Actually, there's not much of a reason for this to happen under trademark law. Ikea pretty much only has trademarks on their furniture. Just searched USPTO.gov for Ikea marks, and after skimming it saw no mention of websites or anything that describes the site. Therefore, there isn't actually a valid claim to the trademark in this case. I could start selling IKEA sandwiches and their lawyers couldn't do anything because it isn't in a class they have protected.
So, I won't blame trademark law, but I will blame armchair lawyer interpretations of trademark law for misrepresenting what the law actually says.
I don't think you understand what 'work with her' means. Minor concessions is not working with someone, at least not in the sense intended by the parent post.
Technically, yes, it is a middle ground. However, I believe the intended meaning was that both sides reached a reasonable agreement that they were both moderately happy about, not a minor ability to dictate terms of surrender.For reference, here is what not being an asshole looks like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There's more to it than simply cheap furniture. IKEA furniture is not only cheap, but also assembled by the end user with minimal time and tools. That makes it an ideal platform for hacking.
'Don't fuck it up' is probably where most of the work comes in. Children usually have an inquisitive nature, but we tend to squash it down. Giving children useful knowledge while preserving their sense of curiosity is what's difficult.
Selective breeding can by definition only cause traits to be passed on that have been time tested. Else those parents would not have existed long enough to become parents. If there was a grave error that caused the organism to fail, it would have done so before it reaches the ability to pass on its genes.
No, selective breeding sometimes invokes new traits, and there are these pesky things called recessive traits that can stick around without as strong of an evolutionary mechanism for pruning them out. However, the big concern that makes this scary and over our heads is that it's a new combination of genes. If two plants reproduce sexually, it will result in a new combination of genes, presenting the same kind of risk you are talking about.
You are also conflating evolutionary fitness and being fit for human consumption. There's not really a strong tie there.
When you tinker with an organism, it's by no means a given that it could actually survive in a natural environment. For reference, see terminator crops.
Or, you know, most domesticated crops and animals. They are very different from their state before they were domesticated by humans, far bigger changes than anything currently on the GMO map. There are also plenty of sterile hybrids, such as the mule.
That seems to a bit of a biased source there, but they are talking about occupational exposure. Occupational exposure is going to be higher and more consistent than residue on plants.
Yes, if you take it in a strict, completely literal meaning. However, the intended meaning is that it is close enough to being the same risk as non-GMO plants with current practices that there is no reason to differentiate between them. Repeating that every time gets old pretty quick, though, so they state something shorter yet similar and assume that the context should lead most people to an appropriate understanding.
Yes, GMO could potentially have harmful results. So could conventional breeding. If the risk is not significantly greater for changes via GMO than changes via conventional breeding, there isn't a compelling reason to treat them differently.
I suspect that there would be less objection if the intent were to make new music with new technology, but this is taking Wagner and apparently pretty much just replacing the instrumentalists with samples. So, old message in a new medium.
That appears to not be an eject button, but a manual override. It would typically require something like a paperclip to operate, which is different from an eject button.
For commercial passenger transport, I think a moderate fine would be more appropriate, and maybe a point on your insurance. Revocation of a license isn't typical for driving above weight, which I would say is a bigger infraction.
Is it really all that different, though? It seems like the big difference is new hardware performing similar roles. It would be like running a new OS to run an SSD.
You can argue that these rules are necessary, but don't embarrass yourself by calling it competition.
The fact that people can and do pay that much for one indicates that there is enough competition.
No, it indicates a large disparity in supply and demand. There are lots of potential cabbies that want a medallion, but only a small number of medallions available.
Yeah, I'm not a racist dick. Immigrants are a big factor in letting the US kick ass because it brings in new ideas, new people, and new culture. And in fact, a large share of the problems we have with immigration is because of the regulations that have been imposed on the immigration process.
It doesn't matter if Uber's business was gutting prostitutes on the streets of London, if they are not deceiving anyone, they are not a scam. In order to be a scam, some kind of deception or misleading is required.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there's not much of a reason for this to happen under trademark law. Ikea pretty much only has trademarks on their furniture. Just searched USPTO.gov for Ikea marks, and after skimming it saw no mention of websites or anything that describes the site. Therefore, there isn't actually a valid claim to the trademark in this case. I could start selling IKEA sandwiches and their lawyers couldn't do anything because it isn't in a class they have protected.
So, I won't blame trademark law, but I will blame armchair lawyer interpretations of trademark law for misrepresenting what the law actually says.
I don't think you understand what 'work with her' means. Minor concessions is not working with someone, at least not in the sense intended by the parent post.
Technically, yes, it is a middle ground. However, I believe the intended meaning was that both sides reached a reasonable agreement that they were both moderately happy about, not a minor ability to dictate terms of surrender.For reference, here is what not being an asshole looks like: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There's more to it than simply cheap furniture. IKEA furniture is not only cheap, but also assembled by the end user with minimal time and tools. That makes it an ideal platform for hacking.
'Don't fuck it up' is probably where most of the work comes in. Children usually have an inquisitive nature, but we tend to squash it down. Giving children useful knowledge while preserving their sense of curiosity is what's difficult.
No, selective breeding sometimes invokes new traits, and there are these pesky things called recessive traits that can stick around without as strong of an evolutionary mechanism for pruning them out. However, the big concern that makes this scary and over our heads is that it's a new combination of genes. If two plants reproduce sexually, it will result in a new combination of genes, presenting the same kind of risk you are talking about.
You are also conflating evolutionary fitness and being fit for human consumption. There's not really a strong tie there.
Or, you know, most domesticated crops and animals. They are very different from their state before they were domesticated by humans, far bigger changes than anything currently on the GMO map. There are also plenty of sterile hybrids, such as the mule.
Yes, but it could lead to any of an endless array of toxins.
That seems to a bit of a biased source there, but they are talking about occupational exposure. Occupational exposure is going to be higher and more consistent than residue on plants.
As far as threats to humanity in general go, opposition to GMO is a bigger threat.
That also describes the mechanism of selective breeding and natural selection. Despite your objections, GMO is the most controlled scenario.
Yes, if you take it in a strict, completely literal meaning. However, the intended meaning is that it is close enough to being the same risk as non-GMO plants with current practices that there is no reason to differentiate between them. Repeating that every time gets old pretty quick, though, so they state something shorter yet similar and assume that the context should lead most people to an appropriate understanding.
You do realize that ricin is already produced by plants, right? There are plenty of natural plants that can ruin your day or end your life.
Yes, GMO could potentially have harmful results. So could conventional breeding. If the risk is not significantly greater for changes via GMO than changes via conventional breeding, there isn't a compelling reason to treat them differently.
Actually, it's pretty low on the toxicity scale.
Extremely irresponsible and foolish, isn't that the NSA's motto?
That's assuming that the sensitive data is mounted. Data being safe at rest is important as well.
I suspect that there would be less objection if the intent were to make new music with new technology, but this is taking Wagner and apparently pretty much just replacing the instrumentalists with samples. So, old message in a new medium.
That appears to not be an eject button, but a manual override. It would typically require something like a paperclip to operate, which is different from an eject button.
For commercial passenger transport, I think a moderate fine would be more appropriate, and maybe a point on your insurance. Revocation of a license isn't typical for driving above weight, which I would say is a bigger infraction.
Is it really all that different, though? It seems like the big difference is new hardware performing similar roles. It would be like running a new OS to run an SSD.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but rather, that revoking a license for something on a similar scale is a disproportionate.
No, it indicates a large disparity in supply and demand. There are lots of potential cabbies that want a medallion, but only a small number of medallions available.
Yeah, I'm not a racist dick. Immigrants are a big factor in letting the US kick ass because it brings in new ideas, new people, and new culture. And in fact, a large share of the problems we have with immigration is because of the regulations that have been imposed on the immigration process.
It doesn't matter if Uber's business was gutting prostitutes on the streets of London, if they are not deceiving anyone, they are not a scam. In order to be a scam, some kind of deception or misleading is required.
If they are doing so by providing a superior product in some way, it's not a scam. It's competition. Competition is generally a good thing.