I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The discussion was about taking donations afterward as a way of getting money from this stunt and about the benefits of pulling this stunt. My point was that Nintendo has ways to make sure that people do not get any material gain from doing this. And they can garnish wages from any future resources you try to earn.
Sure, but if I make sure to drain your resources, I deter anyone else who wants to abuse my trademarks. It doesn't matter how small your resources are as long as everyone else knows this scheme isn't profitable. At least, that's the legal theory. Whether it works in practice is anyone's guess.
You are wrong. Any creative work that uses a trademark is subject to trademark law, even free art projects and political campaigns. There are some limited fair-use options, but those are really stringent. Even parody, which can sidestep copyright law, cannot sidestep trademark most of the time.
> When will computer geeks grasp that most of the human race actually
> enjoys the company of others and that there are actual economic reasons
> why people cluster?
That's exactly what Kurzweil DID agree with. He said we've crowded into cities because we want to crowd. But it has downsides. His contention is that as we improve communications and physical delivery of goods, we can have the economic benefits and companionship benefits of clustering without actually clustering.
Or we step up surveillance to be able to monitor everyone at all times. You step off camera? N months quarantine followed by body cavity search. Freedom, security, privacy: pick two.
It may seem wrong, but if that's the license agreement that the state agreed to, then that's the agreement. The company now has a right to enforce that agreement. If you don't like a EULA, you need to protest it when you buy the software, not 20+ years later when chickens come home to roost.
We (USA) did massive damage in the Mid-East long before 911. We sustained the Shah to get oil, we backed the creation ex nihilo of Israel, among other things. In more recent times, our cultural influence from Hollywood and music is easily viewed as an attack (we may not have intended it, but we were massively disruptive in many parts of the world with our mass media). We (USA) are largely seen as the successors to the British and the abuses of the colonial system. If a person believes that sons should answer for the sins of their fathers, it's easy to justify a 911 attack. And now we are a part of the mess that has been raging for centuries.
Your tone implies that none of that was worth studying. That's the problem... you only consider things worth studying that you can already see value in. Basic research delves into many areas that aren't obviously of value. It also may confirm things that seem obvious, but every once in a while it overturns conventional thinking. You have to make the judgement on the value before the research is done and based on why the researchers think there's an open question. Just reviewing the titles, as you have done, is a poor basis of judgement.
Perhaps the answer is to increase the budget *and* fire everyone currently involved. Then those who say, "we need a bigger budget" are not the ones who benefit. It encourages TSA to do as much as it can and only ask for budget as a last resort, and only when they really think it'll help security for the good of others.
Does anyone else have a problem with there being a fee at all? This sure seems like government treating people differently because of their economic levels, something that we are generally supposed to oppose. This really bothers me lately -- I'm standing in the high speed PreCheck line and watching the woman with three kids try to keep them entertained in the slow main line. She's a lower threat profile than I am (male traveling alone), but I have the time and resources to go get the TSA interview. Something feels really wrong here.
That's not how USA government works -- everyone gets a say in everything. That's a double-edge sword. It means people who don't fly vote on the TSA, but if you start whitelisting who gets to be involved then you get things like environmentalists not allowed to vote on agriculture policy because they aren't farmers. I really don't think you want to move to a system where the government certifies who gets to vote on an issue and who doesn't. It'd be worse than what we have today, I'm pretty sure.
Livius is partly right -- most credentials *from organizations generally* can be taken away for not paying fees.
Pseudonym is right -- university credentials are not generally in the category of things that can be taken for not paying fees.
And gweihir is right -- there are conditions under which the university no longer credentials someone for the field...
An entire research paper on the law surrounding these situations:
http://www.stetson.edu/law/con...
Yes, there is case law to allow a degree to be withheld, rescinded, or revoked for behavior after graduation, including failure to pay fees. How far it can go appears to be up to the university in question.
Judge Alsup is a very well informed judge for technical issues... take a look at the original 2012 rulings from Alsup in this case.
He is trying to elicit from the lawyers an explanation for the jury. It's the judge's job to predict the questions the jury would have about what they've just heard. It is NOT his job to try to explain the information himself, even if he knows the answer... he's there as judge, not to provide testimony.
Lucky that we have climate evidence going back several million years in ice core samples, fossilized tree rings, and a few other places. It's a lot more than just 50 years for the CO2 measurements.
That's the school funding system in Texas. Its result is that no one volunteers anything because it doesn't help their district at all, it just gets reallocated to other districts. Letting the rich just prop up their own district doesn't help either, that just results in greater imbalance within society. Thus the push for a tax on the 1% to close the wealth gap instead of letting it grow.
Unfortunately, everything I've seen on that says the government is immune to these kinds of lawsuits. There's no way for Apple (or any other private citizen/company) to force a decision. The gov't gets to pick its favorite case.
Not necessarily. A lot of the research institutions take the 25-35 engineers in their prime and have them working on doing the most advanced state-of-the-art-work out there, the stuff that doesn't pay money yet because it's still research, not development. The environment depends upon the focus of the institution.
No. It could only indicate that if we didn't have the other graph where gender wasn't known ahead of time. That's the whole point of this study is to rule out your proposed interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
Unsubstantiated claims are the whole point of research. If it were substantiated, it would be development.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The discussion was about taking donations afterward as a way of getting money from this stunt and about the benefits of pulling this stunt. My point was that Nintendo has ways to make sure that people do not get any material gain from doing this. And they can garnish wages from any future resources you try to earn.
Sure, but if I make sure to drain your resources, I deter anyone else who wants to abuse my trademarks. It doesn't matter how small your resources are as long as everyone else knows this scheme isn't profitable. At least, that's the legal theory. Whether it works in practice is anyone's guess.
Actually, they can go after them for defamation of trademark and trademark dilution and get damages far exceeding the donations.
Careful. Based on Pokemon Go vitality, I'm guessing that's the majority of the population you're defaming.
You are wrong. Any creative work that uses a trademark is subject to trademark law, even free art projects and political campaigns. There are some limited fair-use options, but those are really stringent. Even parody, which can sidestep copyright law, cannot sidestep trademark most of the time.
> When will computer geeks grasp that most of the human race actually > enjoys the company of others and that there are actual economic reasons > why people cluster? That's exactly what Kurzweil DID agree with. He said we've crowded into cities because we want to crowd. But it has downsides. His contention is that as we improve communications and physical delivery of goods, we can have the economic benefits and companionship benefits of clustering without actually clustering.
Or we step up surveillance to be able to monitor everyone at all times. You step off camera? N months quarantine followed by body cavity search. Freedom, security, privacy: pick two.
It may seem wrong, but if that's the license agreement that the state agreed to, then that's the agreement. The company now has a right to enforce that agreement. If you don't like a EULA, you need to protest it when you buy the software, not 20+ years later when chickens come home to roost.
We (USA) did massive damage in the Mid-East long before 911. We sustained the Shah to get oil, we backed the creation ex nihilo of Israel, among other things. In more recent times, our cultural influence from Hollywood and music is easily viewed as an attack (we may not have intended it, but we were massively disruptive in many parts of the world with our mass media). We (USA) are largely seen as the successors to the British and the abuses of the colonial system. If a person believes that sons should answer for the sins of their fathers, it's easy to justify a 911 attack. And now we are a part of the mess that has been raging for centuries.
Your tone implies that none of that was worth studying. That's the problem... you only consider things worth studying that you can already see value in. Basic research delves into many areas that aren't obviously of value. It also may confirm things that seem obvious, but every once in a while it overturns conventional thinking. You have to make the judgement on the value before the research is done and based on why the researchers think there's an open question. Just reviewing the titles, as you have done, is a poor basis of judgement.
Similarly, all hardware is upgraded to the point where it has a network connection, or is replaced by a model that can.
Perhaps the answer is to increase the budget *and* fire everyone currently involved. Then those who say, "we need a bigger budget" are not the ones who benefit. It encourages TSA to do as much as it can and only ask for budget as a last resort, and only when they really think it'll help security for the good of others.
Does anyone else have a problem with there being a fee at all? This sure seems like government treating people differently because of their economic levels, something that we are generally supposed to oppose. This really bothers me lately -- I'm standing in the high speed PreCheck line and watching the woman with three kids try to keep them entertained in the slow main line. She's a lower threat profile than I am (male traveling alone), but I have the time and resources to go get the TSA interview. Something feels really wrong here.
That's not how USA government works -- everyone gets a say in everything. That's a double-edge sword. It means people who don't fly vote on the TSA, but if you start whitelisting who gets to be involved then you get things like environmentalists not allowed to vote on agriculture policy because they aren't farmers. I really don't think you want to move to a system where the government certifies who gets to vote on an issue and who doesn't. It'd be worse than what we have today, I'm pretty sure.
Livius is partly right -- most credentials *from organizations generally* can be taken away for not paying fees. Pseudonym is right -- university credentials are not generally in the category of things that can be taken for not paying fees. And gweihir is right -- there are conditions under which the university no longer credentials someone for the field... An entire research paper on the law surrounding these situations: http://www.stetson.edu/law/con... Yes, there is case law to allow a degree to be withheld, rescinded, or revoked for behavior after graduation, including failure to pay fees. How far it can go appears to be up to the university in question.
Citation? I'm not disagreeing, but that kind of stat needs attribution.
Judge Alsup is a very well informed judge for technical issues... take a look at the original 2012 rulings from Alsup in this case. He is trying to elicit from the lawyers an explanation for the jury. It's the judge's job to predict the questions the jury would have about what they've just heard. It is NOT his job to try to explain the information himself, even if he knows the answer ... he's there as judge, not to provide testimony.
Use a countdown timer to accept after 10 seconds unless user unplugs the device.
Water, tea (unsweetened), or coffee (black).
Lucky that we have climate evidence going back several million years in ice core samples, fossilized tree rings, and a few other places. It's a lot more than just 50 years for the CO2 measurements.
That's the school funding system in Texas. Its result is that no one volunteers anything because it doesn't help their district at all, it just gets reallocated to other districts. Letting the rich just prop up their own district doesn't help either, that just results in greater imbalance within society. Thus the push for a tax on the 1% to close the wealth gap instead of letting it grow.
Unfortunately, everything I've seen on that says the government is immune to these kinds of lawsuits. There's no way for Apple (or any other private citizen/company) to force a decision. The gov't gets to pick its favorite case.
Not necessarily. A lot of the research institutions take the 25-35 engineers in their prime and have them working on doing the most advanced state-of-the-art-work out there, the stuff that doesn't pay money yet because it's still research, not development. The environment depends upon the focus of the institution.
No. It could only indicate that if we didn't have the other graph where gender wasn't known ahead of time. That's the whole point of this study is to rule out your proposed interpretation.