of hashes one has to generate for a targeted cryptographic SHA-1 attack, which with best current theory is on the order of 2^51 for the full 80-round SHA-1, although as Goaway has pointed out, no such collision has yet been found.
Frankly I'm at a loss as to how you arrived at 500 SHA-1 collisions out of 4.2 million files. That's ludicrous. Any crypto hashing function with such a high collision rate would be useless. Much worse than MD5, even.
My wife has hundreds of classics which she downloaded but has not read. I have downloaded some things on a "free for today" offer, read a page and then just discarded them. I wonder if these are included in the ebook sales. TFA doesn't not say.
TFA: The online retailer said that for every 100 print books bought through its UK site, it sold 112 Kindle books. Free Kindle books were excluded from the calculations and if included would have made the gap even wider, Amazon said.
TIme Warner Inc. (TWX), which owns HBO and many other premium properties, and Time Warner Cable (TWC), which owns the Time Warner cable network that cable users pay for monthly, are two separate companies, and have been so since 2009.
By definition, a scroll bar is a widget that can be used to scroll through a list or document. Apple's patent is for something which is purely an indicator. You can't move it around like you can with a scroll bar slider, although it will change vertical position based upon your finger scrolling thru your list.
I agree with you here. But see my above as to why sub(A) is not germane to this topic.
The part that you highlighted, "approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person" is regarding third party endorsements. In other words, the statute is referring to when, for example, a celebrity is made to look like they endorse a particular product when in fact they do not. Which, as I explained earlier, is why sub(A) is not pertinent to this discussion. Here's a 9th circuit decision mentioning this matter. It says, in part:
At this point, if you still care about this matter, I can only suggest that you research the subject on your own or find an attorney who will be willing to look up further case law.
Oops, you're right on both counts. First, I meant to say 28% more pixels and 7% more pixels. Second, yes, the aspect ratio of my anus is definitely different than the iPad.
Cheers. :)
It seems to me that since you're now admitting that other solutions rather than litigation might be preferable, in other words, that it's not an "open and shut case" as you previously asserted, then we're done. But, regarding the statutory issue you raised, I'd suggest taking a look at this article, where it points out that the provision of the Lanham Act which you cited, S 43(a)(1)(B) contains the requirement
In other words, there's only a violation under sub(B) of this statute when "advertising or promotion" is taking place. MS Forefront Threat Management Gateway isn't for the purpose of advertising or promotion; it's arguably a type of editorial service. And sub(A) doesn't really apply here, it's more concerning a situation where say hypothetically Microsoft had started referring to itself as the "Fun Software Foundation" so they could start saying "Richard Stallman loves us. We're the FSF, after all."
As well, see here. I still contend that none of this stuff has anything to do with making a mistake in rating a website.
Laws don't "prove" anything. Winning a case in court proves something. If Lanham applied here, and if this was a slam-dunk, then FSF would be litigating right now, especially given Stallman's antipathy toward Microsoft. The fact that they aren't should tell you something. If at some point they change their minds, and take MS to court, and prevail, I'll happily eat crow.
Lol, "that guy."
If you are so sure that FSF has an "open and shut" case why don't you offer to represent them on contingency? Easy money, right?
You're calling it a "real let-down" before even glancing at it. The new iPad only has 28% greater pixel density on the short axis and 7% on the long one. In other words, the TF700 has 27% fewer pixels overall. The difference is probably noticeable for someone with sharp vision, but not huge. In fact, the TF700 has almost the same (slightly more) pixel density as the new "retina" MacBook Pro. So it could share the "retina" moniker were it not trademarked for Apple machines.
That theory fails to account for one thing: Cui bono?
How does Microsoft possibly stand to gain by effectively drawing more attention to FSF's campaign? Because that's the only conceiveable outcome to such a ham-fisted method of thwarting an opponent. Well that and destroying their clients' trust in their security suite. All to stop a minuscule percentage of the Internet (the small group consisting of the intersection of MS Forefront users and free-software enthusiasts) from looking at a homepage panel.
Or do people think that MS somehow thought they could squash the FSF's website with nobody in the tech world noticing it was off the Internet, and mua-ha-ha mission accomplished; now there's no one to stand in the way of Secure Boot!
Like most conspiracy theories, this requires the evil villain to have wickedly schemed 20 steps ahead of everyone else (step one, plant a birth announcement in a Seattle newspaper in 1955) yet somehow incapable of seeing the simple obvious flaws in the master plan.
I'm gonna make up a theory that Stallman sabotaged MS's security himself in order to cleverly mock the notion of Microsoft "secure"-ing anything, boot or otherwise. And to remind people that FSF still exists.
FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena. Microsoft isn't secretly mucking with dns or some other blatantly illegal action. Client corporations voluntarily elect to use Microsoft's security software to control their own traffic. MS makes no claims that it is 100% accurate. Additionally, MS has procedures in place to correct a misclassification. And even if they didn't, there's no standard by which third-party private web filters are actionable, other than say, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. But in that case, the proper plaintiff would be Microsoft's customer, not FSF.
Oh, FSF might lose some donations? How is that MS's problem? FSF's suing Microsoft is like advertisers suing the makers of NoScript and Adblock for depriving them of eyeballs.
Your parent is agreeing that it's a mistake. But probably a mistake due to a slightly overzealous filter as opposed to gross incompetence. Even highly competent individuals/organizations make mistakes.
In this context, an innocent would be normal taken to mean, e.g. a child or an uninvolved passerby, as opposed to say a dealer, supplier or someone else in the criminal chain who doesn't have clean hands with respect to the drug trade.
Any drug store where they sell this test would have condoms as well, so yes they are still an option. Obviously GP meant "may be the only TESTING option available for some people." And there's not one person on this thread suggesting (other than you) that getting a negative result on this test means it's okay to go have unprotected sex, or that somehow the fact that you have tested negative means you're required to go bareback. In fact, others have mentioned that HIV or no, unprotected sex is risky and shouldn't be practiced in the sort of situation that you'd find yourself in if you're using this test.
Furthermore, you're consistently making the assumption that 100% of the people who take a home test are idiots who can't read warnings that state that the test only has a 93% success rate. Certainly if a test like this were marketed, that fact would be required to be part of the advertising. 93% may seem low but as far as medical diagnoses go, it's fairly good. It would surprise me if even a good doctor had a 93% accuracy rate in terms of overall diagnostic skill. Should we stop using physicians as well?
The appeal of this test is that there is a population of people who would not otherwise get tested at all but would still engage in sexual activity. Those people are still going to want to have sex, except that now, out of the ones who are HIV infected, 93% of their partners will be able to make an informed decision. And yes, the remaining 7% won't. But they would not have made an informed decision anyway, because they would not have been tested anyway.
In some cases yes.
In other cases no.
Example. John's father buys $100,000 worth of stock for him at birth. He continues to hold onto that stock his entire life. Due to the value of the stock increasing over the years, at John's death, his holdings are worth $10 million. At no point did John or anyone pay tax on the capital gains of $9,900,000.
Not $430 lower. $300 lower. (The $629 iPad is the 4G model, the Wi-Fi only model is just $499)
Fortunately for Mr. Pirate, he had a list of names, addresses and credit card numbers at his disposal.