You're of course right and a little context would have been helpful, I should have spent the extra 20 seconds and thrown a sentance in there rather than relying solely on a one word title.
Incidentally, reading the article totally defeats the point - how are we supposed to work ourselves into a frenzy of anti-(somewhat tangentially related topic) if we bind ourselves with facts? For shame good sir, for shame.
Ouch. I posted the one line because I felt it added value, namely the actual method used that the summary neglected to include. I read 5 different articles covering the story and chose the most detailed one to slap up here - which points really to the scarcity of technical detail if nothing else. I'm sorry you don't like the contribution but claiming it adds no value is going a step too far.
Fair points all, although I would point out that the term "podcast" is said to be derived from ipod's "pod" and therefore probably works against your argument.
As for I-Carly - Trademarks are not protected against Fair Use. I imagine Apple hasn't got the stomach to go against Viacom over a children's program that is most problably perfectly permitted.
Well thats what the court is going to have to decide - if Apple has so successfully marketed the term "pod" as to have developed some kind of legitimate stake in its use. This seems a pretty fair way to go about it, essentially denying companies the chance to ride on the advertising expenses of others. I did a little digging and found that
Apple’s total advertising budget for 2008 came to $486 million. You can find the figure hidden in plain sight in Apple’s Nov. 5 10-K filing on page 62...
For what it’s worth, Apple’s 2007 ad budget was $467 million; ad spending in 2006 was $338 million.
That's a lot of money Apple has been throwing into making the public familiar with the "pod" brand, even if we only assume a small portion of it was going specifically into the iPod range. Apple has spent over a billion dollars over that three year period selling people an idea about what Apple products are, and more importantly, linking the idea of Apple products to a specific naming convention - the "i" and the "pod". Does that stand up to the requirements of the law? The court will decide after a lot of appeals I'm sure. More importantly, is it a fair question to ask? Most certainly yes.
We're talking about Trademark dilution here so it's probably a good idea to have some idea about what the law says.
So here we go
(2) DEFINITIONS- (A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.
And the test
(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), `dilution by blurring' is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
(ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.
(iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.
(iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark.
(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.
(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
Don't forget that the whole point of the thing is consumer protection - your average person being able to buy a thing with a reasonable sureness about its origins. As in all things tech related the mom-test is probably best: If your mom was out shopping and found a VideoPod on the shelves would she assume it was an Apple product and make her purchasing choice accordingly.
My interest is somewhat moderated by a distinct feeling of deja'vu - almost as if the last administration made similar claims that apparantly went nowhere? Lets see....
The UK Government has announced that it will consider open-source software on an equal footing with proprietary commercial software when awarding multi-million-pound IT contracts.
In a paper issued on Tuesday, Tom Watson, the Minister for Digital Engagement, said: “Open Source has been one of the most significant cultural developments in IT and beyond over the last two decades: it has shown that individuals, working together over the Internet, can create products that rival and sometimes beat those of giant corporations.”
In short, INTERPOL is ideally positioned to represent law enforcement interests in
developing global information security standards, as well as to assist in the implementation of
such standards across its membership, including by developing specific standards for the
police community.
But as you all know, even with the best standards in place, security incidents can always
happen.
Just recently INTERPOL’s Information Security Incident Response Team discovered two
Facebook profiles attempting to assume my identity as INTERPOL’s Secretary General.
One of the impersonators was using this profile to try to obtain information on fugitives
targeted during our recent Operation Infra Red. This Operation was bringing investigators
from 29 member countries at the INTERPOL General Secretariat to exchange information on
international fugitives and lead to more than 130 arrests in 32 countries.
This is why we constantly need to share our experience. INTERPOL’s Information Security
Incident Response Team is a member of the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams
–– or FIRST ––, which I assume most of you know. Being a member of the FIRST enables
INTERPOL to learn from the experience of other members and to share our own experiences
for the benefit of others. But again, it is also a way to draw bridges between the police
community and information security professionals from the private and public sectors
worldwide.
Also note that the actual statement says the impersonator was trying to gather sensative data, not quite the success as implied in the summary. The whole speech is available as a pdf here.
I don't know about the rest of you but one of the original reasons I grabbed a Facebook account was to prevent just that kind of thing happening - the same reason I've registered the most obvious forms of my name in as many social networking and emailing services as possible - if I hold the accounts then I possess some control over other people's ability to misrepresent themselves as me.
Whoah there partner, we don't want a full-scale fight between all professions - some of those guys are pretty buff. Pick off the mathematicians and physicists first because the law of the playground must be respected - the small, weak, bifocaled, or curiously gifted with numbers should be taken down first. Then nap time.
To be fair that owning represents a difference of 0.000629 in the RMSE between the two of them - hardly the sound thrashing those snooty mathematicians rightly deserve.
The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here.
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.
The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here.
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.
The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here.
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.
The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here.
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.
The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here.
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.
The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here.
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups.
The original report can be found here.
Have a quick read over the original Pew study if you can, there's some decent info in there that could support a really interesting chat. Oh, and 24% of teens are sending under 10 messages a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups.
The report from which the numbers are derived can be found here
It's worth having a read of, there's some rather fascinating demographic info in there that could really make for an interesting chat. Oh, and the report shows that 24% of teens send under 10 messages a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, generally the same across racial and economic groupings.
I wonder how honest that article is considering the manner in which the rest of us get rid of our electronic waste
International agreements and European regulations have made a dent in the export of old electronics to China, but loopholes - and sometimes bribes - allow many to skirt the requirements. And only a sliver of the electronics sold gets returned to manufacturers such as Dell and Hewlett Packard for safe recycling.
Upward of 90 percent ends up in dumps that observe no environmental standards, where shredders, open fires, acid baths and broilers are used to recover gold, silver, copper and other valuable metals while spewing toxic fumes and runoff into the skies and rivers.
Accurate figures about the shady and unregulated trade are hard to come by. However, experts agree that it is overwhelmingly a problem of the developing world. They estimate that 70 percent of the 20 million to 50 million tons of electronic waste produced globally each year is dumped in China, with most of the rest going to India and African nations.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it is 10 times cheaper to export e-waste than to dispose of it at home.
There's a pretty awesome photo-essay following the process over on Time.
TFA says he's being charged with 3 seperate offences, namley:
Criminal charges of defeating the ends of justice, crimen injuria and defamation
.
As far as I can tell two of the charges link to the name calling - defamation and crimen injuria.
Crimen injuria is a crime under South African common law, defined to be the act of "unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another." Although difficult to precisely define, the crime is used in the prosecution of certain instances of road rage, stalking, racially offensive language, emotional or psychological abuse and sexual offences against children.
TFA seems to put quite a lot of weight on the purported racial overtones used in the messages which would account for both the dignity claims.
The "defeating" claim is a little less obvious. A South African legal overview site provided the following
There is no firm definition of what makes up 'defeating', also referred to as 'obstructing', in the context of this offence...Generally, the offence is described as committing an unlawful act intended to defeat or obstruct the administration of justice. The act must be unlawful, because there are a number of ways in which, it may be argued, the administration of justice can be obstructed without a crime being committed. A 'false' plea of 'not guilty', for instance, is not unlawful, nor is it unlawful to refuse to respond to a police request to assist in making an arrest....
Obstructing the police by, for instance, laying false charges, making false statements, refusing to answer questions or provide information and, generally 'frustrating' police activities. In the case of frustrating police activities, the court would have to distinguish between an act that interfered with the administration of justice and an act that interfered with the enforcement of law. Punishment for defeating or obstructing the administration of justice, or even for the attempt to do so, is frequently severe, and may consist of a fine or imprisonment, or both.
So it would seem to require that the act of communicating the location of these cameras would need to be classified as frustrating police activities. If there are any South African legal specialists around their input would be welcomed.
Ahh but thats part of the meta-joke isn't it - thinking you're making a hilarious funny based on using this outlandishly huge size...which really isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
You're of course right and a little context would have been helpful, I should have spent the extra 20 seconds and thrown a sentance in there rather than relying solely on a one word title.
Incidentally, reading the article totally defeats the point - how are we supposed to work ourselves into a frenzy of anti-(somewhat tangentially related topic) if we bind ourselves with facts? For shame good sir, for shame.
Ouch. I posted the one line because I felt it added value, namely the actual method used that the summary neglected to include. I read 5 different articles covering the story and chose the most detailed one to slap up here - which points really to the scarcity of technical detail if nothing else. I'm sorry you don't like the contribution but claiming it adds no value is going a step too far.
Fair points all, although I would point out that the term "podcast" is said to be derived from ipod's "pod" and therefore probably works against your argument.
As for I-Carly - Trademarks are not protected against Fair Use. I imagine Apple hasn't got the stomach to go against Viacom over a children's program that is most problably perfectly permitted.
Awesome. Sadly however, as you were neither wearing a black robe nor wielding a gavel, we're going to have to disallow your answer.
That's a lot of money Apple has been throwing into making the public familiar with the "pod" brand, even if we only assume a small portion of it was going specifically into the iPod range. Apple has spent over a billion dollars over that three year period selling people an idea about what Apple products are, and more importantly, linking the idea of Apple products to a specific naming convention - the "i" and the "pod". Does that stand up to the requirements of the law? The court will decide after a lot of appeals I'm sure. More importantly, is it a fair question to ask? Most certainly yes.
And the test
Don't forget that the whole point of the thing is consumer protection - your average person being able to buy a thing with a reasonable sureness about its origins. As in all things tech related the mom-test is probably best: If your mom was out shopping and found a VideoPod on the shelves would she assume it was an Apple product and make her purchasing choice accordingly.
And the date on that? February 25, 2009.
Well played my anonomous adversary, well played.
Also note that the actual statement says the impersonator was trying to gather sensative data, not quite the success as implied in the summary. The whole speech is available as a pdf here.
I don't know about the rest of you but one of the original reasons I grabbed a Facebook account was to prevent just that kind of thing happening - the same reason I've registered the most obvious forms of my name in as many social networking and emailing services as possible - if I hold the accounts then I possess some control over other people's ability to misrepresent themselves as me.
Whoah there partner, we don't want a full-scale fight between all professions - some of those guys are pretty buff. Pick off the mathematicians and physicists first because the law of the playground must be respected - the small, weak, bifocaled, or curiously gifted with numbers should be taken down first. Then nap time.
To be fair that owning represents a difference of 0.000629 in the RMSE between the two of them - hardly the sound thrashing those snooty mathematicians rightly deserve.
Apologies. This post is repeated in various forms about 5 more times, something screwed up and I just kept clicking submit - my bad.
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed
The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here. There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups.
The original report can be found here.
Have a quick read over the original Pew study if you can, there's some decent info in there that could support a really interesting chat. Oh, and 24% of teens are sending under 10 messages a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups.
The report from which the numbers are derived can be found here
It's worth having a read of, there's some rather fascinating demographic info in there that could really make for an interesting chat. Oh, and the report shows that 24% of teens send under 10 messages a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, generally the same across racial and economic groupings.
There's a pretty awesome photo-essay following the process over on Time.
. As far as I can tell two of the charges link to the name calling - defamation and crimen injuria.
TFA seems to put quite a lot of weight on the purported racial overtones used in the messages which would account for both the dignity claims.
The "defeating" claim is a little less obvious. A South African legal overview site provided the following
So it would seem to require that the act of communicating the location of these cameras would need to be classified as frustrating police activities. If there are any South African legal specialists around their input would be welcomed.
Wish I had the mod points to vote you up there, you're making an important point and being punished for it.
Ahh but thats part of the meta-joke isn't it - thinking you're making a hilarious funny based on using this outlandishly huge size...which really isn't.
This is exactly why I sucked as class clown.