As far as I can tell, Teachbook didn't file for a TM, either.
So, if they have legal concerns, they're failing to alleviate them by filing against the newer service that is a whole lot less applicable to the general populace. Fuckbook is generic+book, and so socially networked that users risk viral infection, rather than just user's computers.
Cookbook.com redirects to cookbooks.com. It does let you browse member recipes, although I don't know how social or networked the membership may be.
I guess Facebook will also need to file against any social networking sites with Face + generic that may exist/pop up. Book isn't any less generic than face, you see. And they've gotta defend that trademark. Sometimes. When it suits them.
So, what a shock. Facebook run by douchebags. Not to mention that book has many meanings, one of which is a container of information. Facebook is a container of faces and information relating to those faces and a whole bunch of other shit now besides. But someone else using book in the way the language intends is something they should have to live with. Not to mention that Microsoft would be real busy if they made similar claims against software makers with *soft names. They don't, as far as I know. One of the few ham-fisted blunders they haven't made. They do still have their registered trademark, however.
Yeah. Lets not teach them about World War I, or II, or the US Civil War, or the Napolean era, Alexander the Great, the sengoku jidai, and dozens of other wars and conflicts from around the globe.
They might be overexposed to violence and social disorder!... Except, they're in high school. If they're too young to handle violence and social disorder in an educational context they're too young for, well, school. Where there is violence and social disorder in practice. Not, necessarily, on a large scale. But you also don't get to close a text book to get away from it.
Perhaps Australia's literary curriculum is quite different from what I went through, but I got to read various and sundry classical pieces with violence and social disorder in it. And was asked to write papers analyzing those pieces on such content. I know, its a shock. I would've loved to argue that I was too young to be exposed to all that. Mostly because I would have enjoyed taking a hammer to my own kneecaps more than reading them.
I'm not the only one that likes to pretend it doesn't exist. The article contains the full text of their letter to the FCC. You know how many times that act got mentioned? Not once. So I learned it exists. Woo.
Of course, you know what you didn't mention? The fact that the Internet Freedom Preservation Act got proposed to the previous Congress's Senate and House. And to the Senate in the 109th Congress. It died in committee each time. Its that good.
A) This is slashdot. We don't have to have accuracy to make car analogies.
B) The analogy would be wrong if I was trying to show that everything about legislation and everything about car choice was the same. I wasn't.
C) My analogy wasn't about what car to buy. My analogy was about what car to make.
D) My analogy doesn't make any judgement, positive or negative, on the Google/Verizon "car". Just that the Democrats don't have one.
See, Google/Verizon and these Democrats are design teams and they push cars (policy) for the factory (the FCC) to implement. Google/Verizon have one. These 4 Democrats don't. You see how simple and short that is, compared to your drawn out and highly wrong analogy?
The Google/Verizon proposal doesn't favor themselves. In fact, it would protect their competitors, to use your hideous analogy, from paying huge tolls. Maybe you should read it sometime. What it doesn't do is make additional regulation of wireless. You know, that shitty connection you have now? You'd still have it if the FCC "blindly adopted" the Google/Verizon proposal. There is no sekret $profit!$ clause where adoption means automatic price hikes. If the wireless providers wanted to hike prices, they could do it right now. Whatever reasons they have for not being higher now, would still exist post-adoption.
No where in the article does it say that Google/Verizon laid out the specifics. No where in the article does it say that the G/V plan forces the FCC to do anything. In fact, it is the Democrats that are the ones urging the FCC to take action.
It doesn't have to say in the article. We've already seen the framework proposal from Google/Verizon. So have they, or they wouldn't be bitching and moaning. And it is immaterial that Google/Verizon are not forcing the FCC to do anything. I didn't assume, say, or otherwise imply that they were. The Democrats are urging the FCC to take action. So are Google, Verizon, and other groups with political or philosophical interests in the matter.
Which is, interestingly, the FCC Chariman's proposal. Not a congressional one. And literally, cannot be implemented. Because it cherrypicks which parts of the Telecomm act to apply to broadband providers. So, I will retract one part of my original post. They did have someone else's proposal to latch on to. Although it seems rather useless to suggest an alternative proposal that can't be used because Congress has to change the law.. Also, the Google/Verizon framework is specific enough that the FCC could make a ruling on a case with it. The FCC Chairman's is legally impossible.
Google and Verizon, at least, believe that their framework can be partially implemented under FCC authority now. I don't know if they're right about that. That would require more legal ability than I possess. But I know the issue has been around for years and gone nowhere. I stand by the "we don't like it, we have no ideas of our own, do something that doesn't piss us off" bits of my original translation.
Personally, I think the Google/Verizon solution is.. pragmatic. Thats about all I can say about it. The FCC chair's is currently dead, legally. On the other hand, the solution I would prefer is wildly idealistic and as such won't happen, ever.
It isn't wrong. They wrote a fucking letter that says we don't like what Verizon and Google have proposed. It doesn't have any proposal of what the FCC policy should be. Just that Google and Verizon's shouldn't be adopted.
The closest they get is saying what concepts should be central in the policy that is adopted.
Since this is slashdot, we can make this a car analogy. Google and Verizon have designed and built a vehicle. They have presented it and it could be sent to the manufacturing line. These democrats have said "don't build it!" and instead are proposing that the factory make cars that have 4 tires, a steering wheel, some seats, and an engine. 4 cylinder? *shrug!* Comfy seats? Eh, if you like.
It would be one thing for a private organization to protest the Google/Verizon proposal. But these people are in the practice of legislation. If they object, why haven't they and their staff managed to come up with a proposal of their own? Its only been, you know, years.
We don't like what they proposed but not only can we not make our own proposal, we can't find anybody else's to latch on to. Think up something that doesn't piss us off!
Yeah. Obviously it was a game to lose parents, so y'know.. fuck those people who lost parents in WW/Korea/Vietnam and are still largely alive, but lets listen to this mother because she is special. What?
I'm okay with that. It will place a greater cost burden upon the people who reap the benefits. So maybe they'll take a moment to do some actual fact checking before they sell some newspapers by trashing somebody's life.
And if they don't, their finances can match their morals: bankrupt.
Proof by analogy works quite a lot. Which is why we have words like oh, I don't know, analogy. It doesn't work for you probably because it would ruin your view on guns. Hence your counterargument "pools and cars are not guns".. They're also not chairs, but neither of those statements are at all relevant. Lets see what is relevant in here though.
As for the knife thing, yes, some knives are clearly weapons designed to be used as such. Some aren't. Some could be used as a weapon in a pinch but have little lethal ability
Right. That second group is unclearly designed to be used as such. Even you can't keep your definition of weapon straight. "Could be used as a weapon in a pinch" meaning that the actual use makes it a weapon. And yet we have this gem:
And the gun is still a weapon in that situation, it's just not being used against people.
its a weapon when being used in a non-lethal fashion the way millions of people do billions of times a year. Use doesn't matter.
You'll be happy to know, though, that your appeal to the people (everybody else's definition) is an argumentative fallacy.
Just because you can also use it to shoot at fake people, concentric circles, or an orange disk flying through the air is irrelevant. The fact that you're even challenging that is absurd.
Let us apply this logic to other objects, with which you are probably very familiar.
Just because you can also use it to get to work, transport food from the store to your house, or get laid is irrelevant. The fact that you're even challenging that is absurd.
Just because you can also use it to play marco polo, train for the olympics, or swan dive is irrelevant. The fact that you're even challenging that is absurd.
Cars are really damn lethal when people want them to be (and even when they don't really). Pools too. Firearms are used in non-lethal fashion a whole lot. The difference between lethal and non-lethal use is many orders of magnitude different. So are cars. And pools.
I bet you're thinking of objecting right now that oooh guns were designed to kill! Cars and pools weren't! Perhaps not, but if I run you down with a car or hold your head under water, they certainly were weapons. And let us move on to the actual objection. If we label original design intent, you have a kitchen full of them. Knives were invented to kill. Sure, we use them for other purposes these days, but apparently that means nothing. The only purpose for them is to kill! Except it isn't.
It isn't dangerous. Especially not if he is carrying a series 80 1911. If you like, see if you can find someone with one that will let you wear it for a few days. You don't have to chamber it or anything. Just cock it, flip on the safety, and wear it. Go jogging if you like. Do yardwork. Home improvement. Whatever you like. You will find, at the end of the day, that the hammer is still locked back.
You could, even, leave the safety off. The sear is pretty aggressive. It won't let go if you don't pull the trigger. The safety is there to be extra sure, not as the only means of safety.
Modern firearms that fire without a trigger pull are poorly built, poorly maintained, or they've been garage gunsmithed.
When a prisoner can make a gun in a high security prison yes.. guns can be made pretty much anywhere.
Was that particular gun a great one? No.. but it was made under some pretty serious materials control and without the advantage of some very helpful tools, under what are supposed to be some pretty watchful eyes. Firearms are a genie that are well past being out of the lamp. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard won't make them go away.
Ah yes, accuse me of constructing elaborate fantasy worlds. When you're constructing fantasy worlds where the police have always available SWAT teams, and they never need to wait for them to arrive. Or where they have the luxury of calling up officers that are better shooters and being able to wait around for them.
You're the only one who has made the assumption that the defender is ambushing police before they draw. You're also the one that says that if they think you're armed, they're not going to come. As if those were the only possible situations. You are the one assuming perfect information, not to mention perfect circumstances, available to one side or the other. It doesn't exist.
You're trying to argue that police have great firearms training. They don't. I'm sorry that you feel so strongly about a comforting fiction. But they just don't. And their other skills don't play greatly in a firefight. It is numbers that make shootouts with the police a poor option, and nothing more.
And no, situational awareness is not as you state. Situational awareness is knowing the environment, your options, and the consequences. If you are not looking around in unfamiliar terrain, you are discarding situational awareness (correctly, in this case) in favor of focus.
Court proceedings are open to the public. And so are (or if they aren't, they bloody well should be) the accquitals. That is already in proportion. But when the police publish arrest information, they should also publish the fact that the charges were dropped (if in fact they are) in the exact same proportion. Own up to your mistakes.
Papers make money on publishing sensational headlines. When those headlines turn out to be wrong, they publish a correction/retraction somewhere maybe. They should be compelled to publish with the same prominence and duration that they published the speculation and sensation.
If they were required (and I think the news media should be held to the same standard) to be at least as public in announcing your acquittal or that the charges were dropped as they were in announcing your arrest, I might not think the police and media were such douchebags.
Lets see.. what he said was that if you're hiding something, then telling a third party about it that can be served with a warrant is a really risky thing to do.
Google picked up data from people broadcasting in the clear. This is not evil. If people gave a damn about it, they wouldn't be broadcasting in the clear.
Android phones bundled with required carrier software.. is the fault of carriers, not Google. This is perfectly permissible when using an open source bit of kit.
Google sent Cyanogen a C&D for including the Google Apps, which are not open source.
And apparently Google must win everything on net neutrality in one go, or they're evil and failures.
WTF thanks for playing.
I don't know why you think everything Google does must be released as open source. That is a silly expectation, and it isn't one that Google has done anything to engender.
Yeah.. totally impossible for an interstellar spaceship building civilization with shipboard computers that can converse with you to fill in the details.
*tap* to Riker
Where as Riker hears *chirp* from Troi
but oh no, communications tech, thats the real final frontier.
The hell you can't implement alternative apps for those services not using Google. Its been done on a limited scale, replacing Yahoo services with Google's. If you wanted, you could replace it with services you hosted yourself on machines colo'd somewhere. But that not only isn't nearly as convenient, it isn't nearly as inexpensive.
Yes. And they're called in to a known crisis. As in.. we tried to arrest this guy and he shot at people. SWAT/SRT isn't your average officer. And they make up a very small percentage of police forces.
Slashdot Mirror
He was asserting that it is too easy for people to use stupidly. Very common with Microsoft products.
As far as I can tell, Teachbook didn't file for a TM, either.
So, if they have legal concerns, they're failing to alleviate them by filing against the newer service that is a whole lot less applicable to the general populace. Fuckbook is generic+book, and so socially networked that users risk viral infection, rather than just user's computers.
Cookbook.com redirects to cookbooks.com. It does let you browse member recipes, although I don't know how social or networked the membership may be.
I guess Facebook will also need to file against any social networking sites with Face + generic that may exist/pop up. Book isn't any less generic than face, you see. And they've gotta defend that trademark. Sometimes. When it suits them.
So, what a shock. Facebook run by douchebags. Not to mention that book has many meanings, one of which is a container of information. Facebook is a container of faces and information relating to those faces and a whole bunch of other shit now besides. But someone else using book in the way the language intends is something they should have to live with. Not to mention that Microsoft would be real busy if they made similar claims against software makers with *soft names. They don't, as far as I know. One of the few ham-fisted blunders they haven't made. They do still have their registered trademark, however.
Yeah. Lets not teach them about World War I, or II, or the US Civil War, or the Napolean era, Alexander the Great, the sengoku jidai, and dozens of other wars and conflicts from around the globe.
They might be overexposed to violence and social disorder! ... Except, they're in high school. If they're too young to handle violence and social disorder in an educational context they're too young for, well, school. Where there is violence and social disorder in practice. Not, necessarily, on a large scale. But you also don't get to close a text book to get away from it.
Perhaps Australia's literary curriculum is quite different from what I went through, but I got to read various and sundry classical pieces with violence and social disorder in it. And was asked to write papers analyzing those pieces on such content. I know, its a shock. I would've loved to argue that I was too young to be exposed to all that. Mostly because I would have enjoyed taking a hammer to my own kneecaps more than reading them.
I'm not the only one that likes to pretend it doesn't exist. The article contains the full text of their letter to the FCC. You know how many times that act got mentioned? Not once. So I learned it exists. Woo.
Of course, you know what you didn't mention? The fact that the Internet Freedom Preservation Act got proposed to the previous Congress's Senate and House. And to the Senate in the 109th Congress. It died in committee each time. Its that good.
A) This is slashdot. We don't have to have accuracy to make car analogies.
B) The analogy would be wrong if I was trying to show that everything about legislation and everything about car choice was the same. I wasn't.
C) My analogy wasn't about what car to buy. My analogy was about what car to make.
D) My analogy doesn't make any judgement, positive or negative, on the Google/Verizon "car". Just that the Democrats don't have one.
See, Google/Verizon and these Democrats are design teams and they push cars (policy) for the factory (the FCC) to implement. Google/Verizon have one. These 4 Democrats don't. You see how simple and short that is, compared to your drawn out and highly wrong analogy?
The Google/Verizon proposal doesn't favor themselves. In fact, it would protect their competitors, to use your hideous analogy, from paying huge tolls. Maybe you should read it sometime. What it doesn't do is make additional regulation of wireless. You know, that shitty connection you have now? You'd still have it if the FCC "blindly adopted" the Google/Verizon proposal. There is no sekret $profit!$ clause where adoption means automatic price hikes. If the wireless providers wanted to hike prices, they could do it right now. Whatever reasons they have for not being higher now, would still exist post-adoption.
It doesn't have to say in the article. We've already seen the framework proposal from Google/Verizon. So have they, or they wouldn't be bitching and moaning. And it is immaterial that Google/Verizon are not forcing the FCC to do anything. I didn't assume, say, or otherwise imply that they were. The Democrats are urging the FCC to take action. So are Google, Verizon, and other groups with political or philosophical interests in the matter.
Which is, interestingly, the FCC Chariman's proposal. Not a congressional one. And literally, cannot be implemented. Because it cherrypicks which parts of the Telecomm act to apply to broadband providers. So, I will retract one part of my original post. They did have someone else's proposal to latch on to. Although it seems rather useless to suggest an alternative proposal that can't be used because Congress has to change the law.. Also, the Google/Verizon framework is specific enough that the FCC could make a ruling on a case with it. The FCC Chairman's is legally impossible.
Google and Verizon, at least, believe that their framework can be partially implemented under FCC authority now. I don't know if they're right about that. That would require more legal ability than I possess. But I know the issue has been around for years and gone nowhere. I stand by the "we don't like it, we have no ideas of our own, do something that doesn't piss us off" bits of my original translation.
Personally, I think the Google/Verizon solution is .. pragmatic. Thats about all I can say about it. The FCC chair's is currently dead, legally. On the other hand, the solution I would prefer is wildly idealistic and as such won't happen, ever.
It isn't wrong. They wrote a fucking letter that says we don't like what Verizon and Google have proposed. It doesn't have any proposal of what the FCC policy should be. Just that Google and Verizon's shouldn't be adopted.
The closest they get is saying what concepts should be central in the policy that is adopted.
Since this is slashdot, we can make this a car analogy. Google and Verizon have designed and built a vehicle. They have presented it and it could be sent to the manufacturing line. These democrats have said "don't build it!" and instead are proposing that the factory make cars that have 4 tires, a steering wheel, some seats, and an engine. 4 cylinder? *shrug!* Comfy seats? Eh, if you like.
It would be one thing for a private organization to protest the Google/Verizon proposal. But these people are in the practice of legislation. If they object, why haven't they and their staff managed to come up with a proposal of their own? Its only been, you know, years.
We don't like what they proposed but not only can we not make our own proposal, we can't find anybody else's to latch on to. Think up something that doesn't piss us off!
Yeah. Obviously it was a game to lose parents, so y'know.. fuck those people who lost parents in WW/Korea/Vietnam and are still largely alive, but lets listen to this mother because she is special. What?
I see the problem here. First you think the law is about justice. Second, you think justice is about the law.
The law is about politics and legality. Justice is about ethics and fairness. It is quite rare for the two to meet.
I'm okay with that. It will place a greater cost burden upon the people who reap the benefits. So maybe they'll take a moment to do some actual fact checking before they sell some newspapers by trashing somebody's life.
And if they don't, their finances can match their morals: bankrupt.
I didn't say it was necessary. I was replying to this post:
So.. when they can be made in such difficult situations, yes they can be made in homemade gun labs.
Proof by analogy works quite a lot. Which is why we have words like oh, I don't know, analogy. It doesn't work for you probably because it would ruin your view on guns. Hence your counterargument "pools and cars are not guns" .. They're also not chairs, but neither of those statements are at all relevant. Lets see what is relevant in here though.
Right. That second group is unclearly designed to be used as such. Even you can't keep your definition of weapon straight. "Could be used as a weapon in a pinch" meaning that the actual use makes it a weapon. And yet we have this gem:
its a weapon when being used in a non-lethal fashion the way millions of people do billions of times a year. Use doesn't matter.
You'll be happy to know, though, that your appeal to the people (everybody else's definition) is an argumentative fallacy.
Let us apply this logic to other objects, with which you are probably very familiar.
Just because you can also use it to get to work, transport food from the store to your house, or get laid is irrelevant. The fact that you're even challenging that is absurd.
Just because you can also use it to play marco polo, train for the olympics, or swan dive is irrelevant. The fact that you're even challenging that is absurd.
Cars are really damn lethal when people want them to be (and even when they don't really). Pools too. Firearms are used in non-lethal fashion a whole lot. The difference between lethal and non-lethal use is many orders of magnitude different. So are cars. And pools.
I bet you're thinking of objecting right now that oooh guns were designed to kill! Cars and pools weren't! Perhaps not, but if I run you down with a car or hold your head under water, they certainly were weapons. And let us move on to the actual objection. If we label original design intent, you have a kitchen full of them. Knives were invented to kill. Sure, we use them for other purposes these days, but apparently that means nothing. The only purpose for them is to kill! Except it isn't.
It isn't dangerous. Especially not if he is carrying a series 80 1911. If you like, see if you can find someone with one that will let you wear it for a few days. You don't have to chamber it or anything. Just cock it, flip on the safety, and wear it. Go jogging if you like. Do yardwork. Home improvement. Whatever you like. You will find, at the end of the day, that the hammer is still locked back.
You could, even, leave the safety off. The sear is pretty aggressive. It won't let go if you don't pull the trigger. The safety is there to be extra sure, not as the only means of safety.
Modern firearms that fire without a trigger pull are poorly built, poorly maintained, or they've been garage gunsmithed.
When a prisoner can make a gun in a high security prison yes.. guns can be made pretty much anywhere.
Was that particular gun a great one? No.. but it was made under some pretty serious materials control and without the advantage of some very helpful tools, under what are supposed to be some pretty watchful eyes. Firearms are a genie that are well past being out of the lamp. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard won't make them go away.
Ah yes, accuse me of constructing elaborate fantasy worlds. When you're constructing fantasy worlds where the police have always available SWAT teams, and they never need to wait for them to arrive. Or where they have the luxury of calling up officers that are better shooters and being able to wait around for them.
You're the only one who has made the assumption that the defender is ambushing police before they draw. You're also the one that says that if they think you're armed, they're not going to come. As if those were the only possible situations. You are the one assuming perfect information, not to mention perfect circumstances, available to one side or the other. It doesn't exist.
You're trying to argue that police have great firearms training. They don't. I'm sorry that you feel so strongly about a comforting fiction. But they just don't. And their other skills don't play greatly in a firefight. It is numbers that make shootouts with the police a poor option, and nothing more.
And no, situational awareness is not as you state. Situational awareness is knowing the environment, your options, and the consequences. If you are not looking around in unfamiliar terrain, you are discarding situational awareness (correctly, in this case) in favor of focus.
Court proceedings are open to the public. And so are (or if they aren't, they bloody well should be) the accquitals. That is already in proportion. But when the police publish arrest information, they should also publish the fact that the charges were dropped (if in fact they are) in the exact same proportion. Own up to your mistakes.
Papers make money on publishing sensational headlines. When those headlines turn out to be wrong, they publish a correction/retraction somewhere maybe. They should be compelled to publish with the same prominence and duration that they published the speculation and sensation.
If they were required (and I think the news media should be held to the same standard) to be at least as public in announcing your acquittal or that the charges were dropped as they were in announcing your arrest, I might not think the police and media were such douchebags.
Lets see.. what he said was that if you're hiding something, then telling a third party about it that can be served with a warrant is a really risky thing to do.
Google picked up data from people broadcasting in the clear. This is not evil. If people gave a damn about it, they wouldn't be broadcasting in the clear.
Android phones bundled with required carrier software.. is the fault of carriers, not Google. This is perfectly permissible when using an open source bit of kit.
Google sent Cyanogen a C&D for including the Google Apps, which are not open source.
And apparently Google must win everything on net neutrality in one go, or they're evil and failures.
WTF thanks for playing.
I don't know why you think everything Google does must be released as open source. That is a silly expectation, and it isn't one that Google has done anything to engender.
Yeah.. totally impossible for an interstellar spaceship building civilization with shipboard computers that can converse with you to fill in the details.
*tap* to Riker
Where as Riker hears *chirp* from Troi
but oh no, communications tech, thats the real final frontier.
The hell you can't implement alternative apps for those services not using Google. Its been done on a limited scale, replacing Yahoo services with Google's. If you wanted, you could replace it with services you hosted yourself on machines colo'd somewhere. But that not only isn't nearly as convenient, it isn't nearly as inexpensive.
If it is voice activated, then it would seem to be unnecessary to activate with a tap.
If you're going to have that touch activation, voicing the origin is unnecessary.
Which.. would make sense if nobody else thought it was a viable option either. However, this isn't the case and thus your case is... lacking.
Yes. And they're called in to a known crisis. As in.. we tried to arrest this guy and he shot at people. SWAT/SRT isn't your average officer. And they make up a very small percentage of police forces.