Social Security should be capped. Anyone making more than the cutoff will almost certainly have their own retirement savings plan. Social Security isn't worth anything to them. If you want to have more money when you retire, start saving and investing. It's not Bill Gate's job to pay for your retirement for you.
It will be fun figuring out how to game the automatic vehicles. I'm sure they're programmed in some situations to pull aside. All you have to do is figure out what the trigger is. It's like playing with the blind spot sensors on the vehicle in front of yours.
Do you think the donation information was leaked accidentally? If you do, you probably think that the IRS also accidentally lost months worth of email that may have contained evidence pertaining to that agency's targeting of conservative groups during an election season. It won't be state security knocking on your door, but the feds are still going to arrange for someone to come after you.
You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.
As if DC isn't the pinnacle of chaos. They won't allow drone use until they've figured out how to line their pockets with it. That's not how it should work.
No commercial operations? The government shouldn't be blocking the testing or development of new technologies without a strong reason for doing so. I could maybe understand the fed's stance against Amazon using drones for delivery, but blocking them from even developing the technology and testing it is quite a stretch. So long as they don't intrude on controlled airspace and they perform the tests over private property with permission, what harm could be done? Amazon would obviously take steps to avoid issues since they'd be liable for any havoc they caused. The government shouldn't intrude just for the sake of asserting authority over a new technology.
Besides which, the feds already operate drones of their own. Under what regulations are those operated by? A government drone is no less capable of causing problems than a commercially or privately operated drone would be. If this was truly a matter of public safety and risk control, the federally operated drones would be grounded as well. If those drones are regulated somehow, an interim solution could be to allow test use of commercial drones with the requirement that they follow the guidelines set for federally operated drones. This would prevent the FAA and politicians from holding back the development of this technology for purposes of corruption, i.e. appointing campaign donors to committees, setting up new regulating agencies and the $$$ contracts that would go with that, etc.
Frankly, if the drones stay outside of controlled airspace and don't cross state borders, an argument could be made that this is not the jurisdiction of the federal government.
So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.
If you've followed the various stories here regarding drones you'd see that the feds have been dragging their feet for a long time. The federal courts have even contradicted the FAA on occasion, stating that they can't do a blanket ban on all uses of drones based on the simple fact that the FAA regulates US airspace. I remember that one clearly because the courts stated that the FAA would have to regulate paper airplanes, by that definition of their areas of responsibility.
I'm pushing it a bit saying they have no intent, but they're not exactly going out of their way to make it a priority. One has to wonder if this is even something that should involve the FAA. Drones (at least the smaller ones that are generally discussed) are a far different thing than what the FAA usually regulates.
What are you doing on Slashdot? Subscribe to a magazine that covers stories like this, write your letter to the editor and wait a month for a possible response. You're so impatient posting on a site where you can get near-immediate feedback. This nonsense needs to be shut down now.
It's even worse for people with chronic pain conditions. All it takes is one medical provider to flag the patient as a drug seeker and that person's life becomes a living hell.
If you order a processing system to spec and it doesn't meet the spec and/or doesn't arrive on the contractually bound delivery date, you absolutely have a case. The real question is if they can leverage its intended use to argue for damages above the cost of the equipment.
Surely you can see why granting a racist and discriminatory word special privilidges should be distasteful to the Federal Governement and American People as a whole?
You really need a spellchecker.
No, I do not agree with the point you're trying to make. A trademark is not an endorsement of any sort, the government can not and should not ever endorse brands. All it offers is a registry to keep companies from exploiting each others' marks. It serves no other purpose, nor should it. Instead, what we have is the nanny state stepping in and regulating speech. Fuck that.
This does not hinder their usage in any way.
It absolutely hinders the use of that specific speech as a marketable business brand. That's the whole point of trademarks! If this claim were true, why even have trademarks in the first place?
removing the trademark absolteuly does NOT harm them. they can still call themselves the Redskins all they want. they can just no longer depend on the federal government to block anyone else from using or profiting from the name.
Line one does not agree with line three.
Call me anything you want, but your logic is still flawed.
Level playing field? Hardly. A lot of hard work was invested into that team and the brand is part of their identity. How is it level if some other team can masquerade as them with no legal recourse? How is it level that all the other teams aren't similarly affected, just this one, singled out because the feds have decided that "red skin" is derogatory? How can anyone have faith in a US trademark from this point forward? The IRS targets conservatives, why not have the trademark office go after their identities now? It's absurd! This is a free country, if you don't like the team's name.. don't watch them play and don't buy their tickets/hats/tshirts/whatever.
They had a trademark on their brand. The feds decide they don't like the mark so they take it away. The owners end up being harmed economically all because the government didn't like the descriptive nature of the brand. They've effectively stifled the free speech of the owner by denying them the use of the mark. I'm not making a 1st amendment claim because no one is being jailed over the use of the brand. I am saying that the government's purpose is to stifle the owner's speech by taking away the economic viability of the brand.
Are you saying the public violated the 1st Amendment rights of the Chick-Fil-A owner when their business declined after the owner's disparaging remarks about homosexuals?
Can you tie this back to a trademark issue, or a branding issue? It doesn't relate.
we can't even be certain losing the trademark would cost the team money in this case.
Seriously? It's not cheap to launch a new brand. It's not cheap often to even come up with a new brand. Then they have to worry if the feds will take that one away too. Is the next trademark certification going to come with a "we promise you can keep this one"?
Trademarks are intended to protect the public from confusion about counterfeit versions of popular products, they specifically do NOT exist to guarantee revenue streams for the creators in the way that patents and copyrights do.
Are you suggesting that counterfeits don't affect the profitability of a product?
Are people going to start going to copycat "Redskins" team games?
Probably, yes. They certainly won't be licensing it for use anymore.
These kinds of arguments are so annoying: it's basically an extension of the entitlement mentality, if you've ever made some money doing something, nobody can ever do ANYTHING that might impinge on that.
A brand isn't "doing something", it's an identifier. If the federal government grants a trademark on it, yes, they're entitled to use it. That's the point.
The revocation of that restraint provides more Free Speech to other commercial endeavors and does not impact the 'Free Speech' rights of the Trademark holder. It only impacts their legalized monopoly on the use of the Mark.
The trademark exists to protect their business interest in the brand name. The feds aren't canceling the mark because other business entities want to use it, they're canceling the mark because the feds don't like it. Yes, with the mark canceled, others can use it. Sure, you can argue that, it's not factually wrong.
The bigger issue is that the government is doing this to stifle the team's ability to use the branding they've had for a long, long time. You can't run a team like that without the ability to control licensing of the brand. That's a major source of income for that type of business. That's the free speech issue here. I don't like your brand because it offends me and I'm taking it away from you.
He simply no longer has the ability to sue someone else to stop them from using it.
That's a bit of a problem for a business, don't you think? You're being intellectually dishonest if you disregard that as a non-issue.
That's circular logic. It's not an infringement to the owner of the trademark, and by canceling the mark, you're silencing the owner's speech through economic penalty.
What about this is NOT based on free speech? The whole issue is focused on the term "red skin". It's the suppression of free speech under the banner of political correctness. They're not banning the use of the term via "hate crime" legislation, but they're doing the next closing thing. The team can legally use the term, but the team is a business, and the government is eradicating their ability to use it for business.
Slashdot Mirror
Social Security should be capped. Anyone making more than the cutoff will almost certainly have their own retirement savings plan. Social Security isn't worth anything to them. If you want to have more money when you retire, start saving and investing. It's not Bill Gate's job to pay for your retirement for you.
Driverless cars have a flawless safety record.
They used to say that about the Concorde.. right up until it didn't.
It will be fun figuring out how to game the automatic vehicles. I'm sure they're programmed in some situations to pull aside. All you have to do is figure out what the trigger is. It's like playing with the blind spot sensors on the vehicle in front of yours.
Do you think the donation information was leaked accidentally? If you do, you probably think that the IRS also accidentally lost months worth of email that may have contained evidence pertaining to that agency's targeting of conservative groups during an election season. It won't be state security knocking on your door, but the feds are still going to arrange for someone to come after you.
Are the ones with kids more important than the ones without? Is this some sort of social calculus?
They sent reps door to door in my neighborhood to get people to "switch back". They know no bounds.
You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.
As if DC isn't the pinnacle of chaos. They won't allow drone use until they've figured out how to line their pockets with it. That's not how it should work.
No commercial operations? The government shouldn't be blocking the testing or development of new technologies without a strong reason for doing so. I could maybe understand the fed's stance against Amazon using drones for delivery, but blocking them from even developing the technology and testing it is quite a stretch. So long as they don't intrude on controlled airspace and they perform the tests over private property with permission, what harm could be done? Amazon would obviously take steps to avoid issues since they'd be liable for any havoc they caused. The government shouldn't intrude just for the sake of asserting authority over a new technology.
Besides which, the feds already operate drones of their own. Under what regulations are those operated by? A government drone is no less capable of causing problems than a commercially or privately operated drone would be. If this was truly a matter of public safety and risk control, the federally operated drones would be grounded as well. If those drones are regulated somehow, an interim solution could be to allow test use of commercial drones with the requirement that they follow the guidelines set for federally operated drones. This would prevent the FAA and politicians from holding back the development of this technology for purposes of corruption, i.e. appointing campaign donors to committees, setting up new regulating agencies and the $$$ contracts that would go with that, etc.
Frankly, if the drones stay outside of controlled airspace and don't cross state borders, an argument could be made that this is not the jurisdiction of the federal government.
So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.
If you've followed the various stories here regarding drones you'd see that the feds have been dragging their feet for a long time. The federal courts have even contradicted the FAA on occasion, stating that they can't do a blanket ban on all uses of drones based on the simple fact that the FAA regulates US airspace. I remember that one clearly because the courts stated that the FAA would have to regulate paper airplanes, by that definition of their areas of responsibility.
I'm pushing it a bit saying they have no intent, but they're not exactly going out of their way to make it a priority. One has to wonder if this is even something that should involve the FAA. Drones (at least the smaller ones that are generally discussed) are a far different thing than what the FAA usually regulates.
What are you doing on Slashdot? Subscribe to a magazine that covers stories like this, write your letter to the editor and wait a month for a possible response. You're so impatient posting on a site where you can get near-immediate feedback. This nonsense needs to be shut down now.
Ballsy is banning it without any intent to develop regulations or to even consider if regulations are necessary.
As a US resident, I'd be perfectly content to see the heads of various rights-invading federal agencies put away in prison.
So no, it's not ok. Not for the US, not for India.
You have no right to demand a health care provider to provide you their services for free.
It's even worse for people with chronic pain conditions. All it takes is one medical provider to flag the patient as a drug seeker and that person's life becomes a living hell.
Or have to re-login constantly and tell it to switch profiles.
You'd have to argue that since corporations are people too, the corporation can make deliveries as a hobby. Somehow, I don't think that will fly.
If you order a processing system to spec and it doesn't meet the spec and/or doesn't arrive on the contractually bound delivery date, you absolutely have a case. The real question is if they can leverage its intended use to argue for damages above the cost of the equipment.
The president can't do whatever he wants. - repeat until you get it.
Legal or not, the current President seems to think that he can do whatever he wants via "executive order".
With the lap-dog DoJ, the President really can do just about anything he wants.
Surely you can see why granting a racist and discriminatory word special privilidges should be distasteful to the Federal Governement and American People as a whole?
You really need a spellchecker.
No, I do not agree with the point you're trying to make. A trademark is not an endorsement of any sort, the government can not and should not ever endorse brands. All it offers is a registry to keep companies from exploiting each others' marks. It serves no other purpose, nor should it. Instead, what we have is the nanny state stepping in and regulating speech. Fuck that.
This does not hinder their usage in any way.
It absolutely hinders the use of that specific speech as a marketable business brand. That's the whole point of trademarks! If this claim were true, why even have trademarks in the first place?
Thanks. At least one other person understands.
removing the trademark absolteuly does NOT harm them.
they can still call themselves the Redskins all they want.
they can just no longer depend on the federal government to block anyone else from using or profiting from the name.
Line one does not agree with line three.
Call me anything you want, but your logic is still flawed.
Level playing field? Hardly. A lot of hard work was invested into that team and the brand is part of their identity. How is it level if some other team can masquerade as them with no legal recourse? How is it level that all the other teams aren't similarly affected, just this one, singled out because the feds have decided that "red skin" is derogatory? How can anyone have faith in a US trademark from this point forward? The IRS targets conservatives, why not have the trademark office go after their identities now? It's absurd! This is a free country, if you don't like the team's name.. don't watch them play and don't buy their tickets/hats/tshirts/whatever.
"silencing ... through economic penalty"
WTF does that mean?
They had a trademark on their brand. The feds decide they don't like the mark so they take it away. The owners end up being harmed economically all because the government didn't like the descriptive nature of the brand. They've effectively stifled the free speech of the owner by denying them the use of the mark. I'm not making a 1st amendment claim because no one is being jailed over the use of the brand. I am saying that the government's purpose is to stifle the owner's speech by taking away the economic viability of the brand.
Are you saying the public violated the 1st Amendment rights of the Chick-Fil-A owner when their business declined after the owner's disparaging remarks about homosexuals?
Can you tie this back to a trademark issue, or a branding issue? It doesn't relate.
we can't even be certain losing the trademark would cost the team money in this case.
Seriously? It's not cheap to launch a new brand. It's not cheap often to even come up with a new brand. Then they have to worry if the feds will take that one away too. Is the next trademark certification going to come with a "we promise you can keep this one"?
Trademarks are intended to protect the public from confusion about counterfeit versions of popular products, they specifically do NOT exist to guarantee revenue streams for the creators in the way that patents and copyrights do.
Are you suggesting that counterfeits don't affect the profitability of a product?
Are people going to start going to copycat "Redskins" team games?
Probably, yes. They certainly won't be licensing it for use anymore.
These kinds of arguments are so annoying: it's basically an extension of the entitlement mentality, if you've ever made some money doing something, nobody can ever do ANYTHING that might impinge on that.
A brand isn't "doing something", it's an identifier. If the federal government grants a trademark on it, yes, they're entitled to use it. That's the point.
The revocation of that restraint provides more Free Speech to other commercial endeavors and does not impact the 'Free Speech' rights of the Trademark holder.
It only impacts their legalized monopoly on the use of the Mark.
The trademark exists to protect their business interest in the brand name. The feds aren't canceling the mark because other business entities want to use it, they're canceling the mark because the feds don't like it. Yes, with the mark canceled, others can use it. Sure, you can argue that, it's not factually wrong.
The bigger issue is that the government is doing this to stifle the team's ability to use the branding they've had for a long, long time. You can't run a team like that without the ability to control licensing of the brand. That's a major source of income for that type of business. That's the free speech issue here. I don't like your brand because it offends me and I'm taking it away from you.
He simply no longer has the ability to sue someone else to stop them from using it.
That's a bit of a problem for a business, don't you think? You're being intellectually dishonest if you disregard that as a non-issue.
That's circular logic. It's not an infringement to the owner of the trademark, and by canceling the mark, you're silencing the owner's speech through economic penalty.
What about this is NOT based on free speech? The whole issue is focused on the term "red skin". It's the suppression of free speech under the banner of political correctness. They're not banning the use of the term via "hate crime" legislation, but they're doing the next closing thing. The team can legally use the term, but the team is a business, and the government is eradicating their ability to use it for business.